Another irrefutable proof that God created all things using mathematical induction. And a proof that The Bible is the word of God.

[TrueBeliever37]

And yours apparently in one of so many beliefs.

Yep looks like it. I can't prove mine and YOU can't prove yours.

The religion of evolution is just one of the many beliefs.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Not only don't I know, I don't care.

So you don't know but still argue that it is true? And then to beat all - you don't even care to know yourself?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

But you can survive better by knowing what foods are sugary because you will store bodyfat, hence the dopamine release and ability to overeat sugar.
You can recognize poison or bad rotten foods that would make you sick. Food poisoning can be fatal. You also need to know how much of what foods you are eating. Of course taste buds make sense for survival.

Just research why taste buds are important? How hard is that? Refine your theory, discard the useless points? Why do you want to sit on such a bad argument?






Apples are an incubator for seeds. They are also a way for seeds to spread out far beyond the tree, animals eat them and leave the core somewhere beyond the tree. Excellent method of reproduction.
Surround the seed with sugary edible food but make the seeds hard so they get spit out.

They didn't start as apples? Some material surrounded the seed. A mutation made it contain sugar and animals started checking it out and leaving the core. So the genes to produce sugar in the material were more successful. This continued to refine until it became an apple, which served it's purpose.

So you don't do evidence but folk tales based on older tales are compelling?

I know taste buds are important. But that doesn't prove they came through evolution. Once again -Just because something would (come in handy) really help us out doesn't mean that it would evolve.

Sure apples are an excellent incubator and method of reproduction. God knew what he was doing didn't he? All you are providing about the apple coming thru evolution is pure conjecture. Nothing you can prove.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is a waste of time. You aren't really explaining anything - even though you are claiming you did. Mainly just arguing.

This post should be on wikipedia as a textbook example of handwaving.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why do you intentionally avoid the egg laying ancestors having the same problem?

I'm not ignoring anything.
The ignoring is entirely on your side.
You refuse to learn how gradualism works and you refuse to learn how it matters in evolutionary processes.
This willful ignorance then leads you to ask ignorant questions like the one above and then you complain that you don't get answers to your liking.

By acting this way you have put yourself in a position where it becomes literally impossible for you to learn anything about this subject.

You STILL can't have either the egg or the egg laying ancestor without the other already having been here. YOU are UNABLE to provide a reasonable answer.

The answers are there. The problem is not with the answers. The problem is with your invalid questions, which are loaded with false assumptions.
Several people have allready brought this to your attention. Clearly you aren't interested in actually learning nor in correcting your many mistakes.

This is a "you" problem.

Please. Don't pretend I was talking about the evolution of sex. That is so disingenuous. You know that was involving the fact that you had to have an existing animal to lay the egg, and an existing male to have fertilized the egg before it could produce a chick.

And once again your statement shows that it stems from ignorance.
Once again you are implying that one needs to exist before the other, while in reality all of it evolves gradually .
There is no point in time where you "suddenly" get a creature that lays eggs. Just like there is no point in time where "suddenly" a latin speaking mother raises a spanish speaking child.

You handwaved that language analogy away and called it a "waste of time". In reality, you not understanding that analogy is the very root of your problem. It is the reason you don't comprehend any of this.

Hmmm - So that's how you tell if something you are going to eat is poisonous? You just taste it. The last I heard lots of people still die from poison. (Tasting it is not the preferred method of poison detection.)

For crying out loud...
Taste evolved long before humans did.

What do you think is going to do most damage?
When you put something in your mouth, notice it tastes iffy and spit it out before swallowing?
Or when you just eat on because you don't taste anything only to notice it an hour later, after having eaten the whole thing, when you are puking blood?

YOU are saying based on evidence from evolution that eggs evolved first. WHAT laid the egg for the chicken laying ancestor?

Eggs evolved gradually. There was no "first egg". Just like there was no "first" spanish speaking person.

Gradualism. In gradual processes, there is no "first".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's just a waste of my time dealing with you. I would accept your answer of "we don't know". That would be a correct answer. Have a good day.

But you don't want that answer. Instead, you want an answer that is so detailed that it meets an impossible standard.

A standard, btw, that you don't hold your own religious claims to.

A standard that isn't realistic in any kind of science at all.

You have also just shown that if as answer you get an "i don't know", you will just engage in an argument from ignorance and conclude from that "therefor, my god dun it". Right?


But it all is irrelevant in any case. As I explained already, the problem isn't with the answers. The problem is with your questions. They are rooted in ignorance and loaded up with strawmen.

You want to hear about the "first egg". But in gradual evolution, there is no "first egg".
You want to hear about the "first chicken". But in gradual evolution, there is no "first chicken".
You want to hear about the "first human". But in gradual evolution, there is no "first human".

JUST LIKE there is no "first spanish speaker", even though the ancestors or spanish speaking folk didn't speak spanish - they spoke latin.

The sooner you realize this fundamental misunderstanding of yours, the sooner we can move on.
Until then, we are still stuck at lesson 1 in biological evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yep looks like it. I can't prove mine and YOU can't prove yours.

The religion of evolution is just one of the many beliefs.

We can demonstrate evolution occurred, is still occuring and continues to occur.
We can demonstrate all species share ancestors.

We can demonstrate that objectively with multiple independent lines of evidence. All those lines of evidence are independently verifiable and testable.

But off course, it's hard to do that with the willfully ignorant who absolutely, dogmatically even, refuse to learn anything. It's impossible to do that with handwavers who insist on being wrong and doubling down on their mistakes.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

We can demonstrate evolution occurred, is still occuring and continues to occur.
We can demonstrate all species share ancestors.

We can demonstrate that objectively with multiple independent lines of evidence. All those lines of evidence are independently verifiable and testable.

But off course, it's hard to do that with the willfully ignorant who absolutely, dogmatically even, refuse to learn anything. It's impossible to do that with handwavers who insist on being wrong and doubling down on their mistakes.

No macro evolution is not occurring and that is verified by the complete absence of any partially developed organs of functionality in all living things. And macro evolution never occurred and this is verified by the millions of chains of missing links which are all still missing. And macro evolution can never occur and this is verified by the fact that genes can not arise from random mutations especially with sexual reproduction.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you don't know but still argue that it is true? And then to beat all - you don't even care to know yourself?

We KNOW it is true.

Just like we KNOW spanish evolved from latin, eventhough we can't give you a step-by-step progression of which sound and word changes were introduced at what time.

We know the big picture things of many traits. We will never know exact step-by-step mutations of every single change of every single trait. That is an impossible standard to meet, not to mention an unnecessary one.

Remember the murder analogy I gave you (and which you ignored as well)?
It's the same thing.

Knowing EXACTLY how a murder took place, is not at all required for reliably establishing that the murder in fact took place.

Any forensics follows the same pattern and logic in that sense.
We can equally establish that a house burned down without knowing exactly HOW it burned down (where the fire started, how it spread and unfolded etc).

So really, in this exchange, you have already learned 2 very important lessons:
1. evolution is gradual - meaning that there is no "first" egg / chicken / human / ...
2. evolutionary history is not the same as evolution the process. We can know things evolved without knowing (in detail or otherwise) HOW it evolved (which exact evolutionary pathway it took to end up like it is today, or at any other given time)


Now if you would just try and surpass your stubborness and willfull ignorance and learn those 2 lessons, that would be great.
I'm not even asking you to accept / believe evolution.

The thing is that at this point, you are arguing against a version of evolution that does not take those 2 points into account. This means that you are arguing a strawman.

The least you could do is not misrepresent the theory you are hellbend on arguing against. Surely you can see how it's intellectually dishonest to insist on doing that.

If you don't, ask yourself what it is that you are hoping to accomplish. If your goal here is to "win" this debate and / or convince people that evolution is wrong.... then why would you argue a strawman? Surely you see how you aren't going to convince us, or anybody else who knows you argue a strawman, while arguing a strawman, right?

What would you say if I would argue against christianity by insisting that god is a bearded man who lives at the north pole and then argue against that god?

That's the equivalent of what you are doing.
If you are going to argue about evolution, the least you could do is learn what it actually says first.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I know taste buds are important. But that doesn't prove they came through evolution. Once again -Just because something would (come in handy) really help us out doesn't mean that it would evolve.

Correct. There is no intention or plan in evolution.
But natural selection makes sure that those things that give an advantage and happen to emerge by random mutation, would stick around.

And as you say, the sense of taste surely is handy and advantagous.
Nobody here is claiming that taste was inevitable or "meant" to exist. That seems to be just another one of your strawmen.

Same goes for sight. Being able to orient yourself sure is handy. Vision is an obvious way to accomplish that.
Sight evolved a few dozen times independently from one another. It's no surprise.
Nevertheless, other creatures have evolved other ways for orientation as well, like echo-location.

Sure apples are an excellent incubator and method of reproduction. God knew what he was doing didn't he? All you are providing about the apple coming thru evolution is pure conjecture. Nothing you can prove.

Right, because "god dun it" isn't conjecture at all.

Your double standard is again showing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No macro evolution is not occurring and that is verified by the complete absence of any partially developed organs of functionality in all living things.

But off course, it's hard to do that with the willfully ignorant who absolutely, dogmatically even, refuse to learn anything. It's impossible to do that with handwavers who insist on being wrong and doubling down on their mistakes.

Case in point......................

I can't even count the amount of times I tried to explain to you that there is no such thing as "partial organs" in gradual evolution.
Just like midway between latin and spanish, there also is no "partial spanish".
People didn't speak "half a language" then.

The language you can read in medieval texts from London kinda sounds like english left and right, but it's not english. It's its own full language. It's not "half english" nor is it "half a language".

There literally is no point trying to explain any of this to you though, because it's in one ear and out the other.
Within 10 posts, there you will be again with the strawman of "there are no partial organs therefor no evolution".

And macro evolution never occurred and this is verified by the millions of chains of missing links which are all still missing. And macro evolution can never occur and this is verified by the fact that genes can not arise from random mutations especially with sexual reproduction.

Phylogenetic trees, mapped out from fully sequenced genomes, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that all species share ancestry.
Your willful ignorance notwithstanding.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I know taste buds are important. But that doesn't prove they came through evolution. Once again -Just because something would (come in handy) really help us out doesn't mean that it would evolve.

Sure apples are an excellent incubator and method of reproduction. God knew what he was doing didn't he? All you are providing about the apple coming thru evolution is pure conjecture. Nothing you can prove.

BTW, on the topic of apples..............

Right: the original wild version
Left: what humans turned it into after centuries of cultivation and artificial selection

Wild non-cultivated apples.... Not really very tasty. But back in the day (like 4000 to 8000 years ago), about as good as it got.

 

[Bthoth]

I have Cycles of Time, Penrose is difficult reading. I am familiar with the paper you mention. Like I said, QM may be connected to the brain.

But you asked earlier what does qm have to do with life?

Yes it uses qbits or superposition to review a large amount of answers at once. Why does this matter?

the em (energy) upon the mass is what is causing the superposition.

Nope. They use the term because there is a possibility the spin of the protons in the brain fluid were entangled and this entanglement is possibly interacting with brain processes.

And that is because the em (light) is what entangles the mass (points in time).

I do understand physics to a degree, do you "even" know how to have a conversation without sounding like an egotistical knowitall.

My bad. i figured that by now far more would comprehend the material.

Right, so I still do not understand what point you were trying to make?

Light (em) is the energy upon the mass. By comprehending that foundation assists in understanding qm through to living systems, evolution and the 'intent' to survive is inert rational mechanically instinctive.

Answering with a snarky and "I know everything, do you???" bunch of BS doesn't answwer that question at all. It does answer other questions I really don't want to know and yet now I do.

I am sorry but I take far more abuse by trying to express what is pure at the level of atoms and energy than you would know.

They also don't "work together" but are equivalent. But that doesn't matter because I'm saying I don't understand what you were saying, so could you clarify?

Equivalent? The light (em) is upon the mass (elements) and do work together. What's the equivalent angle?

What discussion? You made a series of statements that made no sense? SO I'm asking you to explain what you mean.

Such as? You impose an equivalents term that has no relevance. You and i were addressing qm of brain and 'life: intent to continue'

and I keep returning to the mass/energy working together to enabling living systems (the process)

Yes cells use energy, so what? Life uses energy but obeys the laws of energy conservation.

There is goes again.......... 'Conservation" what is that about. 2 terms in 2 lines that have nothing to do with what is being discussed.

You are telling me something is not relevant to the discussion after I told you I have no clue what you are talking about? SO that isn't surprising it wasn't relevant because I have no idea what you are trying to say.

I still don't see an explanation, just weird gaslighting about how much one knows about modern physics?

Sorry..... i just shared in the last 2 lines that the tangent terms that you wrote out are nonsense. And now you gaslight another term.

I don't know how to define potential energy in GR.

Not relevant at the molecular level or living processes. GR is for describing big.

You would have to start with a metric for spacetime, I don't remember tensor equations.

Again. tangents to no where land. Spacetime? Tensors?

Potential is caused by position, it's just mass x a gravitational constant x height.

That line means nothing.

Now what are you talking about please?

Living system convert energy to usable forms. Nothing to do with 'conservation'.

Debating what? I don't know what you were talking about for starters?
What EM fields? Maxwells classical fields or quantum fields?

All light (em) has fields. That is what causes the resonance and in a field the heat of mass. The light upon that mass, is what is causing the motions by it's fields.

What are you talking about? Monster energy drink flavors??

Energy doesn't have "flavors". The only thing in physics with that is quark charges. Not in photons.

The 'flavors' that you have no idea about, are by the energy (light) upon the mass. The very 0,1..both qubits of qm are just flavors depending on the shared energy (entanglements) between other qubits.

It is clear, that i may not have the perfect words but that is why i keep at it and why I need far more than my own vocabulary to unfold the top to bottom comprehension of how natures living processes work.

Energy from the sun generally returns to earth from people through water, used food, decomposition, and other forms, or gets in the atmosphere and cycles through storms and such.

That is where i got crossed up, 'from the sun' but then 'returns' to the earth?

No I'm 100% certain I know what I'm writing, I do not understand what the heck you are talking about, please explain.

The thing I said about potential energy, all true.

What is true? The scope of a potential difference is the model of energy in the current scope of comprehension. I see energy as the light upon mass. The energy itself is the oscillating em field of each wavelength. To divide that em unit upon different locations, will entangle mass or in easy terms cause a potential difference.

Uh, nope, what I said was :

"No that line doesn't prove anything except I still don't understand what you are saying in your answer."

That would mean it is I who does not understand what you are writing. So can you restate it in a way that makes sense?

Instead of asking me mundane physics questions and trying to make out like I don't understand physics. That isn't going to go well for you, I promise. Now I'm done playing 10 questions, restate your point or go away. Thankyou.

 

[John53]

So you don't know but still argue that it is true? And then to beat all - you don't even care to know yourself?

What do think I'm arguing is true?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yep looks like it. I can't prove mine and YOU can't prove yours.

The religion of evolution is just one of the many beliefs.

Well you won't get very far by telling lies, given that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory, and no one subscribes to this as if it was a religion. Most who accept the theory will no doubt accept evidence which might alter it too, but not much has happened to disprove the basics since it was first postulated.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

It is a false theory. And a false religion

Well you won't get very far by telling lies, given that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory, and no one subscribes to this as if it was a religion. Most who accept the theory will no doubt accept evidence which might alter it too, but not much has happened to disprove the basics since it was first postulated.

 

[McBell]

It is a false theory.

Nope
Not even close

And a false religion

Since it is not a religion...

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Nope
Not even close


Since it is not a religion...

of course it is a religion and needs to be removed from all public schools and public funding.

 

[joelr]

But you asked earlier what does qm have to do with life?

I did not ask that question

the em (energy) upon the mass is what is causing the superposition.

No they store particles is supercooled vacuum chambers to allow quantum weirdness to continue and avoid decoherance.

And that is because the em (light) is what entangles the mass (points in time).

No, you have to supercool particles so they return to their original undisturbed state where they have not collapsed into one wavefunction.

Light (em) is the energy upon the mass. By comprehending that foundation assists in understanding qm through to living systems, evolution and the 'intent' to survive is inert rational mechanically instinctive.

I don't know how this makes sense?

Equivalent? The light (em) is upon the mass (elements) and do work together. What's the equivalent angle?

Mass and energy are equivalent. This is basic special relativity. E^2=m^2 c^4+p^2 c^2

I don't know what you mean by light and mass work together? Photons bounce off mass and leave behind a small amount of energy.

Such as?

This, I don't see how this makes sense?

"
Once the process is occurring, the living system is. Not an outside cause but naturally occurring based on the energy upon the particles (mass). When in an environment that enables the oscillations to sustain itself, the light (energy) will consume to sustain itself.

Nothing different than what is observed but the perspective is different. That's it. The living process is based on energy upon mass sustaining itself. The energy of nature is not 'what is usable' but the light (electromagnetic fields) oscillating upon mass (elements). That's the 'perspective' to identify/observe... there of describe."

You impose an equivalents term that has no relevance. You and i were addressing qm of brain and 'life: intent to continue'

Mass and energy are equivalent, that is their connection. I don't understand where you are going with it?

and I keep returning to the mass/energy working together to enabling living systems (the process)

Yes mass and energy are involved with life, I don't see where intent comes in?

There is goes again.......... 'Conservation" what is that about. 2 terms in 2 lines that have nothing to do with what is being discussed.

Life uses energy but in the end it obeys conservation. I don't understand what you are talking about so telling me what is or isn't related is pointless? I thought maybe you were talking about the idea that life violates thermodynamics (it doesn't) but that wasn't the issue. But I don't know the issue until it is explained in a manner I can understand.
So being all like "that has nothing to do with the discussion.." is pointless.

Just be clear and make sense.

Sorry..... i just shared in the last 2 lines that the tangent terms that you wrote out are nonsense. And now you gaslight another term.

MMM, nope, nothing I wrote was nonsense. If you think so, tell me the exact thing I wrote and explain why it's nonsense.

Not relevant at the molecular level or living processes. GR is for describing big.

GR is for discussing the spacetime metric tensor,a geometrical description of how mass warps spacetime. You need several tensors, Einstein, Ricci, Reinmann, QM also would not apply to the molecular level.

Again. tangents to no where land. Spacetime? Tensors?

General Relativity. I still don't know what is being discussed.

That line means nothing.

no it's the formula for potential energy. You asked the question in post #1647 "What is causing the potential? "

Potential energy is determined by the position of the object in a gravity well.

Living system convert energy to usable forms. Nothing to do with 'conservation'.

Yes living systems use energy. It is related to conservation because they always end up creating more entropy and energy is conserved.

All light (em) has fields.

Yes, as I asked which field are you talking about. The classical EM field or the quantum photon field?

That is what causes the resonance and in a field the heat of mass.

Don't know where you are going with this?

The light upon that mass, is what is causing the motions by it's fields.

There is a classical EM field, mass absorbs and reflects some light. I don't know about the motion?

The 'flavors' that you have no idea about, are by the energy (light) upon the mass.

mass absorbs, reflects light.

The very 0,1..both qubits of qm are just flavors depending on the shared energy (entanglements) between other qubits.

they are not called flavors, that is the name of charges of quarks

It is clear, that i may not have the perfect words but that is why i keep at it and why I need far more than my own vocabulary to unfold the top to bottom comprehension of how natures living processes work.

top and bottom are also names of quarks.

That is where i got crossed up, 'from the sun' but then 'returns' to the earth?

What is true?

What I said about potential energy is true.

The scope of a potential difference is the model of energy in the current scope of comprehension.

"model of energy" and "scope of comprehension" are not explaining anything real here

I see energy as the light upon mass.

that is not energy. light contains heat energy, mass contains rest mass, both may have kinetic energy.

The energy itself is the oscillating em field of each wavelength.

wavelength of light determines it's energy, long wavelength is lower energy, high wavelength is higher energy.

To divide that em unit upon different locations, will entangle mass or in easy terms cause a potential difference.

that is not how entanglement works. "potential difference" is not a term used in this situation.

 

[joelr]

No it's not explained. You still have the same problem of how to get a dinosaur egg. It still would require an existing dinosaur first.

Not at all because we see eggs being used by earlier species who the dinosaurs evolved from. We also see the evolution of the egg from soft material to hard shells.

"Fossil eggs are classified according to the parataxonomic system called Veterovata. There are three broad categories in the scheme, on the pattern of organismal phylogenetic classification, called oofamilies, oogenera and oospecies (collectively known as ootaxa).[2][10] The names of oogenera and oofamilies conventionally contain the root "oolithus" meaning "stone egg", but this rule is not always followed. They are divided up into several basic types: Testudoid, Geckoid, Crocodiloid, Dinosauroid-spherulitic, Dinosauroid-prismatic, and Ornithoid. Veterovata does not always mirror the taxonomy of the animals which laid the eggs."




We have fossils of reptiles with eggs still inside and they were a softer material. So we have a reasonable map of how this system evolved.

All the things you provide are really just man made beliefs and opinions.

Except for the fossil evidence.

But wait, what was it you have? A magic being created everything, through god-powers, you heard from an ancient story. Wow, that's much worse.
Funny that you are comfortable with using your science tech - computer, vehicles, planes, cellphone, medical tech, all from science.
Yet if something doesn't match an ancient myth, where humans were known to distrust rational thinking and follow only divine revelation as truth, you want to say science is wrong, but have no proof. Bizarre?

If it was hundreds of thousands of years ago - you can't prove anything.

The massive lines of evidence that converge give a strong picture. Yet ancient folk tales that have no evidence MUST be correct about everything?

You can only postulate opinions and theories and beliefs. None of which can actually be proven.

Not true,
We can see that we are great apes, morphologically, behaviorally and genetically, those are facts.
We have endless evidence for evolution, including physical evidence.

But now you are not being honest because you claimed there was no way to confront the issue regarding the chicken/egg.


Clearly, we understand where the egg comes from, have fossil evidence of evolution of egg types, but you will not take that into consideration, you must not want evolution to be true for personal reasons. There is more than enough evidence.



Egg Parataxonomy

• Spheruflexibilis morphotype
  • Oofamily Testudoflexoolithidae
    • Testudoflexoolithus[13]
• Spherurigidis morphotype
  • Oofamily Testudoolithidae[13]
    • Testudoolithus
    • Emydoolithus[14]
    • Haininchelys
    • Chelonoolithus

Geckonoid

• Geckonoid morphotype
  • Oofamily Gekkoolithidae
    • Gekkoolithus
    • Gekkonidovum[2]

Crocodiloid

• Oogenus Mycomorphoolithus
• Oofamily Krokolithidae
  • Bauruoolithus[15]
  • Krokolithes
  • Suchoolithus

Mosasauroid

• Antarcticoolithus[16]

Dinosauroid-spherulitic

• Placoolithus
• Sphaerovum
• Stromatoolithus
• Tacuarembovum
• Oofamily Cairanoolithidae
  • Cairanoolithus[17]
• Oofamily Stalicoolithidae[18]
  • Coralloidoolithus[18]
  • Shixingoolithus[18]
  • Stalicoolithus[18]
• Oofamily Spheroolithidae

Oolithes spheroides

• • Guegoolithus[19]
  • Spheroolithus
  • Paraspheroolithus
• Oofamily Phaceloolithidae
  • Phaceloolithus
• Oofamily Ovaloolithidae
  • Ovaloolithus
• Oofamily Megaloolithidae
  • Megaloolithus
  • Pseudomegaloolithus[20]
• Oofamily Similifaveoloolithidae[21]
  • Similifaveoloolithus[21]
• Oofamily Faveoloolithidae
  • Faveoloolithus
  • Hemifaveoloolithus[21]
  • Parafaveoloolithus[21]
• Oofamily Youngoolithidae[22]
  • Youngoolithus
• Oofamily Dendroolithidae
  • Dendroolithus
• Oofamily Dictyoolithidae
  • Dictyoolithus
  • Paradictyoolithus
  • Protodictyoolithus
• Oofamily Polyclonoolithidae
  • Polyclonoolithus[23]

Dinosauroid-prismatic

• Pseudogeckoolithus[20]
• Oofamily Arriagadoolithidae[24]
  • Arriagadoolithus[24]
  • Triprismatoolithus[25]
• Oofamily Prismatoolithidae
  • Preprismatoolithus
  • Prismatoolithus
  • Protoceratopsidovum
  • Sankofa[26]
  • Spheruprismatoolithus[27]
  • Trigonoolithus[28]