The Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution

[Pogo]

Perhaps you might try reading your answer again and rephrase. Yes, gorillas stay as gorillas so far. Humans stay humans . Nothing to show otherwise.

You still don't get it, yes that is what evolutionary theory says. Are you claiming that is not the case? Do you think that gorillas ceasing to be gorillas is what evolution says? We are vertebrates, mammals etc and so are gorillas but we will never become gorillas or chimpanzees. We will also always be humans no matter how much we evolve in the future.

This shouldn't be that hard.

 

[Pogo]

My opinion rests on reality. Science does not and cannot explain how it is that the first cells formed. And how they seemingly by scientific opinion multiplied. Other than saying yes, they did. No proof. No demonstrable experiment showing how it happened either. Miller Urey constructed the experiment. It (the fuzz) didn't happen without their construction and there's nothing scientists can do to refute that.

Your position is an even weaker conjecture. Not only do you not have any proof, you don't even have anything beyond an ancient story to support your conjecture. Your "information" if you wish to argue that is no more valid than that describing the Greek gods or Yggdrasil. Evolution is a conclusion, not an opinion.
noun

1. an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
   "conjectures about the newcomer were many and varied"
   
   

 

[YoursTrue]

@Pogo -- Here is your answer in a previous post, once again -- "Another non-sequitur fail showing again that you understand nothing presented to you in the last three years. For the umpteenth time, evolution is a scientific theory, it does not deal with anyone's god at all, and it does not prove things, especially things that are not only unprovable but undemonstrable as well."
So you say evolution is a scientific theory. Then after you say that you go on to say that it does not deal with anyone's god you then go on to say it does not prove things, -- especially things that are not only unprovable but undemonstrable as well." So goes it for evolution in your definition. Scientifically unprovable and undemonstrable as well.

 

[YoursTrue]

Your position is an even weaker conjecture. Not only do you not have any proof, you don't even have anything beyond an ancient story to support your conjecture. Your "information" if you wish to argue that is no more valid than that describing the Greek gods or Yggdrasil. Evolution is a conclusion, not an opinion.
noun

1. an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
   "conjectures about the newcomer were many and varied"
   

I think you misunderstand once again, Pogo. You already said anyway that evolution is a theory. And you also say there is no proof of a theory. So whether you believe in God or not, once again -- you do say there is no proof in a theory, and it's not demonstrable.

 

[Pogo]

@Pogo -- Here is your answer in a previous post, once again -- "Another non-sequitur fail showing again that you understand nothing presented to you in the last three years. For the umpteenth time, evolution is a scientific theory, it does not deal with anyone's god at all, and it does not prove things, especially things that are not only unprovable but undemonstrable as well."
So you say evolution is a scientific theory. Then after you say that you go on to say that it does not deal with anyone's god you then go on to say it does not prove things, -- especially things that are not only unprovable but undemonstrable as well." So goes it for evolution in your definition. Scientifically unprovable and undemonstrable as well.

And in opposition to this you present your unevidenced and undemonstrable and unprovable belief in an entity.
In the rational world of reality not knowing everything about how reality functions is still a lot better than just believing something because without knowing anything.

The point is that your questioning due to our lack of complete knowledge is absurd when your alternate position has no knowledge behind it.
You are welcome to your beliefs, but recognize that your position is the weaker with nothing to support it.

Let me add to this your absolute refusal to understand what we do know, it only demonstrates your lack of serious thought.

 

[YoursTrue]

And in opposition to this you present your unevidenced and undemonstrable and unprovable belief in an entity.
In the rational world of reality not knowing everything about how reality functions is still a lot better than just believing something because without knowing anything.

The point is that your questioning due to our lack of complete knowledge is absurd when your alternate position has no knowledge behind it.
You are welcome to your beliefs, but recognize that your position is the weaker with nothing to support it.

Let me add to this your absolute refusal to understand what we do know, it only demonstrates your lack of serious thought.

You have already said the theory of evolution is undemonstrable and unprovable. What you and others often do in response is continue to insult and attack verbally those who do not agree with your concepts. I realize you firmly do not believe that there is a Higher Intelligent Power that enables life. I do not know or say exactly how this power is involved with life in its many aspects. Do I think, for example, that science has made advances to combat viruses? Yes. Do I think that demonstrates or evidences evolution (the theory of)? No, you probably guessed it.

 

[Pogo]

You have already said the theory of evolution is undemonstrable and unprovable. What you and others often do in response is continue to insult and attack verbally those who do not agree with your concepts. I realize you firmly do not believe that there is a Higher Intelligent Power that enables life. I do not know or say exactly how this power is involved with life in its many aspects. Do I think, for example, that science has made advances to combat viruses? Yes. Do I think that demonstrates or evidences evolution (the theory of)? No, you probably guessed it.

No I said it was unprovable as is every theory, undemonstrable applied to yours and others claims interfering in it. Or do you have something new to demonstrate. An unevidenced undefined higher power is nothing in this regard.

 

[YoursTrue]

No I said it was unprovable as is every theory, undemonstrable applied to yours and others claims interfering in it. Or do you have something new to demonstrate. An unevidenced undefined higher power is nothing in this regard.

Actually, that is not what you initially said, so I commend you for changing your remarks to an extent. At any rate, the theory of evolution is still undemonstrable, unprovable. As far as evidence goes I realize many put their trust in the evidence of the morphing of various entities, such as fish to apes, in fact, many yes, do say that apes (including humans, according to the scientific category) are fish. Anyway, have a nice evening and thank you for trying to assert, I suppose, that the theory of evolution is how life moved from what is called a simple cell to more complex structures.

 

[John53]

 

[Valjean]

Perhaps you might try reading your answer again and rephrase. Yes, gorillas stay as gorillas so far. Humans stay humans . Nothing to show otherwise.

And again, you ignore that pesky 'accumulation' problem. What keeps the small changes from accumulating into big changes"
This is not rocket science, YT.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My opinion rests on reality.

You don't even properly understand reality. You actively refuse to understand reality.
As demonstrated by the fact that after more then 3 years worth of having it corrected, you still insist on making the same mistakes.

Science does not and cannot explain how it is that the first cells formed. And how they seemingly by scientific opinion multiplied. Other than saying yes, they did. No proof. No demonstrable experiment showing how it happened either. Miller Urey constructed the experiment. It (the fuzz) didn't happen without their construction and there's nothing scientists can do to refute that.

Even if I were to agree to that (I don't), then all you are left with is that we don't know.
If you were to apply the same standard of evidence to your religion as you would to science, you would toss your bible in the garbage bin.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of what? Certainly you do not have KNOWLEDGE of how the so-called first cells multiplied. Only conjecture. Furthermore, there is absolutely no basis of knowledge to rest the idea that finches change/evolve/morph to anything but finches.

See? Once again you make the same mistake that I've been correcting for over 3 years now.

Why do I even bother.............


Indeed, there is no basis for that. Evolution would be disproven if there were.
Good job agreeing with what evolution teaches while pretending the opposite.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you say evolution is a scientific theory.

It is.

Then after you say that you go on to say that it does not deal with anyone's god you then go on to say it does not prove things

Correct. Just like all other scientific theories.
Are you again proudly showing you have no clue about how science works?

, -- especially things that are not only unprovable but undemonstrable as well."

False. Evolution is pretty demonstrable (= supportable). You know... evidence vs proof.
Try and learn the difference.

So goes it for evolution in your definition. Scientifically unprovable and undemonstrable as well.

Scientific theories deal in evidence, not in proof.
Theories can be supported by evidence or disproven by evidence.
Evolution is very much supported by evidence. Multiple, indpendent, lines of evidence that all converge on the same answer.

 

[wellwisher]

The evidence against Darwin Evolution. A simple straightforward presentation that gives us hope in a world that offers only the possibility of a Cosmic accident that cannot be proven:

The Theory of Evolution does not begin until the first replicators. Whereas, Creation tries to begin before Abiogenesis; from dust. This latter is much more challenging from a conceptual POV. The ancients did not take the easy road and take crap for trying.

In terms of the current science model, the math does not appear to add up, starting with the theory of the first replicators. Conceptually, that starting point, to work, would need a large stockpile of nearby raw materials, to make copies, or the first replicators would just run out of food, steam, and then decompose. There is faith involved in the first replicators immersed in easy to get nutrient soup. How much soup would you need to randomly progress the genetic material until, the cell is self sufficient and can provide for itself? Every time it divides the soup is eaten twice as fast. Where would the soup come from?

The alternative is you will need an enzymatic source of monomers, first, which then needs an enzymatic source of sub materials, etc, etc., Essentially you need almost all the parts of a cell, with everything, but the replicator, so when the replicator appears the replicator can be supplied.

The needed food source; supplies, needed by the replicators, so they can do their thing, almost suggest the replicators were reversed engineered from the enzymes, so not only can the enzyme provide supplies to replicate, but also genes needed to expand the soup supply source for the daughter cells.

That aside, the biggest practical problem, of the current science model, is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Cells are very ordered and to start from simple molecules and form an ordered cell, the chemical entropy has to decrease from more complexity to order. This path appears to violate the 2nd law, especially if you use an organic centric approach. Textbooks still show isolated DNA, while isolated DNA packing with packing protein, goes against the 2nd law. Condensed chromosomes are less complex than stretch out DNA.

We need a way to reverse the 2nd law, based on a valid free energy balance that the organic centric approach lacks. This is done with water and surface tension. The water can pack the DNA, due to the surface tension; free energy gain, created by the oily packing protein in water. The DNA is the perfect place to bury these protein, and lower the global water's surface tension, with the net result being a lowering of the generic entropy against the 2nd law.

Condensed chromosomes are helpful when separating mother cell DNA into two, without getting all tangled. But to do this, we need to violate the 2nd and condense them. This is where water comes in, with all organics in water causing a water and oil effect; free energy gain, that can end up going against the 2nd law as a way to lower this free energy.

The current model of evolution, even with dice snd cards, cannot perpetually cause the structural entropy lowering needed for evolution, using only the organics. Why is that still called science? I just debunked it. That path is impossible and dice and card cannot hide it.

My water model is how real science is done, since the water and organics together offer a free energy source, than can reverse entropy; order from chaos and simplicity from molecular complexity. This is useful to life since the lowering of structural entropy also creates an entropic potential; enzymatic potential. The entire cell is poise for change toward higher complexity; duplication.

 

[metis]

So, as my uncle would say, "what's the story"? Furthermore, on the topic of evolution for a change, nothing anyone has offered here shows, demonstrates, or proves (yes, proves as in evidence) that God was not & is not involved in the production and continuation of life. Also, while you may speak of the Pope believing in evolution, he also firmly believes that Mary was a virgin. So?
And yes, the evidence offered by some as if evolution continues today is still that moths remain moths no matter their coloration, same with birds -- they remain birds.

We've been through this many many times before, so your bringing it up after it has been repeatedly explained to you by many of us here makes 0 sense. At least the CC recognizes the reality of things changing even if you don't, and your position is the same as the fundamentalist church's position that I left decades ago because of it being anti-science and even anti-common sense.

 

[YoursTrue]

Greetings!

These are science’s Top 10 erroneous results

A weird form of life, a weird form of water and faster-than-light neutrinos are among the science findings that have not survived closer scrutiny.

www.sciencenews.org

"Science" ain't always right, no matter which genius says it is. Carry on...
It doesn't matter how many times scientists attempt to make their theories true and/or correct, they are (1) not always right, and (2) still theories and changeable when "new evidence" appears. And still nothing certain. And don't forget -- viruses remain viruses -- moths remain moths. Oh, and scientific theories cannot be proven.
bye...

 

[YoursTrue]

We've been through this many many times before, so your bringing it up after it has been repeatedly explained to you by many of us here makes 0 sense. At least the CC recognizes the reality of things changing even if you don't, and your position is the same as the fundamentalist church's position that I left decades ago because of it being anti-science and even anti-common sense.

The reality is that despite the Pope's declaration that evolution is the way organisms came about on the earth, it is nevertheless within his vocabulary to say as the Pope and dogma the absolute certainty that Mary is the "eternal virgin." That's just one thing.

 

[Astrophile]

so...according to you, evolution is a scientific theory, it does not deal with anyone's god at all, and it does not prove things, especially things that are not only unprovable but undemonstrable as well." So, seems you are saying that the theory of evolution is unprovable and undemonstrable as well. Perhaps you might want to clarify that remark. Because -- yes -- gorillas remain gorillas -- humans remain humans -- etc.

Do you accept that there was a time 12 million years ago (during the Middle Miocene epoch) when the Earth existed, and there was life (including genera of apes that are now extinct) on Earth, but there were no humans or gorillas? If you do accept this, where do you think gorillas and humans came from? What do you think happened to the Middle Miocene genera of apes?

 

[YoursTrue]

Greetings! @Astrophile et al:

These are science’s Top 10 erroneous results

A weird form of life, a weird form of water and faster-than-light neutrinos are among the science findings that have not survived closer scrutiny.

www.sciencenews.org

I accept that the earth was not filled with flowers, etc., and lions, tigers and humans a long time ago. Since you ask as to what I accept. That seems reasonable and logical. Do I accept what you say? Not just because you or scientists may say that. To reiterate, I believe very much that the earth was devoid of life as we know it a long time ago...P.S. there are some things I accept because I see no reason to not accept them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of what? Certainly you do not have KNOWLEDGE of how the so-called first cells multiplied. Only conjecture. Furthermore, there is absolutely no basis of knowledge to rest the idea that finches change/evolve/morph to anything but finches.

There you go admitting that evolution is correct again.