Zero probability for Evolution

[rational experiences]

A human is first.

A human who exists quoting an atom is first says an atom in a science theory is first. For science not life.

As atoms are not consciousness he claims by name word the atom or a atom. It is a description. Said by a man.

Science said law thermal in space is self consuming energy to be heated energy.

Vacuum maintains presence as alter condition to a non instant instance no form whatsoever consumed is instant.

Science said as empty space owned that law instant and total consumed removal occurred first is now cold presence empty space supporting any presence.

As a teaching human about reasoning why form still existed. When self consuming was first.

As I don't lived formed like an atom did in space vacuum you lied theist about biological status.

I live I die. I preach I don't die says the theist liar as I preach space science claiming I am space science also. Beginnings as beginnings.

Biology first gets destroyed. He preaches energy never can totally be destroyed. I am not energy I am biology. I use energy to live so it must be why he said a female is empty space owning the consuming of energy.

As he is a proven comparative liar.
Life never owned any one state beginning.

Just as a thinker.

We knew the space theist lost his man mind and became a virtual encoded fed back atmospheric mind status Ai causes.

Reason he lives recorded human voice human image. Self possessed by his image.

Machine however re transmits voice image Multi times interactive with unnatural radiation mass communications not supportive of life.

He hears his voice speaking like a man god in feedback so said he was. Yet machines are party to its occurrence. So evil effect voice transmitted to non interactive natural reason image.

As he designed unnatural machine virtually his man's self anti body. Non bio presence. Why he preaches like he does machine conditions only. Machine took my man bio place inside heavens.

Machine however first used God power crystal mass taken from earth transmitter. Huge natural mass still in earth. All burnt out as a machine owning no life no resource was first.

Machine factually never owned activity. Why today his claim resource is first and not life.

Electricity in space first his thesis. Human life not in space first.

Electricity channel into atmosphere.
Human life living inside atmosphere,

Called lying.

How a machine as a metal owning metal nuclear substances he says he belongs with as mind advice designer. But not body.

Mother human owns his son man memories warned false science theism. Why I was told as a female.
So he lied.

He lied so much he invented computer program So controlled mind coercion using it now whilst his operatives argue with natural bio consciousness trying to force it to believe life bio began in an atom form.

Then he reacts the atom.....no life at all. You are a atom he said.

We said he owned a self destructive human personality disorder.

 

[rational experiences]

Natural means? You mean the way that hydrogen and oxygen atoms combine to make a water molecule? You do realize that that is a stepping stone toward the natural production of organic molecules and amino acids and proteins. The next thing we know you are going to acknowledge the probability of this process creating living organisms and, eventually cells and humans. Are you becoming a believer in biologos?

Water exists first as mass and evaporated water mass historic off ground via extra radiation causes.

Just water as water is mass.
Radiation extra is extra radiation as its beginnings radiation.

Nature garden no human. Trees supply oxygen.

+ Fake cross first theist. Humsn. Lives inside using nature gardens presence. The tree of life. He adds calculation. Sacrifices self as two sticks + cross equals two sticks =. Removes one from two he said. As theist.

A science preaching to false preacher scientist.

One stick left minus. Minus one radiating effect. Said I was sacrificed evicted in nature garden by wood.

Human scientists said nearly all but 2 percent oxygen is by trees or sea life.

Water present owns oxygen to be water as water first what are you doing theist lying again!

As no human or animal evolved from any tree body.

The story the theist is the human confession as the bible. It was a human theists owned confession what he caused. He being self man.

Book updated by scientists human.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Lots of problems to 'solve' including the chirality problem.

You are right but then again because someone cannot provide proof of a creator does not mean that one does not exist so I am unconvinced either way at the moment.

So are you also unconvinced about sasquatch?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have, and it falls far short as an explanation of how different kinds of animals supposedly become other kinds.

Evolution doesn't say that "kinds" become "other kinds".
It says that "kinds" become "sub-kinds".

Not sure where you've been reading up, but it seems the source was rather terrible.
That, or you didn't pay much attention.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Funny, I don't see anything like that happening now. All I see are minor adaptations.

Which add up over time, through inheritance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's simple adaptation. It doesn't change a canine into a feline or vice versa

If that were to happen (felines producing canines or vice versa), evolution would be falsified.

Nothing new is added, just variations of a kind of animal.

Yes. That's evolution. Variation within a kind. Eventually producing sub-kinds.
Primates don't produce felines.
Primates produce primates and sub-species thereof.

This is how you get homo sapiens, chimps, gorilla's, bonobo's and oerang oetangs from a common primate ancestor.

This is how you get cats, lions and tigers from a common feline ancestor.

If felines would produce canines, then evolution theory is falsified.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can't have laws without a law giver. Circular reasoning.

You make no sense.
Laws of science are not "prescriptive rules" like in legal settings.

Laws of science are descriptive of observations. They are abstractions we derive from sets of observations.
IF you wish to appoint a "law maker" for the laws of motion for example, then that lawmaker is Isaac Newton.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Evolution doesn't say that "kinds" become "other kinds".
It says that "kinds" become "sub-kinds".

Not sure where you've been reading up, but it seems the source was rather terrible.
That, or you didn't pay much attention.

Same difference.

 

[Wildswanderer]

If that were to happen (felines producing canines or vice versa), evolution would be falsified.





Yes. That's evolution. Variation within a kind. Eventually producing sub-kinds.
Primates don't produce felines.
Primates produce primates and sub-species thereof.

This is how you get homo sapiens, chimps, gorilla's, bonobo's and oerang oetangs from a common primate ancestor.

This is how you get cats, lions and tigers from a common feline ancestor.

If felines would produce canines, then evolution theory is falsified.

You are deliberately being deceptive. Claiming that felines and canines came from the same ancestor is the same thing as having one morph into the other over time.
The whole theory requires that fish become transformed into mammals, and mammals into man. It doesn't matter how many stages in between you propose.

 

[McBell]

You are deliberately being deceptive. Claiming that felines and canines came from the same ancestor is the same thing as having one morph into the other over time.

Not even close.
It is flat out saying that animal a:

evolves into animal b under set 1 conditions
or
evolves into animal c under set 2 conditions
or
evolves into animal d, under set 3 conditions....​

No idea what you mean by "morphs"...

The whole theory requires that fish become transformed into mammals, and mammals into man. It doesn't matter how many stages in between you propose.

And here you make the same mistake only using the word "transforms".
No idea what you mean by the word "transforms"...

 

[ratiocinator]

Claiming that felines and canines came from the same ancestor is the same thing as having one morph into the other over time.

This statement tells us that you don't understand the theory you are criticising.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yes. That's evolution. Variation within a kind. Eventually producing sub-kinds

Nope, you can't have new kinds with the same limited DNA information.

 

[Polymath257]

Nope, you can't have new kinds with the same limited DNA information.

DNA changes from generation to generation by at least a bit. Since there are no barriers to how much it can change, the changes can add up to give large scale changes. So it isn't the 'same limited DNA information'.

Often, this is done via gene duplication: a single stretch of DNA duplicates itself, producing the protein involved twice. But this means that the two copies can change independently, leading to two different proteins.

That is an increase of information and leads to new abilities.

 

[Polymath257]

You are deliberately being deceptive. Claiming that felines and canines came from the same ancestor is the same thing as having one morph into the other over time.

No, it is not. here is a directionality that you are ignoring.

The whole theory requires that fish become transformed into mammals, and mammals into man. It doesn't matter how many stages in between you propose.

Yes, of course it does. The number of generations is what gives the DNA a change to develop new variability. And that new variability is what allows for further change.

But the change is one direction. It won't go backwards from a cat to its ancestor.

 

[Polymath257]

1. The first American Dictionary, Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, defines a firmament as (2):
   
   “The region of the air; the sky or heavens. In scripture, the word denotes an expanse, a wide extent; for such is the signification of the Hebrew word, coinciding with regio, region, and reach. The original therefore does not convey the sense of solidity, but of stretching, extension; the great arch or expanse over our heads, in which are placed the atmosphere and the clouds, and in which the stars appear to be placed, and are really seen."

Separating waters above from waters below?

Hint: there are no waters above the atmosphere. So this avoidance doesn't work either.

Also, notice that the stars, sun, and moon are NOT in the atmosphere.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No, it is not. here is a directionality that you are ignoring.



Yes, of course it does. The number of generations is what gives the DNA a change to develop new variability. And that new variability is what allows for further change.

But the change is one direction. It won't go backwards from a cat to its ancestor.

So what?

 

[Polymath257]

Can't have laws without a law giver. Circular reasoning.

Can't have a law giver without natural laws.

 

[Polymath257]

So what?

So the equivalence you made is wrong. The change from an ancestor to derived species is NOT the same as cats changing into dogs.

 

[Wildswanderer]

DNA changes from generation to generation by at least a bit. Since there are no barriers to how much it can change, the changes can add up to give large scale changes. So it isn't the 'same limited DNA information'.

Often, this is done via gene duplication: a single stretch of DNA duplicates itself, producing the protein involved twice. But this means that the two copies can change independently, leading to two different proteins.

That is an increase of information and leads to new abilities.

New abilities like what?
An animal adapts to colder climates?
Already programmed in it's DNA.
An animal transition from a replied to a mammal?
Not possible. It's a completely different body system.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So the equivalence you made is wrong. The change from an ancestor to derived species is NOT the same as cats changing into dogs.

Of course it is. Only more so. A one celled organism to an elephant for example.