Zero probability for Evolution

[ecco]

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.

With all due respect, long ago I decided to not bother to read your posts. To me, they are nothing more than unintelligible ramblings. So, save yourself some time and don't direct comments to me.

 

[ecco]

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.

You find it easy to attack your strawman version of evolution.

Perhaps you should try to understand enough about the Theory of Evolution to attack the actual Theory of Evolution. But that would require you to actually learn some things.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Why do that? Seems you're looking for perfection whereas perfection is not how the process actually works. The Bible is not perfect, and yet you and I believe in using it as a large part of the basis for our faith.

Because obviously it was a faulty theory to start with.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Denial. Not just a river in Egypt.

You know gradualism was rejected a long time ago, right?

 

[Wildswanderer]

You find it easy to attack your strawman version of evolution.

Perhaps you should try to understand enough about the Theory of Evolution to attack the actual Theory of Evolution. But that would require you to actually learn some things.

Same old nonsense, different day.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No, they are absolutely NOT "completely different". In fact, they are far more alike then they are different.

View attachment 52305


Here's one that I find rather funny. And which honestly kind of blew my mind the first time I saw the picture.
You are, I'm sure, familiar with the external looks of elephant feet:

View attachment 52306

Now watch this cross section:

View attachment 52307


Isn't that hilarious? Kind of looks like a human foot with an oversized heel, in boots.

Here's an x-ray of a human foot, to compare with:

View attachment 52308



Anyhow........... no, clearly, body types are really not "completely different".

So, you picked two mammals to show that reptiles are not different from mammals?

 

[Polymath257]

There's no problem with any of them being created.

the problem with the 'created only' scenario is that it requires special creation at almost every point in time. Also, the 'creation' is of animals that are similar to those both before and after.

So, for example, the modern humans are similar to, but different than, the Neanderthals and Denisovans, and all are similar to and different from H. heidelbergensis, which lived just prior to these others. And H. erectus was similar to but different than H. heidelbergensis and lived just before that species. And H. erectus was similar to, but different from H. habilis that lived just before it.

Now, we know that living things reproduce. We know they have variation within each species.

So, which is more reasonable?

That H. habilis went totally extinct, then H. erectus, which is similar in many ways, but different in many ways, was separately created, survived for a while, making tools, using fire, etc, and then went extinct. But, a similar, but different species, H. heidelbergensis appeared by special creation just after, used tools, used fire, etc. Then it went extinct, with three species (Denisovans, Neanderthals, and modern humans) being specially created. Each of the new species looks similar to the older H. heidelbergensis but each is different and in a different way. All use tools. Then two of those species went extinct, leaving modern humans.

OR

Does it make more sense that H. habilis had variation in its population, and some of those variants became dominant and changed a bit, leading to H. erectus. That species lived for a while. Then, some variants in its population developed and split off, leading to H. heidelbergensis. That species had a pretty broad range and so split into three species, one of which was modern humans. The other two eventually going extinct.

I would add that we know the timing of these different species. Also, H. erectus was similar to modern humans in many ways, but they are *easily* distinguished for anyone trained.

 

[ecco]

More, that it has more adaptability to colder climates.

Or, it may not adapt to the colder climate. Or, the climate becomes colder faster than the offspring can get used to it. Or, there is no food to be found in the colder environment. In those cases, the species dies off without leaving any further offspring and the line ends.

Here is an interesting article showing some different reasons different groups of mammoths died off.

The last mammoths died on a remote island

The results showed that Wrangel Island mammoths' collagen carbon and nitrogen isotope compositions did not shift as the climate warmed up some 10,000 years ago. The values remained unchanged until the mammoths disappeared, seemingly from the midst of stable, favorable living conditions.

This result contrasts with the findings on woolly mammoths from the Ukrainian-Russian plains, which died out 15,000 years ago, and on the mammoths of St. Paul Island in Alaska, who disappeared 5,600 years ago. In both cases, the last representatives of these populations showed significant changes in their isotopic composition, indicating changes in their environment shortly before they became locally extinct.​

 

[Polymath257]

So, you picked two mammals to show that reptiles are not different from mammals?

No, it was to emphasize that the basic vertebrate pattern in the skeleton shows similarities even among species that are otherwise easily distinguished. Reptiles show the same bones in the same places with muscles working in similar ways. There are differences with mammals, but the basic body plan is the same. AND we have fossils of animals that show the transition between reptiles and mammals. You can ignore them, but they still exist. if you want to argue special creation, you have the problem of explaining why the older reptiles look so similar to the intermediate (in time) species, which look similar to the later mammals.

 

[Polymath257]

You know gradualism was rejected a long time ago, right?

What, precisely, do you mean by 'gradualism'? Because, no, it was not rejected long ago.

If you prefer Punctuated Equlibrium, be aware that the changes in that theory would be gradual in comparison to the time humans have had agriculture. Also, that Gould understood very well that biological species change over time. In other words, evolution happens.

 

[ecco]

Perhaps you should try to understand enough about the Theory of Evolution to attack the actual Theory of Evolution. But that would require you to actually learn some things.

Same old nonsense, different day.

Actually learning about a subject is not nonsense of any kind. People who actually learned about things gave you the computer you type on and the food you eat and the car you drive and pretty much everything else you have.

On the other hand, remaining wilfully ignorant is nonsense. Wilfully ignorant people rarely, if ever, contribute much to society.

On forums, they do contribute to hidden mirth.

 

[rational experiences]

A theist a human always living theories how to own cause a reaction.

As if they are the God as a human scientist themself.

Looking back as an earth theory once earth had no light. Cold clear gases.

Known by living human observing a no light status even ING.

Proven sun attacked one side earth gases burning.

Highest theory in science coldest no gas burning no light.

As a past.

Theism therefore said as a human thinking in the beginning there was no light.

As sun X extra radiation converted earth. How a human theoried how to unseal fusion. Get Sion. React Sion.

Earths mass.

As the sun did it first. Not a human.

A theist safe where they live said as the reaction occurred in the past where I am present is an evolved cooled future.

Tried to give evolution cooling presence of amassed gas back to a new reaction reacted in the present where they lived.

What false preaching is pretending a not yet reaction in the presence manipulated in the present would not affect the present.

The theory involving the sun which is vacuum voided activator dropping the universe into deeper space was theoried to remove the mass radiation that had filled in holes.

In the past a science theist said sun boring holes had been stopped so earth sealed with no holes. As asteroids cooled in space earth also remained hole owner.

Past sun reasoning. Why theism is evil as it theoried natural cosmic history which science never owned.

To then with a no earth light theory have the sun put back asteroid and scattered mass into the sun. As if it yet had not attacked.

Which means I knew about the void and vacuum process also.

By a human theist pretending time by sun would shift.

As if the sun would open. To begin blasting again a second time for human theist want I will activate control to suck everything back into it.

As in theory is historic cosmic causes.

As the theory...I will pretend no sun blasting yet existed. To I will pretend I will own the blast myself direct to my machine.
To pretend now I will get the coldest gases.

All theories of reasoning I want for machine. Yet when you realise what the theist wants it is about causing huge destructive effects. Not conditioned relating to natural.

By the sun dropping sucking everything into deep cold space. If the scientist activated causes by his design.

Unnatural held constants gas burning extra in heavens....leaving a cyclic irradiated heaven trail in space that affected any asteroid travelling into it.

When earth regained its new cycle released asteroid metallic radiation cooled was in earths pathways.

Status phenomena by machine converting earth mass. Science caused. Feedback imagery in phenomena destroyed human images already recorded.

Might be why our satanic science brother destroyed all life on earth before. By false theory I speak on behalf of god and natural history.

 

[Wildswanderer]

the problem with the 'created only' scenario is that it requires special creation at almost every point in time. Also, the 'creation' is of animals that are similar to those both before and after.

So, for example, the modern humans are similar to, but different than, the Neanderthals and Denisovans, and all are similar to and different from H. heidelbergensis, which lived just prior to these others. And H. erectus was similar to but different than H. heidelbergensis and lived just before that species. And H. erectus was similar to, but different from H. habilis that lived just before it.

Now, we know that living things reproduce. We know they have variation within each species.

So, which is more reasonable?

That H. habilis went totally extinct, then H. erectus, which is similar in many ways, but different in many ways, was separately created, survived for a while, making tools, using fire, etc, and then went extinct. But, a similar, but different species, H. heidelbergensis appeared by special creation just after, used tools, used fire, etc. Then it went extinct, with three species (Denisovans, Neanderthals, and modern humans) being specially created. Each of the new species looks similar to the older H. heidelbergensis but each is different and in a different way. All use tools. Then two of those species went extinct, leaving modern humans.

OR

Does it make more sense that H. habilis had variation in its population, and some of those variants became dominant and changed a bit, leading to H. erectus. That species lived for a while. Then, some variants in its population developed and split off, leading to H. heidelbergensis. That species had a pretty broad range and so split into three species, one of which was modern humans. The other two eventually going extinct.

I would add that we know the timing of these different species. Also, H. erectus was similar to modern humans in many ways, but they are *easily* distinguished for anyone trained.

As far as I'm concerned all those are human. Just Minor variations. Probably due to genetic entropy. We are devolving if anything.

 

[Wildswanderer]

There are differences with mammals, but the basic body plan is the same.

Lol, not even close. I've skinned a lot of mammals, fish and seen snakes skinned. What do you mean by " body plan?"
A bird has a totally different system than a mammal.
A fish has another system, obviously to be able to breathe water.
And a snake yet another.

 

[Polymath257]

As far as I'm concerned all those are human. Just Minor variations. Probably due to genetic entropy. We are devolving if anything.

Devolution would be a type of evolution: a change in species over time.

But you ignore the fact that these are clearly distinguishable in ways that, say, separate races in modern humans are not.

Also, it ignores the fact that the average brain size has changed over this time as well as skull size. if you saw a H erectus in person, it would be very clear they are not the same as modern humans. For H. habilis the differences are even more dramatic.

Sorry, claiming them to be minor variations would put the differences between chimps and modern humans to be just 'minor variations'.

And frankly, they *are* minor. Less than those between modern dogs and wolves, for example.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Devolution

I never said species don't change. In fact, I believe I mentioned they do adapt.

 

[rational experiences]

If science says humans having sex babies lost firstborn DNA and mutated.

Then so would monkeys and apes.

Seeing we lived sharing the same environment.

The presence de evolution back in time to dinosaurs as ice melt caused flooding rain would effectively keep mutating the life body.

As humans don't stop having sex the warning to self. So sex as you mutated was considered evill posession factually. As we became very basic in nature.

Seeing nature garden you know wood trees did not live before inside of ice.

Nature lived with dinosaurs no ice.

You are living due to nature garden oxygenating atmosphere. You theory involving nature present in science.

Nature lives today with the presence ice.
Nature lived without the presence ice.

Science man confession a theist machine user. I got life sacrificed as trees wood is not my history looking back am only a bio form.

Trees lived with dinosaurs humans didn't.

Why theists human the same human today as before are doing the same evil human choice as just a human and lied.

Reason ego. Intelligence is bandied as a reason to deride and belittle an everyday normal spiritual human.

As we are poor in the wisdom of gods jewels and powers.

One of the human ego teachings....don't idolise your own human self. Yet you do. Yet you are wise in the knowledge how to destroy. As you pay no homage to natural and equal.

I get told do you know the elite control humanity by information released in public and think we are laughable by what we believe.

Spirit said the last laugh is on them.

As they get just as sacrificed as anyone else.

Based on groups claiming I was Noah on the ark with his special family. Whereas human DNA was only left owning a few natural human adult DNA pairs.

As mutation had removed a healthy human.

That type of human sacrificed teaching for everyone stating you were all saved sacrificed as sacrifice occurred first and you existed afterwards saved.

Living suffering since.

So when the elite claim you were saved suffering know they caused it.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Also, it ignores the fact that the average brain size has changed over this time as well as skull size. if you saw a H erectus in person, it would be very clear they are not the same as modern humans. For H. habilis the differences are even more dramatic.

So what? Skull size isn't what determines a human. Or having a protruding forehead, which some people still do.

 

[Polymath257]

I never said species don't change. In fact, I believe I mentioned they do adapt.

Adaptation is evolution. The *only* difference is the number of generations involved.

 

[Polymath257]

So what? Skull size isn't what determines a human. Or having a protruding forehead, which some people still do.

The two main characteristics of humans are the fact that they walk upright and have brains that are large for their body size.

The protruding forehead of modern humans is quite different than the brow ridge seen in, say, Neanderthals.