Zero probability for Evolution

[Wildswanderer]

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

According to your theory.
Adaptation is not what I mean by evolution.

 

[Wildswanderer]

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.

Actually, not according to the current picture of neanderthals. They look basically like modern humans. If you met this guy you wouldn't think him anything but human. And some scientists are acknowledging they are us, now.

 

[rational experiences]

UFO radiation equals answer calculated equals answer about earths released energy.

After I machine react it. Answer equals natural mass first not just machine.

Earth already UFO released by old machine so science complies informed by past machine recorded imagery.

Seeing machine animate inanimate get recorded in the same status as bio life. Yet the machine body nothing like ours.

Yet it gets an image also. Not even considered in science.

So radiation to equals machine answer is an also earth released cause as theism is about natural earth owned mass first. As no machine exists first.

You claim safety by mass removed reaction controlled yet you don't control mass presence natural earth god.

Space did.

Science begins by heating heavenly cold gas space as the gases had come out of stone a science preaching ..... It's string history.
change one minute body everything changes as it is communicative by radiation radio wave.

Radiation gets vacuum voided as known burning gas mass. Presence natural light no fallout.

Voiding around planet is fixed to allow natural light only.

Science increased mass of gases burning. Natural light no longer.

UFO radiation mass comes back in. Cold. As science wanted to own control light as a machine reactive constant. It then passes back by calculus caused I want into burning gas. Ignites. What the void vacuum had achieved science then removed.

So holy mother space womb no longer keeps life safe.

The teaching against nuclear practice.

Radiation burning gas mass causes fallout. We mutate.

The day the sky went dark the vacuum activated and it had sucked out the sacrifice UFO attack.

Sacrifice stopped.

Rome knew that light was reignited as burning comets released from asteroid that passed into irradiated earth space trail cycle came in and burnt Rome.

Reset gas heavens alight.

As cause effect of messing around with natural states by machines temple science. Pyramids.

We survive suffering dying in radiation extra cause.

No science then radiation heated vacuum holds its release in space.

We never evolved we healed.

We healed science pyramid nuclear was stopped.

Science repracticed attacked life Jesus event. Learnt man in science lied.

Pyramid toppled. Temple blown up. No nuclear practice.

God earth radiation release still made us sick would stop 2012 void vacuum.

Not allowed by scientists. UFO attack had become less and less life cell healed in water oxygenation by held water ground mass.

The bible teaching is human cell healing by non mass extra radiation presence.

We live in water mass body not gas replacement.

Water held to ground instead of evaporating is why water plus oxygenation healed us.

Via how much gas mass pressure by mass existing above us holds water in and to the ground. So holy water blessed us without burning as light remained above our heads in the heavens.

When we are not crops nor nature garden claiming it will flourish in atmospheric change. The thesis don't worry does not include our bio life blood and flesh. That needs water and oxygenation presence together.

As we are not trees scientist.

 

[ratiocinator]

According to your theory.
Adaptation is not what I mean by evolution.

People are free to reject a theory (despite the overwhelming evidence) but they really aren't free to redefine it so that it's easier to disagree with. That's misrepresentation or a straw man fallacy (something creationists do a lot).

Evolution on a large scale is just lots of small adaptations. There is no qualitative difference. That's what the theory says evolution is. It's that claim that you have to address. Just saying that you use the word differently is not an argument against it, it just shows that you don't understand what you're talking about.

To disagree you'd have to (for example) put forward some mechanism that you think would stop small changes adding up to large ones over long time periods. At the very least you'd need a proper definition of what you think the limits of adaptation are (and vague hand-waving about 'kinds' is not a proper definition).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Bullocks.

Unless you mean something specific by that term and are using it incorrectly.

Evolution is always a gradual process. As in: evolution works through the gradual accumulation of small changes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Turtles, frogs and birds aren't mammals.

Here's one that includes lizards

Here's one that includes an alligator

You may continue with the denial now and find some other bs thing to whine about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In fact, I believe I mentioned they do adapt.

Which is all evolution is, at bottom.
The accumulation of such adaptions over time.

If you walk with steps of one inch at a time, you inevitably end up walking for miles.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

According to your theory.
Adaptation is not what I mean by evolution.

Perhaps you should try and argue against what evolution REALLY says, instead of you want it to say, or imagine it to say, or pretend it to say, or believe that it says? That is, if you are indeed hellbend on arguing against it.

In any case, good job shooting yourself in the foot here. You just acknowledged that you are arguing a strawman.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Actually, not according to the current picture of neanderthals. They look basically like modern humans. If you met this guy you wouldn't think him anything but human. And some scientists are acknowledging they are us, now.

Well actually I did come across someone (on a bus once) who did look almost exactly like a neanderthal, and it was a shock. I was tempted to ask where he was from but lacked the courage.

 

[Wildswanderer]

People are free to reject a theory (despite the overwhelming evidence) but they really aren't free to redefine it so that it's easier to disagree with. That's misrepresentation or a straw man fallacy (something creationists do a lot).

Evolution on a large scale is just lots of small adaptations. There is no qualitative difference. That's what the theory says evolution is. It's that claim that you have to address. Just saying that you use the word differently is not an argument against it, it just shows that you don't understand what you're talking about.

To disagree you'd have to (for example) put forward some mechanism that you think would stop small changes adding up to large ones over long time periods. At the very least you'd need a proper definition of what you think the limits of adaptation are (and vague hand-waving about 'kinds' is not a proper definition).

Again, small changes are possible because we have that information already encoded in our DNA. You can not however, make a cow from a lizard. Or a jet from a unicycle.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Perhaps you should try and argue against what evolution REALLY says, instead of you want it to say, or imagine it to say, or pretend it to say, or believe that it says? That is, if you are indeed hellbend on arguing against it.

In any case, good job shooting yourself in the foot here. You just acknowledged that you are arguing a strawman.

I'm arguing against the whole model. No creationists debate that adaptation happens.

 

[ratiocinator]

Again, small changes are possible because we have that information already encoded in our DNA. You can not however, make a cow from a lizard.

Why are you so determined to emphasise your own ignorance of the subject? If a cow became a lizard, that would falsify the theory of evolution.

As has already been pointed out, there is plenty of examples where information has been added to DNA. And you ignored the point about small changes adding up to arbitrarily large ones.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Why are you so determined to emphasise your own ignorance of the subject? If a cow became a lizard, that would falsify the theory of evolution.

But a lizard can become a cow with lots of adaptation and intermediate species?

 

[Wildswanderer]

As has already been pointed out, there is plenty of examples where information has been added to DNA. And you ignored the point about small changes adding up to arbitrarily large ones.

Because it's impossible.

 

[Polymath257]

According to your theory.
Adaptation is not what I mean by evolution.

What do you mean, then?

The species adapts. That means it is slightly different. Then the environment changes a bit, so the species adapts some more. It is MORE different than it was from the original. Then the environment changes a bit more and so the species adapts to that new environment. That means it changes a bit more.

That *is* evolution. That is precisely what the *scientists* call evolution. And it is the mechanism for the larger changes that lead to new species.

 

[Polymath257]

But a lizard can become a cow with lots of adaptation and intermediate species?

No. A lizard is already specialized in ways that prevent it from going in the direction of mammals. It *might* change in other ways and lead to other species.

The reptiles that evolved into mammals were not lizards. And they went extinct (except for those that changed).

 

[Polymath257]

Because it's impossible.

Why would it be impossible? Small changes can add up. And large changes can happen by the accumulation of small ones.

Adding a dollar to your savings is a small change. Doing it 100 times becomes a larger change. Doing it 10,000 times becomes a large change. And doing it 1 million times is a huge change. But each added dollar is a small change.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm arguing against the whole model.

Per your own acknowledgement, you are arguing a strawman.

No creationists debate that adaptation happens.

Yet every one of them denies the implications (and argues a strawman version of evolution while doing so)

 

[Polymath257]

I'm arguing against the whole model. No creationists debate that adaptation happens.

Well, that is a start.

So, we agree that adaptation can occur as a genetic change? And that this can happen in a generation or two?

 

[metis]

Because obviously it was a faulty theory to start with.

Depends on what you mean by that as no theory is ever "perfect", but the basic ToE has so much evidence within it that it's considered to be a scientific axiom that involves much of what we call "biology". Life forms change over time, and we well know that, such as what we are seeing with the numerous covid variations, thus it stands to even just common sense that life forms evolve.

So, just focusing in on the imperfections of the theory over the decades doesn't make much sense as one could all too easily do much the same with the Bible for example. If one wants to pick it apart, that's actually not difficult to do because the Bible itself is not perfect, as the Bible is not God but is about God, and that's a big difference.