Mathematicians PROVE evolution IMPOSSIBLE.

[sfs]

It's good that mathematicians are disproving false narative, maybe it's time for detectives to reveal evolutionists as deliberate liars.

I study evolution (among other things) for a living. Could you please be specific: what am I lying about?

 

[HenryM]

I study evolution (among other things) for a living. Could you please be specific: what am I lying about?

How can you study something for a living? You get paid to study?

I don't know what are you lying about, but there are already evidence about prominent evolutionists in the last two hundred years who were outed as liars. And their lies created enough damage for our human race that suspicion about evolutionists is given, as I see it.

And if you study evolution, how many human or "human ancestor" fossils have you personally investigated, touched with your hand, researched in detailed manner, and drawn conclusion about?

 

[sfs]

How can you study something for a living? You get paid to study?

I'm a scientist. Scientists study things for a living.

I don't know what are you lying about, but there are already evidence about prominent evolutionists in the last two hundred years who were outed as liars.

There's also evidence of creationists who were outed as liars, and politicians who were outed as liars, and ministers of the gospel who were outed as liars. You'd better have something a little more substantial if you're going to be tossing this kind of accusation around.

And if you study evolution, how many human or "human ancestor" fossils have you personally investigated, touched with your hand, researched in detailed manner, and drawn conclusion about?

None. I'm a geneticist. I've personally thousands of human genomes, and compared the human genome to that of a fair number of other species. Since you seem to have a better handle on my field than I do -- how many fossils have you examined? How many genomes?

 

[HenryM]

None. I'm a geneticist. I've personally thousands of human genomes, and compared the human genome to that of a fair number of other species. Since you seem to have a better handle on my field than I do -- how many fossils have you examined? How many genomes?

Hey, it was off the cuff response, what are you getting so worked about? I wasn't talking about you. But I do think that most prominent evolutionists are ripe for some detective work.

Whole field seems fishy to me.

You yourself have said that you haven't examined not one fossil. So that area is totally unknown to you.

By the way, one thing evolutionists do mentioned rather frequently, as I understand, is the notion that Darwin didn't actually said that we came from monkeys. But he actually did write exactly that. So that's a lie, and quite in your face one, since it's easy to prove it.

What have you personally discovered, evolution wise, that proves evolution from your field of study?

I have read some papers that after who knows how many thousands of iterations of life cycles of simple life forms, no evolution was detected.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's good that mathematicians are disproving false narative,

As you see, that argument also "proves" that card games and humans are too unlikely to exist. But they are just as clearly here as evolution is. Here's a hint; no mathematician would make such a silly error in logic. Wildly improbable things (like you, for example) happen all the time without any magic involved.

 

[The Barbarian]

I have read some papers that after who knows how many thousands of iterations of life cycles of simple life forms, no evolution was detected.

Sounds pretty commonplace. Everyone knows how to make that happen. Just keep a well-adapted population in a constant environment. As Darwin predicted, that will keep the population from evolving very much, or even at all.

 

[The Barbarian]

As Everybodyknows points out above, Abiogenesis is the problem.

No, it isn't for two reasons. First, it has nothing to do with evolution, which would still work as it does, if God had just poofed the first living things into existence.

Second, God says that nature produced life.

So no point in arguing about it.

 

[HenryM]

As you see, that argument also "proves" that card games and humans are too unlikely to exist. But they are just as clearly here as evolution is. Here's a hint; no mathematician would make such a silly error in logic. Wildly improbable things (like you, for example) happen all the time without any magic involved.

Barbarian Gangster Evolutionist Catholic. There's a first for everything, I guess.

 

[friend of]

Logically, abiogenesis should be at the foundation of the theory of evolution. So to say it's unrelated is akin to saying that the invention of the first automobile is irrelevant to the evolution of the 2017 hybrid car. There is a common denominator.

 

[friend of]

So no point in arguing about it.

I'm simply asking why humans haven't produced life in a lab already. We are more than capable of recreating the conditions which were theoretically present at the time of RNA conception. Why haven't we?

 

[Everybodyknows]

I'm simply asking why humans haven't produced life in a lab already. We are more than capable of recreating the conditions which were theoretically present at the time of RNA conception. Why haven't we?

Because we need an ocean the size of a planet and a few hundred million years of time.

 

[HenryM]

I'm simply asking why humans haven't produced life in a lab already. We are more than capable of recreating the conditions which were theoretically present at the time of RNA conception. Why haven't we?

Why even bother arguing about it? Let Barbarian Gangster Evolutionist Catholic, and others who want to, deal with the thing. Who cares? Evolution is probably a false narative, but who cares either way. Nothing to gain from it, as we need "an ocean the size of a planet and a few hundred million years of time" to get it, while we could be lied about it (for which there's proof already).

 

[Anguspure]

Yea ods again.
Well given the OP, the OP can't exist either.View attachment 189515

Looking forward to winning the Lotto this weekend then are we?

 

[Anguspure]

To start life the minimum is only self replicating. Self repairing or correcting are unnecessary. Also we simply don't know if it started with protein at all or some other chemistry. There aren't any known self replicating proteins, DNA is not self replicating on its own, it needs an array of biochemical machinery to support the copying process. RNA world is a hypothesis with many holes to fill. So until someone can postulate the exact nature of the first self replicator, talking about probability is just vague guesswork.

Yes it is difficult, but you have to admit that whatever it is that started biological auto reproduction, a single protein string is a whole lot less functionally coherent, at least 2 or 3 steps less for example, than that thing.
This is because whatever got the ball rolling on reproduction consisted of a number of components organized into a certain auto-reproductive mechanism for the purpose of reproduction. Whereas a protein is a component of a cell that only has a function if it is organized into a particular part of a mechanism for a designated purpose.
The direction of the odds is very clear even if the precise number (that is actually quite irrelevant once one gets beyond fantastically improbable odds) is uncertain.
The point is that we take the most basic components, demonstrate that the odds of these occurring by chance is ridiculously low, and then anything beyond that is something that we can comfortably scoff at and make fun of (not that we would, of course, because we do have the highest respect and tolerance for Naturalistic Scientism).

 

[Anguspure]

Like love, which constitutes the core of our two most important commandments? Do you think we are commanded to love, but for those who get to the other side it's all just hard cold facts and, maybe, math?

LOL. Like the Auditors of Terry Pratchet stories or the accountants of business circles, they hate the messy business of life and just want things to be neat and tidy and logical.

The Auditors hate life, because it is untidy. By their nature, the Auditors take the view that for a thing to exist it has to have a position in time and space. But all the things that distinguish human beings, such as imagination, pity, hope, history and belief, don’t do time and space. Humanity, by belief, allows things to become that don’t exist. Death said that matter has a fear and hatred of life, and the Auditors are the bearers of that hatred. Periodically they try to tidy things up.

Sounds very clinical clean and demonic to me.

 

[Anguspure]

I study evolution (among other things) for a living. Could you please be specific: what am I lying about?

In the common vernacular, evolution is a big word that can mean anything from change over time to biogenesis. So what specifically do you spout in respect of the things you study?

Because quite obviously change over time such as finch beaks and deer night vision loss, or perhaps nylonase and chloroquine resistant malaria are facts. Whereas (for example) unguided chemical biogenisis and and accidental bauplan development are quite definitely not.

Students of evolution are generally quite good at equivocating on the subject, at least until pressed, that is, and then they type..."Oh that's not evolution".

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Silly post as has been pointed out already:

1. Shuffle a deck of cards
2. Lay out the cards one by one
3. Take a photo
4. Repeat

You will NEVER lay out that exact sequence of cards as you did the first time ever again. The odds are 1/52! or 1 in 80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000. That is P(same sequence)=1.2397999*10^-68.

Every time you lay out the entire deck you are achieving the impossible. The sequence you create should NEVER happen according to the presenter in the video.

He then uses this impossibility to say we humanity could not possibly arrive here by chance. But at least one possibility had to become of the reality we know, otherwise there would be nothing at all, or at least, no one to observe it.

Better is to say, "Wow, we're here!"

 

[sfs]

Logically, abiogenesis should be at the foundation of the theory of evolution. So to say it's unrelated is akin to saying that the invention of the first automobile is irrelevant to the evolution of the 2017 hybrid car. There is a common denominator.

Well, no, logically a grand unified theory of particle physics should be at the foundation, right? But we don't need to have a theory of everything to study and understand some things. We don't need to know where life came from to study how it changes. We don't need to know how internal combustion engines were invented to study fuel efficiency changes in 21st century cars. We don't need to know where Indo-European came from to study Elizabethan poetry.

 

[sfs]

In the common vernacular, evolution is a big word that can mean anything from change over time to biogenesis. So what specifically do you spout in respect of the things you study?

Spout?

Because quite obviously change over time such as finch beaks and deer night vision loss, or perhaps nylonase and chloroquine resistant malaria are facts. Whereas (for example) unguided chemical biogenisis and and accidental bauplan development are quite definitely not.

Chloroquine resistant malaria is definitely a fact, a fact that has led to the death of millions. (Drug resistance in malaria is one of the things I study.) Abiogenesis is not part of evolution at all, and I agree that how animal body plans arose is not a fact. What I would consider a fact is that animals with different body plans descended from a common ancestor.

 

[sfs]

Hey, it was off the cuff response, what are you getting so worked about? I wasn't talking about you.

Who's worked up? You suggested that we were deliberate liars and I'm asking you to back up your suggestion. (And no, you didn't suggest that I personally was a deliberate liar; you just suggested that the group of which I am a member consists of deliberate liars.)

But I do think that most prominent evolutionists are ripe for some detective work.

Whole field seems fishy to me.

And I'm asking you to support your suggestions of evil-doing with some evidence. So which is it: do you have some support for your insinuation, or was it baseless slander?

You yourself have said that you haven't examined not one fossil. So that area is totally unknown to you.

Not totally unknown -- I do sometimes read scientific papers on fossils. But no, I have no expertise in that field, which is why I seldom comment on it.

Now let's see if you can connect your own dots. To someone with no firsthand experience, a subject is "totally unknown". You yourself haven't examined a fossil, or looked at a single gene, or read a single scientific paper on evolution. So the subject of evolution is _________ to you. [Fill in the blank.]

What have you personally discovered, evolution wise, that proves evolution from your field of study?

I have observed that genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees look exactly like accumulated random mutations in what were once identical genomes. Mutations that occur frequently appear often as differences between the two species; ones that occur rarely appear rarely. Parts of the genome where mutation occurs more rapidly also show greater differences between the species.

Why do you suppose that's the case?