Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 8, 2022 18:39:46 GMT
Amazing that you think that Sabre Tooth cats and Mastodons died as evolutionary dead ends, when their demise was at the hands of an intelligent being, the human. One might call that natural selection, but keep in mind that stupid predators can kill weaker creatures with many advanced mutations as well, thus setting back evolution as easily as it is advanced.
And if mutations were as gradual as we are supposed to believe from Darwin, only the quickly fatal negative mutations would have lessened the fossil record. And yes, negative mutations do survive if the host survives. Here's an interesting mathematical analysis:
The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution
According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away.
Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people—until it is examined quantitatively, that is!
For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.
Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.
But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."
The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.
All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!
While "impossibility" is a bit strong in the title, it clearly shows that the likelihood of all of these mutations aligning over and over again in countless higher creatures is closer to impossible than evolutionists would like to believe.
So explain the fossil record. Micro-evolution ONLY. The record does not conclude anything else. Feel free to show me otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Aug 8, 2022 19:20:52 GMT
So explain the fossil record. Micro-evolution ONLY. The record does not conclude anything else. Feel free to show me otherwise. Huge problem. Where do the new animals come from? Where did the old animals go? |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 13, 2022 19:25:31 GMT
Micro-evolution ONLY. The record does not conclude anything else. Feel free to show me otherwise. Huge problem. Where do the new animals come from? Where did the old animals go? Where the new animals come from is the heart of the problem, since by the evidence to date, there's no sign that it's "evolution" as we understand it today.
Degradation based on entropy explains the extinction of many species and will likely result in many more, but entropy tends toward disorder, not natural improvements through mutations and natural selection.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Aug 13, 2022 19:33:10 GMT
Huge problem. Where do the new animals come from? Where did the old animals go? Where the new animals come from is the heart of the problem, since by the evidence to date, there's no sign that it's "evolution" as we understand it today.
Degradation based on entropy explains the extinction of many species and will likely result in many more, but entropy tends toward disorder, not natural improvements through mutations and natural selection.
Yeah, so where do the new animals come from? And where did the other animals go? |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 19, 2022 3:43:08 GMT
Where the new animals come from is the heart of the problem, since by the evidence to date, there's no sign that it's "evolution" as we understand it today.
Degradation based on entropy explains the extinction of many species and will likely result in many more, but entropy tends toward disorder, not natural improvements through mutations and natural selection.
Yeah, so where do the new animals come from? And where did the other animals go? So, repeating the question is what you have devolved to?
I didn't say that I have the answers (I'm certain that I KNOW the source of all things), just that evolution theory utterly fails to explain where the new animals come from and how different types of animals came to be. It is a dead theory yet its corpse is rolled out in front of malleable young students as if it was still alive.
The "other animals" died and are extinct in some cases as entropy predicts.
Do I need to repeat the truth to you for a third time or did you get it after just two?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2022 8:09:47 GMT
Yeah, so where do the new animals come from? And where did the other animals go? So, repeating the question is what you have devolved to?
I didn't say that I have the answers (I'm certain that I KNOW the source of all things), just that evolution theory utterly fails to explain where the new animals come from and how different types of animals came to be. It is a dead theory yet its corpse is rolled out in front of malleable young students as if it was still alive.
The "other animals" died and are extinct in some cases as entropy predicts.
Do I need to repeat the truth to you for a third time or did you get it after just two?
So how come the scientific community almost unanimously disagrees with you, brain dead? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Aug 19, 2022 13:42:54 GMT
Yeah, so where do the new animals come from? And where did the other animals go? So, repeating the question is what you have devolved to?
I didn't say that I have the answers (I'm certain that I KNOW the source of all things), just that evolution theory utterly fails to explain where the new animals come from and how different types of animals came to be. It is a dead theory yet its corpse is rolled out in front of malleable young students as if it was still alive.
The "other animals" died and are extinct in some cases as entropy predicts.
Do I need to repeat the truth to you for a third time or did you get it after just two?
I’ve repeated the question because it hasn’t been answered. It’s a HUGE problem. Evolution doesn’t just “answer that question”—the fossil record actually points to evolution. Even if you dispute the mechanism of evolution. The fossil record shows a progression of complexity showing one “kind” of animal morphing into another “kind” of animal. Gradually. Over a long period of time. |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 19, 2022 16:09:04 GMT
So, repeating the question is what you have devolved to?
I didn't say that I have the answers (I'm certain that I KNOW the source of all things), just that evolution theory utterly fails to explain where the new animals come from and how different types of animals came to be. It is a dead theory yet its corpse is rolled out in front of malleable young students as if it was still alive.
The "other animals" died and are extinct in some cases as entropy predicts.
Do I need to repeat the truth to you for a third time or did you get it after just two?
I’ve repeated the question because it hasn’t been answered. It’s a HUGE problem. Evolution doesn’t just “answer that question”—the fossil record actually points to evolution. Even if you dispute the mechanism of evolution. The fossil record shows a progression of complexity showing one “kind” of animal morphing into another “kind” of animal. Gradually. Over a long period of time. The fossil record shows no such thing other than evolution inside the animal types, but feel free to show me animals morphing from one kind to another. That's where evolution theory falls apart, but let's see your evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Aug 19, 2022 17:46:23 GMT
I’ve repeated the question because it hasn’t been answered. It’s a HUGE problem. Evolution doesn’t just “answer that question”—the fossil record actually points to evolution. Even if you dispute the mechanism of evolution. The fossil record shows a progression of complexity showing one “kind” of animal morphing into another “kind” of animal. Gradually. Over a long period of time. The fossil record shows no such thing other than evolution inside the animal types, but feel free to show me animals morphing from one kind to another. That's where evolution theory falls apart, but let's see your evidence.  Okay, so check this out. This is "what we see." If not "evolution," then...what? So there's this Eohippus. It then "somehow disappears." But suddenly an Oligohippus "just appears." Then over time the Oligohippus "just disappears" but now we have a Merychippus...which then "just disappears" but now we have a Pliohippus. The Pliohippus "just disappears" and the modern horse "just appears." But...not evolution? Some other mechanism is removing species wholesale and new species just...appear? From where? It looks...an awful lot like one is changing into another slowly over time. Maybe that's just me...? |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Aug 19, 2022 23:38:38 GMT
Paleo is a good example of reverse evolution.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 20, 2022 15:25:51 GMT
The fossil record shows no such thing other than evolution inside the animal types, but feel free to show me animals morphing from one kind to another. That's where evolution theory falls apart, but let's see your evidence. Okay, so check this out. This is "what we see." If not "evolution," then...what? So there's this Eohippus. It then "somehow disappears." But suddenly an Oligohippus "just appears." Then over time the Oligohippus "just disappears" but now we have a Merychippus...which then "just disappears" but now we have a Pliohippus. The Pliohippus "just disappears" and the modern horse "just appears." But...not evolution? Some other mechanism is removing species wholesale and new species just...appear? From where? It looks...an awful lot like one is changing into another slowly over time. Maybe that's just me...? That's no different than a wolf becoming a dog....all are still the same kind of creature. It's micro-evolution in each case. There are five horses in your illustration. Not a single one became a different kind of creature. Straight line, no branches. Do you consider a chihuahua and a timber wolf to be different types of creatures? Even if you did, it took an artificial intervention..."intelligent design" by breeders to get them there.
What do you think the wolf would have changed into if humans had not domesticated and bred them for certain features? Nothing but a wolf.
But one creature morphing into another TYPE of creature is not demonstrated in the fossil record. So, assuming all of the lines never crossed, we are asked to believe that every type of creature, while staying in its own lane, just miraculously had countless positive mutations, defying entropy at every step, to become what species we have today.....it's a fairy tale that defies the laws of nature, common sense and logic. I'm open to being dazzled with proof that creatures morphed into different types, but the record shows no such thing.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 20, 2022 15:26:36 GMT
Paleo is a good example of reverse evolution. Useless is a good example of the missing link, and we've been fortunate that he's been missing. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Aug 20, 2022 16:04:42 GMT
Okay, so check this out. This is "what we see." If not "evolution," then...what? So there's this Eohippus. It then "somehow disappears." But suddenly an Oligohippus "just appears." Then over time the Oligohippus "just disappears" but now we have a Merychippus...which then "just disappears" but now we have a Pliohippus. The Pliohippus "just disappears" and the modern horse "just appears." But...not evolution? Some other mechanism is removing species wholesale and new species just...appear? From where? It looks...an awful lot like one is changing into another slowly over time. Maybe that's just me...? That's no different than a wolf becoming a dog....all are still the same kind of creature. It's micro-evolution in each case. There are five horses in your illustration. Not a single one became a different kind of creature. Straight line, no branches. Do you consider a chihuahua and a timber wolf to be different types of creatures? Even if you did, it took an artificial intervention..."intelligent design" by breeders to get them there.
What do you think the wolf would have changed into if humans had not domesticated and bred them for certain features? Nothing but a wolf.
But one creature morphing into another TYPE of creature is not demonstrated in the fossil record. So, assuming all of the lines never crossed, we are asked to believe that every type of creature, while staying in its own lane, just miraculously had countless positive mutations, defying entropy at every step, to become what species we have today.....it's a fairy tale that defies the laws of nature, common sense and logic. I'm open to being dazzled with proof that creatures morphed into different types, but the record shows no such thing.
An Eohippus is a horse? In what ways? Is an Eohippus also a giraffe and a hippopotamus? I mean, they all have four legs and are herbivores. Where is the distinction between "types" such that we would be confident they came from a different "source"? Like which ones are "so obviously different" we know they didn't micro-evolve from the same animal? |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 30, 2022 16:39:11 GMT
That's no different than a wolf becoming a dog....all are still the same kind of creature. It's micro-evolution in each case. There are five horses in your illustration. Not a single one became a different kind of creature. Straight line, no branches. Do you consider a chihuahua and a timber wolf to be different types of creatures? Even if you did, it took an artificial intervention..."intelligent design" by breeders to get them there.
What do you think the wolf would have changed into if humans had not domesticated and bred them for certain features? Nothing but a wolf.
But one creature morphing into another TYPE of creature is not demonstrated in the fossil record. So, assuming all of the lines never crossed, we are asked to believe that every type of creature, while staying in its own lane, just miraculously had countless positive mutations, defying entropy at every step, to become what species we have today.....it's a fairy tale that defies the laws of nature, common sense and logic. I'm open to being dazzled with proof that creatures morphed into different types, but the record shows no such thing.
An Eohippus is a horse? In what ways? Is an Eohippus also a giraffe and a hippopotamus? I mean, they all have four legs and are herbivores. Where is the distinction between "types" such that we would be confident they came from a different "source"? Like which ones are "so obviously different" we know they didn't micro-evolve from the same animal? So, four legs and eats grass is enough to claim a common ancestor? Not hardly, but let's go down that fictional Darwinian path. If all of those creatures are related, somewhere before the Eohippus there should be a creature that shared giraffe, hippo and horse features, right? None exists. Zero.
So, we have no fossil evidence that macro evolution has occurred over the last 60-100 million years, so logically, it must have all happened before that time, but we have none. Eohippus just appears without any sign of ANY ancestor, much less a link to other four legged weed eaters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Aug 30, 2022 20:48:07 GMT
An Eohippus is a horse? In what ways? Is an Eohippus also a giraffe and a hippopotamus? I mean, they all have four legs and are herbivores. Where is the distinction between "types" such that we would be confident they came from a different "source"? Like which ones are "so obviously different" we know they didn't micro-evolve from the same animal? So, four legs and eats grass is enough to claim a common ancestor? Not hardly, but let's go down that fictional Darwinian path. If all of those creatures are related, somewhere before the Eohippus there should be a creature that shared giraffe, hippo and horse features, right? None exists. Zero.
So, we have no fossil evidence that macro evolution has occurred over the last 60-100 million years, so logically, it must have all happened before that time, but we have none. Eohippus just appears without any sign of ANY ancestor, much less a link to other four legged weed eaters.
Yes, there should be a common ancestor. What features would be shared? There's no reason to "require" the long neck of a giraffe, the giant mouth of the hippo and the bushy tail and hooves of the horse. Those features diverged later (which is obvious when you compare the feet of the horse with those of its supposed ancestors). So, yeah, four-legged herbivore. Diverging into hippos, zebras, giraffes, okapis, horses, aurochs, elephants, sloths, etc. That's the point. Like this guy (and his relatives): www.sciencenews.org/article/huge-triassic-herbivore-dicynodontFor more info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ungulate#HistoryJust because it's not in the particular picture I presented doesn't mean it doesn't exist. |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 30, 2022 21:19:07 GMT
So, four legs and eats grass is enough to claim a common ancestor? Not hardly, but let's go down that fictional Darwinian path. If all of those creatures are related, somewhere before the Eohippus there should be a creature that shared giraffe, hippo and horse features, right? None exists. Zero.
So, we have no fossil evidence that macro evolution has occurred over the last 60-100 million years, so logically, it must have all happened before that time, but we have none. Eohippus just appears without any sign of ANY ancestor, much less a link to other four legged weed eaters.
Yes, there should be a common ancestor. What features would be shared? There's no reason to "require" the long neck of a giraffe, the giant mouth of the hippo and the bushy tail and hooves of the horse. Those features diverged later (which is obvious when you compare the feet of the horse with those of its supposed ancestors). So, yeah, four-legged herbivore. Diverging into hippos, zebras, giraffes, okapis, horses, aurochs, elephants, sloths, etc. That's the point. Like this guy (and his relatives): www.sciencenews.org/article/huge-triassic-herbivore-dicynodontFor more info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ungulate#HistoryJust because it's not in the particular picture I presented doesn't mean it doesn't exist. "SHOULD" be a common ancestor is a nice sentiment, but none has been found. Nor have the fossils of diverging creatures that would have been transitional between this mythical common ancestor and the hippos, zebras, giraffes, okapis, horses, aurochs, elephants, sloths, etc.
There is no evidence in the fossil record to support this "from one, many came" idea. THAT'S the point. Your suppositions are not rooted in the fossil record.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Aug 31, 2022 1:38:13 GMT
Yes, there should be a common ancestor. What features would be shared? There's no reason to "require" the long neck of a giraffe, the giant mouth of the hippo and the bushy tail and hooves of the horse. Those features diverged later (which is obvious when you compare the feet of the horse with those of its supposed ancestors). So, yeah, four-legged herbivore. Diverging into hippos, zebras, giraffes, okapis, horses, aurochs, elephants, sloths, etc. That's the point. Like this guy (and his relatives): www.sciencenews.org/article/huge-triassic-herbivore-dicynodontFor more info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ungulate#HistoryJust because it's not in the particular picture I presented doesn't mean it doesn't exist. "SHOULD" be a common ancestor is a nice sentiment, but none has been found. Nor have the fossils of diverging creatures that would have been transitional between this mythical common ancestor and the hippos, zebras, giraffes, okapis, horses, aurochs, elephants, sloths, etc.
There is no evidence in the fossil record to support this "from one, many came" idea. THAT'S the point. Your suppositions are not rooted in the fossil record.
Wait, what? I just showed you one. On what basis do you disqualify it? |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Sept 1, 2022 20:49:05 GMT
"SHOULD" be a common ancestor is a nice sentiment, but none has been found. Nor have the fossils of diverging creatures that would have been transitional between this mythical common ancestor and the hippos, zebras, giraffes, okapis, horses, aurochs, elephants, sloths, etc.
There is no evidence in the fossil record to support this "from one, many came" idea. THAT'S the point. Your suppositions are not rooted in the fossil record.
Wait, what? I just showed you one. On what basis do you disqualify it? So far, you've shown me a string of horses that didn't become anything but a horse. You've added a list of other legged creatures that don't follow the same linear relationship and you've shown no evidence of a crossover. |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Sept 1, 2022 21:33:27 GMT
Of course, there's always the horse's ass.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Sept 1, 2022 22:22:16 GMT
Wait, what? I just showed you one. On what basis do you disqualify it? So far, you've shown me a string of horses that didn't become anything but a horse. You've added a list of other legged creatures that don't follow the same linear relationship and you've shown no evidence of a crossover. Here's something:  Now, you're not going to argue that "those are all horses," are you? You also got this:  Now...I don't know that you would look at that first one and think...yeah, that's a whale! Would you? Check out this one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EntelodontGenetically determined to be the ancestor of hippos and cetaceans. Again, hippos are obviously not whales (right?). The farther you go back, the more guesswork there is. But the pattern is pretty clear. Over time you see increasing complexity and divergence. If evolution is not going on, then what is? |
|
