Anyone Still Believing in the Evolution Fraud Should Watch This

[Sherlock Holmes]

Do you expect a continuous fossil record going back over 500 million years?

I expect more than one example of something before I believe it is a member of a set of many. Again, Anomalocaris is claimed to be a step along a path of evolutionary development, yet we see no credible trace of other members of this set.

Anomalocaris must have had hundreds of thousands of progenitors, each differing slightly from its own parents or offspring. It is rational and reasonable to therefore expect examples of these, we should see traces of these subtly varying ancestors but we only see Anomalocaris.

This is the fossil record in general, it doesn't show any kind of reasonable evidence of such gradual transformation. As other have said, if these complex fauna were just created "wham" by some process, we'd expect to see what we do see in the fossil record, it is consistent with a dramatic event that cannot be reconciled with the idea of evolution.

That's the evidence, you can interpret that evidence as you personally choose to, but don't lie to yourself, don't argue that it's unreasonable to consider a dramatic sudden event, don't pretend that the hypothesis doesn't need evidence.

 

[alang1216]

the fossil record not only doesnt exist,,

We have trillions of fossils and not a single one contradicts descent from a common ancestor.

all fossils prove is something died,,

To you, you mean. To a professional they show when and where it lived, what an animal ate, how closely it resembled others, etc.

it doesnt prove it gave birth to a totally different kind of animal/person,

That is your strawman, no one ever said an individual fossil did anything of the kind.

 

[alang1216]

I expect more than one example of something before I believe it is a member of a set of many. Again, Anomalocaris is claimed to be a step along a path of evolutionary development, yet we see no credible trace of other members of this set.

Anomalocaris must have had hundreds of thousands of progenitors, each differing slightly from its own parents or offspring. It is rational and reasonable to therefore expect examples of these, we should see traces of these subtly varying ancestors but we only see Anomalocaris.

This is the fossil record in general, it doesn't show any kind of reasonable evidence of such gradual transformation. As other have said, if these complex fauna were just created "wham" by some process, we'd expect to see what we do see in the fossil record, it is consistent with a dramatic event that cannot be reconciled with the idea of evolution.

That's the evidence, you can interpret that evidence as you personally choose to, but don't lie to yourself, don't argue that it's unreasonable to consider a dramatic sudden event, don't pretend that the hypothesis doesn't need evidence.

So how and why did this sudden event occur? Besides our very incomplete fossil record, where is the proof?

 

[alang1216]

No proof is offered. These are monetized appeals to the emotion and ignorance of nonscientists.

Yet proof of evolution is demanded. Quite the double standard.

 

[progressive hunter]

We have trillions of fossils and not a single one contradicts descent from a common ancestor.


To you, you mean. To a professional they show when and where it lived, what an animal ate, how closely it resembled others, etc.


That is your strawman, no one ever said an individual fossil did anything of the kind.

none of them prove what gave birth to them or that they gave birth to another type of animal/human,,

when or where they lived doesnt prove they birth to a completely different kind of animal/human,,


are you going to walk me through what common ancestor gave birth to us and any of the other animals/humans you claim are related to us??

 

[progressive hunter]

Yet proof of evolution is demanded. Quite the double standard.

you stated it as a fact so its on you to provide proof,,

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

So how and why did this sudden event occur? Besides our very incomplete fossil record, where is the proof?

I do not know, I do know, I am confident, that it cannot be attributed to a naturalistic process.

 

[alang1216]

Listen to James Tour, he emphasizes that time is an enemy of abiogenesis not a friend. The kinds of molecules involved in the building of these structures are unstable, even if by 1 in a trillion chance some enzyme was by fluke, able to form it would decay within a short time, perhaps hours, perhaps days but very short. Unless that were then fortuitously to take part in yet another vanishingly unlikely step there's no prospect of "gradual" increasing complexity.

Proof?

of what exactly? of decay rates? these are known, chemists know these rates.

What kinds of molecules involved were in the building of these structures? How does he know and what is his proof?

 

[ReinyDays]

they were still cats,,

according to evo they could be any number of other things including a plant,,

the chemistry means nothing beings we re all from the same place created from the same ingredients,,

You said lineage ... now you change to species ... the correct word is taxon ... your question has been answered ...

Do you believe in inherited traits? ... as demonstrated by Gregor Mendel ... you know, the pea plant experiment ... just curious if you have any scientific understandings ...

Of course ... the proof of evolution is in the chemistry ... and no, we have different mothers, buck-o, I came form a different place with different ingredients ...

 

[progressive hunter]

You said lineage ... now you change to species ... the correct word is taxon ... your question has been answered ...

Do you believe in inherited traits? ... as demonstrated by Gregor Mendel ... you know, the pea plant experiment ... just curious if you have any scientific understandings ...

Of course ... the proof of evolution is in the chemistry ... and no, we have different mothers, buck-o, I came form a different place with different ingredients ...

all chemistry does is prove we all were created from the same ingredients,,

it doesnt prove one form of life gave birth to a completely different form of life,,

as your example shows,, it was still a cat,,

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Proof?

What kinds of molecules involved were in the building of these structures? How does he know and what is his proof?

Enzymes for example, do you know how nature constructs glucose molecules? You can read about, get a textbook on organic chemistry as I have or listen to someone going over that process. Take a look at just one tiny step in the construction of glucose, it needs the enzyme (a protein folded into a very specific shape) that enzyme is glucosidase:

That enzyme (like all enzymes) must itself be constructed, but that's another story. Here, Tour talks about this in his challenge video, its prepositioned, just click and hear his summary:

 

[ReinyDays]

all chemistry does is prove we all were created from the same ingredients,,

it doesnt prove one form of life gave birth to a completely different form of life,,

as your example shows,, it was still a cat,,

All individual life forms are unique ... even within the same taxon ...

You didn't answer my question ... [hand wave] ...

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'm no chemist, I don't pretend to be, but I am intelligent enough to follow high level explanations and appreciate complexity and practicalities, I've studied science all my life, I trained in electronics and computing and telecommunications. I've designed and written programming language compilers that take raw source code text and produces machine code binary output files that will execute and do stuff on a computer.

That is pretty complex, language grammars and parsers are quite complex, they are defined recursively and self referentially, the synthesis of raw machine code for X86 pr ARM CPUs is complex, lots of steps and heuristics and so on.

I've done that, I understand it well.

But the complexity, the intricacies and so on, in that problem are miniscule compared to the stuff that goes on in cells, the chemistry that Tour speaks of here, I can see it is complex, I'm not a novice, I design stuff for a living, I know how hard it can be but the stuff Tour is speaking of is off the scales.

 

[alang1216]

Enzymes for example, do you know how nature constructs glucose molecules? You can read about, get a textbook on organic chemistry as I have or listen to someone going over that process. Take a look at just one tiny step in the construction of glucose, it needs the enzyme (a protein folded into a very specific shape) that enzyme is glucosidase:

View attachment 998630

That enzyme (like all enzymes) must itself be constructed, but that's another story. Here, Tour talks about this in his challenge video, its prepositioned, just click and here his summary:

Was there no life on earth before glucose? If so the complexity is moot, if not, where's the proof?

 

[scruffy]

I'm no chemist, I don't pretend to be, but I am intelligent enough to follow high level explanations and appreciate complexity and practicalities, I've studied science all my life, I trained in electronics and computing and telecommunications. I've designed and written programming language compilers that take raw source code text and produces machine code binary output files that will execute and do stuff on a computer.

That is pretty complex, language grammars and parsers are quite complex, they are defined recursively and self referentially, the synthesis of raw machine code for X86 pr ARM CPUs is complex, lots of steps and heuristics and so on.

I've done that, I understand it well.

But the complexity, the intricacies and so on, in that problem are miniscule compared to the stuff that goes on in cells, the chemistry that Tour speaks of here, I can see it is complex, I'm not a novice, I design stuff for a living, I know how hard it can be but the stuff Tour is speaking of is off the scales.

I started in computer programming too. And electronics.

The problem with that is, it's very logical. The computer does exactly what you tell it to do, nothing more, nothing less.

Science is the opposite. You get entirely unexpected results, some of which seems quite random. You need powerful tools to analyze the results. Not like debuggers, which are very logical.

I've found math to be helpful. Information theory provides measures, and algebraic topology lets you understand the relationships between shapes.

You can imagine looking at a powerful supercomputer made of an unknown substance with unknown wiring, and being asked to write a report detailing it's structure and function. When you open it up you see not wires, but a mass of tiny molecules floating in water. When you tell the computer to solve a problem, it gives you a piece of music instead. It obeys different rules, it seems to have a mind of its own.

The professor is going to grade you on the usefulness of your answer. If you say "God did it", what kind of a grade do you think you'll get?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I started in computer programming too. And electronics.

The problem with that is, it's very logical. The computer does exactly what you tell it to do, nothing more, nothing less.

Right but not always what one expects.

Science is the opposite. You get entirely unexpected results, some of which seems quite random. You need powerful tools to analyze the results. Not like debuggers, which are very logical.

Debugging actually can be very much like science, consider race conditions in a multi core operating system with device drivers manipulating shared memory. One has to devise a hypothesis, one has to devise experiments to test that hypothesis, if the tests confirm the hypothesis then we might have a fix, if not we must press on and develop another hypothesis.

The behavior of as system like that with race condition bugs will often appear very random far from logical.

I've found math to be helpful. Information theory provides measures, and algebraic topology lets you understand the relationships between shapes.

Of course its helpful, the universe has the amazing property of being rationally intelligible, lucky for us.

You can imagine looking at a powerful supercomputer made of an unknown substance with unknown wiring, and being asked to write a report detailing it's structure and function. When you open it up you see not wires, but a mass of tiny molecules floating in water. When you tell the computer to solve a problem, it gives you a piece of music instead. It obeys different rules, it seems to have a mind of its own.

The professor is going to grade you on the usefulness of your answer. If you say "God did it", what kind of a grade do you think you'll get?

That depends on whether God did it or not I suppose.

I'm introducing you to John Lennox, a Prof of Mathematics at Oxford (you'd like him, he specialized in group theory) here he talks about what science is and is not, they discuss "God of the gaps" so you might find it of interest.

 

[scruffy]

Right but not always what one expects.

Debugging actually can be very much like science, consider race conditions in a multi core operating system with device drivers manipulating shared memory. One has to devise a hypothesis, one has to devise experiments to test that hypothesis, if the tests confirm the hypothesis then we might have a fix, if not we must press on and develop another hypothesis.

The behavior of as system like that with race condition bugs will often appear very random far from logical.

Of course its helpful, the universe has the amazing property of being rationally intelligible, lucky for us.

That depends on whether God did it or not I suppose.

I'm introducing you to John Lennox, a Prof of Mathematics at Oxford (you'd like him, he specialized in group theory) here he talks about what science is and is not:

The point I'm making is "useful levels of description". A debugger is useful, it helps you solve your race conditions. Saying "God did it" is not a useful level of description.

 

[Leo123]

Sorry but your questions show a fundamental lack of understanding of biogenesis, evolution, and proofs so I'm unable to answer.

Apparently you can’t answer.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The point I'm making is "useful levels of description". A debugger is useful, it helps you solve your race conditions. Saying "God did it" is not a useful level of description.

That depends upon the question being asked. If the question was how did the universe come to exist, then "God did it" is an appropriate answer (if God did it).

When you speak of "useful level of description" than that begs the question how is utility being measured and why we are even interested in getting an answer to the question, what is it we are seeking by asking the question.

Are you expecting every question about the world to have a scientific answer? are you expecting every explanation to be a scientific explanation?

Scientific explanations are always reductionist in nature, some thing is explained by recourse to other constituent things. But that implies infinite regress.

 

[progressive hunter]

All individual life forms are unique ... even within the same taxon ...

You didn't answer my question ... [hand wave] ...

you didnt specify what inherited traits youre talking about,,

evos like to play word games like youre doing to avoid being specific,,