Anyone Still Believing in the Evolution Fraud Should Watch This

Humans vary in appearance more than fruit flies from generation to generation, yet there is no evidence of evolution.

You and the Taliban. In reaction to fear of science and modernity the US had the same problem in the 1920s.

Remember the Scope's Monkey Trial?
 
The problem with your thinking is you can't define life. You don't know what it is.
You never asked me to define life, I asked you to, since you asserted "everything is alive". You refuse to, is this because you think the term has no meaning? is it because you disagree with the generally accepted definition? do you not understand the question I'm asking?
You're like a guy trying to understand gravity without Newton.
One doesn't need to understand Newton's falsified theory to understand gravitation.

We're not discussing my understanding either, but your claim that everything is alive, please don't try to veer off the tracks, it won't work with me.
"The apple always falls DOWN".

Well no, it doesn't.
We're discussing life not apples.
Same for life. You have a vague intuitive understanding of your observations, just like the guy looking at the apple.
1724099483564.png

All I asked is what do you mean by "Everything is alive" that's all I asked and you choose to be evasive, I get the impression you do not know why you said what you said, that's not a problem I personally ever have.
 

Attachments

  • 1724098891809.png
    1724098891809.png
    64.5 KB · Views: 0
  • 1724099078877.png
    1724099078877.png
    64.5 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:
Punctuated equilibrium is a theory in evolutionary biology that suggests that evolution occurs in spurts, with long periods of stability interrupted by short periods of rapid change.

The theory was originally developed by paleontologists to explain patterns in the fossil record, such as how new species emerge and diversify.

The theory states that species originate too quickly for paleontologists to trace their origins, and then remain unchanged for most of their geological history in a state called stasis. This stasis is due to a shared homeostasis that regulates the collective morphology of individuals. When this homeostasis breaks down, speciation occurs.

The theory was controversial because it forced biologists to rethink their ideas about evolutionary patterns and processes. However, it has since become the foundation of a new view of macroevolution and hierarchical selection.

Scientists have found evidence of punctuated evolution in the fossil records of many organisms, including bryozoans, a group of coral-like sea organisms. Some researchers have also come to accept a punctuated view of human evolution.
 
No, an assumption would be to presume the 'THOUGHT' is not based on the best available evidence. A fantasy would be there should be proof of evolution but no proof of creationism is necessary.
as usual you dont understand words have meanings,,

an assumption is assuming something happened a certain way,,

assume and presume have two different meanings,,
 
So when did the first pre-existing, free-living organism make the leap from inanimate matter to life? Because how could it evolve before that?

This is new information to me because I've never heard of living pre-cell components. Do you have a link per chance?
If an 'inanimate' object can grow and reproduce, is it inanimate? If it does why shouldn't it be subject to the same evolutionary forces that we are?
Link

I'm still struggling with evolution occurring before a living thing is created. How does that work?
Your issue is with your definition of 'life'.
 
If an 'inanimate' object can grow and reproduce, is it inanimate? If it does why shouldn't it be subject to the same evolutionary forces that we are?
Link


Your issue is with your definition of 'life'.
My issue is with you thinking a component of a cell is living and can evolve. It's not and it can't and that's why you assumed it divides itself without any basis of fact.
 
Can they divide?
Are you assuming that pre-cell components divide or can you provide a link for that. Because it seems to me that you are claiming reproduction and I am thinking you may have made that leap on your own and have no supporting documentation to back that up. Am I right?
 
So the first living thing wasn't a cell? The first living thing was a component of a cell? Do you have a link for that per chance?
Call it what you wish, it was a simple living thing. It later became a part of a more complex living thing in a symbiotic relationship. This probably happened many times and eventually led to the complex cells we see today.

Seems to me a critical component of living things and evolution is the ability to reproduce and pass down genetic information. So I would be very interested to understand how pre-life cell components which supposedly evolved, reproduced and passed down genetic information so that evolution could occur.
Passing genetic info probably was a much later development. In a sea of self-replicating molecules, those that were more efficient at it would eventually dominate. If they could break other molecules and incorporate them, they would do better still.
 
Call it what you wish, it was a simple living thing. It later became a part of a more complex living thing in a symbiotic relationship. This probably happened many times and eventually led to the complex cells we see today.
Then that would make it the first living thing. So if I am understanding you, you believe a single cell wasn't the first living thing. Is that correct?
 
Are you assuming that pre-cell components divide or can you provide a link for that. Because it seems to me that you are claiming reproduction and I am thinking you may have made that leap on your own and have no supporting documentation to back that up. Am I right?
Nope. A self-assembling molecule (Google it) will continue to grow so long as the environment allows. When it gets too large it will break into smaller, self-assembling molecule and the process will repeat. If you're talking about more complex structures like mitochondria, they have their own DNA and can reproduce.
 
This probably happened many times and eventually led to the complex cells we see today.
Do you know? Or are you making an assumption? Because if you are making an assumption then you have to work out how this "living thing" reproduced and passed down genetic information, right?
 
Nope. A self-assembling molecule (Google it) will continue to grow so long as the environment allows. When it gets too large it will break into smaller, self-assembling molecule and the process will repeat. If you're talking about more complex structures like mitochondria, they have their own DNA and can reproduce.
Still trying to figure out if you are saying this is the first living thing or not. Which one is it? The mitochondria or self-assembling molecule? Are either of these alive?
 
Do you know? Or are you making an assumption? Because if you are making an assumption then you have to work out how this "living thing" reproduced and passed down genetic information, right?
Just summarizing one of the theories I like best. If you want to read something more rigorous look here.
 
Quite correct. It likely took billions of years for the cell we know to evolve.
I'm saying it took billions of years for long chains of organic molecules to fold itself in the correct sequence. That's not evolution. That's chance. That's statistics.
 
A brilliant man I'm sure but he makes a fundamental mistake, one so obvious that even I can see it. If I can see it I wonder why he doesn't. Because he doesn't want to maybe?
At 10:00 he claims that evolution starts with a cell. Obviously false since the first cells were almost certainly the product of several billion years of evolution. Almost the end, not the beginning. To be subject to evolution, something must only be able to grow and reproduce. There are plenty of simple inorganic molecules that can do that.
You missed his point, he was pointing to the complexity of one cell and how you need that for evolution however, then he says no one has created a single cell yet. There are 0 inorganic molecules that can create life on their own.
 
Last edited:
Just summarizing one of the theories I like best. If you want to read something more rigorous look here.
It's idiotic to even consider the first living thing is less than a single cell. Your self assembling molecule is not alive and is not evolving. It's not replicating itself. It's not dividing itself. It's not a programmed reproduction.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top