Anyone Still Believing in the Evolution Fraud Should Watch This

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

"Correct"... meaningless, circular

The ones that persisted simply came to dominate. Thus they dominate today.

"Correct" makes sense if you assume design. Which, you do.

 

[Leo123]

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.

In a living cell, one does not find inorganic materials arranging or folding themselves all by themselves.

 

[alang1216]

as usual you dont understand words have meanings,,

an assumption is assuming something happened a certain way,,

assume and presume have two different meanings,,

Thanks for the grammar lesson but I'll stand behind what I wrote. You, on the other hand seem content to deflect review of what you wrote.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm overwhelmed.

I'm sure anything you don't agree to you'll just ignore. I'm not really sure why you even bother posting on here.

 

[progressive hunter]

Thanks for the grammar lesson but I'll stand behind what I wrote. You, on the other hand seem content to deflect review of what you wrote.

no deflection here,,

I stand by all your evidence is based on assumptions of the predetermined outcome,,

there is literally zero proof of your claim,, only opinions based on assumptions,,

 

[ding]

Just summarizing one of the theories I like best. If you want to read something more rigorous look here.

What I am telling you is that evolution is for living things. Anything involving the folding of long chains of organic molecules is chance. It doesn't matter what the affinity is. There's no instructions, no information being passed down. If there were a natural affinity for organic molecules to self assemble into living cells, it should be easy to find.

 

[ding]

"Correct"... meaningless, circular

The ones that persisted simply came to dominate. Thus they dominate today.

"Correct" makes sense if you assume design. Which, you do.

It's not meaningless or circular. The ones that persisted? How do long chains of organic molecules that mimic amino acids persist? How does a chemical compound that has zero instructions and no way of passing down instructions be anything other than chance? It either folds in the correct sequence or it doesn't. Do you have any idea of the amount of information a single cell requires to reproduce? Because until it reproduces, there can be no evolution.

 

[Leo123]

What I am telling you is that evolution is for living things. Anything involving the folding of long chains of organic molecules is chance. It doesn't matter what the affinity is. There's no instructions, no information being passed down. If there were a natural affinity for organic molecules to self assemble into living cells, it should be easy to find.

One cilia motor of many in one ecoli cell. Tell me that was an accident.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's not meaningless or circular.

*if you assume design

To argue design? Circular.

The ones that persisted? How do long chains of organic molecules that mimic amino acids persist?

They apparently persist at all timescales, as models. Especially self replicating ones.

Some models dominated. They persisted, i.e., they were "selected for" by the environment in which they found themselves. More of them formed. More of them persistedby gathering other proteins, etc

Some surely last only a blink of an eye.

 

[ding]

*if you assume design

To argue design? Circular.

What is it that I have said that made you believe I assumed or implied design? I'm arguing until there's reproduction there's no evolution.

 

[ding]

They apparently persist at all timescales, as models. Especially self replicating ones.

Some models dominated. They persisted, i.e., they were "selected for" by the environment in which they found themselves. More of them formed. More of them persistedby gathering other proteins, etc

Some surely last only a blink of an eye.

Self replicating does not mean reproduction. Until there is reproduction there's no evolution.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What is it that I have said that made you believe I assumed or implied design?

"Correct". And I explained why


Moving on...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Self replicating does not mean reproduction.

Not always! But sometimes it does. Especially when done more than once. Et voila, clones.

 

[ding]

"Correct". And I explained why


Moving on...

I must have missed it. I suspect it's all in your head and not on these pages or you would have linked to it. Very dishonest of you.

 

[ding]

Not always! But sometimes it does. Especially when done more than once. Et voila, clones.

Always. If there is no reproduction there can be no evolution. It's how the instructions for life are passed down.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Always. If there is no reproduction there can be no evolution. It's how the instructions for life are passed down.

True, today. I am talking about the pre life environment. Not disagreeing with you.

Agreeing that reproduction helped models dominate.

 

[scruffy]

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?

No, unlike you I don't generally speak on topics I don't understand.

I just shut my mouth and read and study a lot, the when I feel I'm ready to experiment I engage the experts and we hit the lab together.

One doesn't need to understand Newton's falsified theory to understand gravitation.

What's with the falsified baloney?

Do you not understand what SCOPE means?

It's one of the most important words in a scientist's vocabulary.

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.

I didn't make a claim. (At least not in "this" thread).

All I said was, the logic works a lot better if you start from a different place.

You're proving my statement. You're all over the map. You're having a hard time with scope.

We're discussing life not apples.

View attachment 998207

Google is not an authoritative source of scientific information.

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.

I'm not being evasive. I only get 10 minutes at a time to answer your questions. I have a life, I wear multiple hats and I multitask a lot. Right now I'm scraping marketing information from online databases.

 

[scruffy]

In a living cell, one does not find inorganic materials arranging or folding themselves all by themselves.

Yes one does. Ferritin is an example. There are countless other examples.

 

[alang1216]

as usual you dont understand words have meanings,,

an assumption is assuming something happened a certain way,,

assume and presume have two different meanings,,

Thanks for the grammar lesson but I'll stand behind what I wrote. You, on the other hand seem content to deflect review of what you wrote.

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.

You assumed it is not and it can't without any basis of fact.

 

[alang1216]

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?

Certainly the cells we see today were not the first life.