Anyone Still Believing in the Evolution Fraud Should Watch This

[progressive hunter]

Can you prove we didn't evolve from a common ancestor? Can you offer an alternative theory that you can prove?

its your claim so its on you to prove it,,

lack of an option doesnt even come close to making you right,,
evo can stand on its merits or it cant,, and it sounds like it cant,,

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

its your claim so its on you to prove it,,

It has been "proven" many times over.

If you are not convinced, that's your problem, at this point.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

After watching this, how can one think that evolution was random?

Just watch them.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Quite correct. It likely took billions of years for the cell we know to evolve.

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.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

"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.

You assume such things can "persist" for long enough to be useful, but they can't.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You assume such things can "persist" for long enough to be useful, but they can't.

Every shred of evidence shows they can and have. So this is a bizarre post by you that rightfully makes one wonder if you have run out of arguments and are now just being reflexively contrarian.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

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

No definition then?

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.

What's with the falsified baloney?

Do you not understand what SCOPE means?

The term "scope" does not appear in any definition of "falsification" I've ever seen. The inverse square law is incorrect and leads to an error in the calculated precession of the orbit of mercury. If I predict X yet we observe Y and the deviation is larger than the calculated margin for error, then my prediction is simply wrong and the process I used to make it stands falsified and the scientist begins seeking a better theory.

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

Speak for yourself

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.

Google is not an authoritative source of scientific information.

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.

You said "everything is alive", it isn't.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

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

There are countless more that require folding else they are ineffective or even toxic.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No definition then?

Correct. Any definition is arbitrary. You can invent "working definitions".

Like defining a human. To ask when the first human existed is a meaningless question.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If there is a Creator, evolution is the best explanation of how He creates.

Yes that's a fine idea, I had no problem with that, but there are things that defy naturalistic explanations, the absence of ancestral forms in the Cambrian fossil record is one example. If those diverse animals had evolved as we are told they did, we would not find what we do, the observations are completely inconsistent with the claims made by the evolution devotees.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes that's a fine idea, I had no problem with that, but there are things that defy naturalistic explanations, the absence of ancestral forms in the Cambrian fossil record is one example.

That does not in any way defy naturalistic observations. Fossils are rare. Also, the fossils of ancestors of the major phylum lines generally existed before the cambrian and are documented in the fossil record.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well then, where did 'first life' come from in your opinion? Where is your proof? So far, no one has been able to replicate the origin of life.

Did you see the James Tour challenge video? One doesn't need to be a chemist to grasp the kinds of serious problems he discusses, he challenged ten leading abiogenesis researchers and none of them were able to answer his questions. I'm no chemist but I am an engineer, I can grasp things at a general level even in an unfamiliar problem domain, I was a software project manager, I know how to manage and lead teams of experts and have helped such teams solve problems that they, despite their individual expertise could not solve.

Let me know and I'll repost it, it's extremely informative even to non-chemists.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

One doesn't need to be a chemist to grasp the kinds of serious problems he discusses

That's what he is counting on: Beguiling nonexperts with monetized youtube videos, instead of a formal dispute using published science.

Why doesn't he publish his science about these problems? Despite your deceptive attempt earlier, it is a fact that he has not done so.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I got his point, I just think he is completely wrong.

If someone made a claim about say general relativity and said of Einstein "I got his point, I just think he is completely wrong" and that person was not a mathematical physicist or applied mathematician, do you think he'd be taken very seriously by anyone other than cranks?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If someone made a claim about say general relativity and said of Einstein "I got his point, I just think he is completely wrong" and that person was not a mathematical physicist or applied mathematician, do you think he'd be taken very seriously by anyone other than cranks?

If someone made a monetized youtube video for nonscientists instead of publishing science, do you think he would be taken seriously by any scientist?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Not an accident, an example of evolution. As I recall there are similar, non-rotating structures and the loss of a single protein enables these structures to turn.

Any system capable of evolving is already unfathomably complex, to design and build a system capable of that kind of physical automatic self improvement is itself unattainable, this is what Tour speaks about, wakes people up to the reality, the scale of the difficulty.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Exactly.

There is no definable boundary that anyone can draw between the living and non-living.

All the nonsense about reproduction and respiration are just attributes, they don't define life.

Then stop breathing for an hour - please?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then stop breathing for an hour - please?

Wow, you're really not following at all, are you?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Any system capable of evolving is already unfathomably complex,

A cup of water is unfathomably complex, by the same standard.

This is specious appeal to emotion.

 

[alang1216]

its your claim so its on you to prove it,,

lack of an option doesnt even come close to making you right,,
evo can stand on its merits or it cant,, and it sounds like it cant,,

Can I prove my claim? No. Is there abundant evidence from multiple scientific disciplines? Yes.

Lack of an alternative theory is just more evidence. “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth” is a quote by Sherlock Holmes.