Good point. Allah rearranged the planet and moved rocks around, with fossils in them, to make it look like evolution exactly.
Whatever you offer as proof of evolution, l will demolish on scientific grounds. That’s a promise. The only exception is nylonase so far, which l can argue against but it’s a long arduous process and basically in all the world, that’s all you have so far. except may be a recent update l got from the MHRC in the UK which shows a newly discovered self replicating RNA molecule QT45 which l don’t fully understand as l’m a bit rusty. Scientists’ chemical breakthrough sheds light on origins of life – UKRI
OK you are intimating to me that you have no followup re: palaeontology, all you can do is literally hurl rocks at me for questioning your clerics.
You are intimating to me that you are scared to venture out of Plato’s Cave as to you l am an outsider, a foreigner, Wælisc as the old German goes (Foreigner, becoming the ethnonym Welsh or the insult “foolish”). You mistrust me and throw stones at me from within Plato’s cave.
Okay. Evolution is one of the most thoroughly proven ideas ever. Give your single best argument against it so we can have a laugh.
Evolution by gene mutation depends on natural mutations in DNA, which are then inherited. BUT:
- Natural mutations in DNA do not give new functionality. They give neutral or negative effect (e.g. cancer). We have ample abservations from thousands of generations of bacteria bred in the lab, billions of blades of grass etc. etc. Yes, there is natural selection, where a moth of a dark hue becomes camouflaged against soot-balckened tree bark during the industrial revolution, whereas the white hued variant becomes rich pickings for birds. However, the black and white forms already existed. Nothing new under the sun.
- Also, for a mutation to be inherited it would need to occur in sex cells (gametes).
- Also just because a creature gains an ability within their lifespan, there’s no way to pass that ability to the next generation - you becoming a good driver, is not heritable.
- Also, l want to fly. I need to fly. I really really need to fly. If l could fly, l would be more successful at breeding as l could carry females away to my nest and have many offspring with them. If l had a long beak or breathed fire, l could also kill the females’ protectors and kill competitors for breeding rights. So in all this, where are my wings? Where is my sharp pointy beak? Where is my dragonfire? Evolution promises me this. But you see, evolution is a naturalistic process and as such would be blind. It is a logical fallacy to say evolution wants something.
This is way off topic btw
1-3. Lots of mutations all at once can give new functionality, that’s just extremely rare. Some species are virtually unchanged since tens or hundreds of millions of years, even though the entire planet is the laboratory. Science would need to be extremely lucky to reproduce that.
4. Evolution doesn’t want anything, it’s simply how the past on this planet happened.
Also, for example the human DNA is said to have 8% viral origin, we didn’t acquire that through gene mutations. One species’s DNA segment can be inserted into another species’s DNA. Maybe not just with viruses can that happen.
Lots of mutations happening all at once … show me?
Giving new functionality too? Show me.
Science needs to be extremely lucky to reproduce that? No, l said observe it not reproduce it and no it wouldn’t need to be extremely lucky. A single petri dish can contain bacterial cells. Multiply by no. of petri dishes in a study. Multiple that by no. of bacterial generations. Multiply that by the no. of studies across the globe etc. Add all the other studies of all the other cells that weren’t even looking for mutations but were just studying other stuff. Show me where the helpful mutations are. There are actually a few purported. You can read about it all here: Evolution is Actually Disproved (even though God & Atheism are Unfalsifiable)
Also you’re welcome to join that thread.
As for human DNA purported to have 8% viral origin, that is all backstory and thus circular argument i.e. it must have happened so, you know, it happened, see?
Recombinant DNA is not actually new genes. I’m talking de novo genes.
Yes science would have to be extremely lucky. That’s just simple maths. Bacterial cells had access to the Earth’s surface for hundreds of millions / billions of years. Petri dishes are countless orders of magnetude smaller in space and countless orders of magnetude smaller in time.
To think that you have “actually disproven” evolution with your thread shows that your 2 alleged degrees aren’t real degrees.
Facepalm. Space? Whut? Bacteria got space aplenty in a petri dish. Time? They can do about 7 generations in a day. That’s like from the Founding Fathers to the present almost.
Admit you’re blagging / “winging it”. You have no scientific background and you’re taking stuff on fiat.
Well you surely have no scientific background, you’re blagging / “winging it”.
For fun, I had a chatbot calculate how much bigger the real world evolution laboratory was in the past (space * time), than one of these petri dish experiments.
It says the difference is roughly 29 orders of magnitude. 
I’m not asking you to try to wrap your head around that, we don’t want to make Allah angry.
You think l don’t know the size of the earth compared to a petri dish?
Okay this is just getting silly now. I want you to have something challenging to say. That hasn’t yet happened. It is unlikely to happen given your cyclic stone throwing (at least i hope that’s stones) at me from within Plato’s Cave. Peace
What part of this…
…that you didn’t quite understand?
And how about we delve a little deeper into the implications of this…
seeds wrote:
…a “block universe” theoretically suggests that…
(like accessing any chapter or scene in a movie encoded on the surface of the DVD)
…you could interpolate yourself into any point in the past, present, and future simply by somehow accessing the field of information that underpins the structures of reality that the information represents.
For those who have trouble imagining things, what that implies is that (theoretically) you (that’s YOU - via some sort of future scientific magic) could insert your present self (body/mind) into the field of information (located somewhere within the block) and be present in the same room where you were being born and then strangle the little booger (YOU) before it (again, YOU) had a chance to take your second breath.
And seeing how you could repeat the process of killing yourself at any stage of your existence…
(which again, “theoretically,” would be accessible in near infinite iterations of yourself somewhere in the informational field of the block)
…we are thus talking about some alternate version of the ol’ grandfather paradox (but on steroids).
That’s the problem with hardcore materialism; it mistakenly presumes that the (unmeasurable) human mind (“I Am-ness” / “soul” / “consciousness”) is on a par with (no more substantial than) a (measurable) photon or electron and can therefore be included into whatever equation represents the theoretically proposed “universal wave function”…
AI Overview
The universal wave function (or wavefunction of the universe) is a theoretical quantum state, denoted as |Ψ⟩, that describes the entire universe as a single, isolated quantum system. Proposed by Hugh Everett III, it aims to describe all past, present, and future states, acting as a foundational concept in quantum cosmology and the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
…when, in fact, other than God himself (herself / itself), the (unmeasurable) human soul is the most important and substantial phenomenon that the universe (God’s “cosmic womb”) is capable of producing, for it (the human soul) is the familial replication of God herself (himself / itself).
1 Like
It just doesn’t explain the relative short timeframe we have form multicellular sentient beings to develop from the elements.
1 Like
Why are about 10 billion years of cosmic evolution + 3.5-4 billion years of life evolution short?
The consistency of natural laws is one of the deepest “why” questions in philosophy and science, often called the intelligibility of the universe. Physical laws appear consistent and invariant across space and time, because that’s the empirical foundation of science itself: repeatable experiments yield predictable outcomes, from gravity’s pull to quantum probabilities. Without this regularity, no causation, no evolution, no inquiry would be possible.
Science describes how laws govern, but not why. Science excels at modelling laws’ consequences (e.g., why they yield life’s chemistry) but stalls at their origin or necessity. It reminds me of the humorous story of the little girl busy painting and asked, “What are you painting?”
“God!” she says.
“But nobody knows what God looks like!” came the protest.
“They soon will!” she replies.
This mirrors thinkers such as Kierkegaard, who valued the leap of faith over exhaustive reason, and artists such as William Blake, whose visions of the divine defied empirical proof. The cosmic questions are similar: ‘Why are the laws of nature primed for life?’ The girl’s retort reminds us that the ultimate answers may not come from telescopes or equations, but from the same unapologetic human drive to reveal meaning.
When we ask, “Is that long enough for sentient multicellular life to emerge somewhere, at least in principle?” the empirical answer from Earth’s history is yes. However, this is based on the assumption that, since we are sentient multicellular life, it must be possible. It’s like winners of a lottery claiming that the odds were fine while ignoring the billions of non-winning tickets (extinct lineages and sterile planets). Earth’s history shows one success story, but not that such successes are common or inevitable elsewhere.
This brings us to ‘hard steps’ models: while abiogenesis might occur quickly once the right conditions are in place (as on early Earth), eukaryogenesis, sexual recombination and brain-like computation could be extremely rare, with probabilities of 1 in a billion years per planet. We are late in our habitable era, partly because intelligence requires overcoming those improbabilities over geological time.
Earth’s timeline confirms that sentient life can arise naturally within cosmic constraints. However, this neither proves that unguided processes suffice everywhere, nor does it eliminate the possibility of an intentional setup. The anthropic lens can explain our observations without the need for design. However, a designer could still have predetermined the laws, constants and probabilities to produce observers like us on schedule. Rare hard steps may reflect calibrated rarity rather than chance.
1 Like
Ah, you meant the relative short timeframe within infinite possibilities. Say 1 in 10^50 or 1 in 10^100 or 1 in 10^1000 or whatever different universes can host sentient life, the rest can’t. We happen to be in that one.
And even within that one universe, we seem to have taken one of the shortest possible paths from a very homogeneous initial state (such as the Big Bang or whatever) to sentient life.
Yes in that sense these 13-14 billion years were “short”. And of course evolution can’t explain the greater picture, that’s speculative philosophy.
I wouldn’t call this path short, I would rather call it minimalist. We seem to be looking at a rather minimal path to sentient life, within the infinite possibilities. Not just to sentient, but to intelligent life with a technological civilization.
Yes I consider this “minimalism” to be maybe the most important hint that guides us further as we try to answer the why.
Anything is possible, but this idea is weak for the same reason that any designer idea is weak: a designer with such immense powers would be even far more improbable than the world we live in.
It is still on the table and possibly not the designer that you are imagining. People tend to focus on what is loudest and forget that other possibilities could still run under the same label.
I’ve considered every version of designer I could think of, thank you.
The best hope for the deisgner idea is that if cosmic probabilities work in a weird way: very complex things are just as likely or more likely, than simple things.
I agree, you have indeed.