File: qaBYfun4Bi8DG5erojHuHd.jpg (311.6 KB)

Leaf bugs disprove evolution

>>16996053
retard thread

>>16996067
just because you're here?

>>16996053
>extremely primitive life can't just pop into existence therefore we need an absurdly complex creator who just pooped into existence

>>16996080
>extremely primitive life
(You) can't even create a grain of barley, IFLS fag.

>>16996080
>therefore we need an absurdly complex creator who just pooped into existence
Incorrect, The Creator has always existed and will always exist. He exists outside of space and time and is not bound by the constraints you and I are. It's core to the philosophy of creation which you have failed to grasp. The Creator did not "just pop into existence" It's more correct to say "existence exists as a by product of The Creator."

>>16996108
Why not apply that idea to the universe? Time isn't real. The universe is a timeless 4 dimensional block and it happens that there I lifeforms in that block who hallucinate the appearance of time.
Why go the extra step?

>>16996110
The universe is 3D with a 4D over-environment layer called time.

>>16996080
>fallacy of excluded middle

>>16996107
Barley isn't primitive.

>>16996080
>complex creator
Actually, God is simple.

It destroys the ability to interact with other life (reproduce)

>>16996053
>Time and mutation cannot create anything, they can only destroy.
you made that up

>>16996242
it follows directly from the involved odds

if you start with a book and letters are randomly replaced, it won't turn into a better book but gibberish
selection is not nearly strong enough to counter this because the odds are astronomical

>>16996256
Now imagine a randomly generated book where anything comprehensible is selectively retained while the gibberish is free to randomize freely. Now imagine millions of these books are going though the same process at the same time: anything legible is retained, gibberish keeps randomizing.
And these millions of books are crossing the legible bits with each other while this selection process is happening.

You won't end up with a masterpiece, but the overall legibility increases at an exponential rate.

File: 1749732511245003.jpg (281.5 KB)

>>16996256
Yes, that's where the selection part comes in. Are you seriously this retarded? Or just trolling?

Or, imagine that every path is taken somewhere. If a path leads to life it will be taken, and the life will then be complaining about it.

>>16996291
>>16996279
You talk about this as if 30% of mutations are beneficial and a fine-grained, controlled exchange of genetic elements depending on their fitness is possible. This is not the case. Selection after an individual and a new genome has been formed will never be enough.
But this isn't even the point. The existence of orphan genes is the point.

>this mathematically nonsensical theory would work if the math weren't nonsensical
yeah

>>16996291
these people are actually just retarded

all we can do is ignore them and hope they die soon

>>16996053
>Time and mutation cannot create anything, they can only destroy
what the fuck does that even mean?

>>16996300
You don't even know what this thread is about.
Go on, explain where orphan genes come from.
Explain why you think the argument in the link is invalid. You can't, because you believe in lies.
>>16996301
Do you believe bitflips will improve a computer program?

>>16996301
it's cope for fringe religious lunatics. It's not based on anything in reality.

>>16996306
Do you believe everything life does is to improve the lifeform with some kind of omniscient view of the future? Life has no idea what it's doing, it's a brute force search algorithm. You're one of the branches. If you die, other branches continue.

>>16996306
>Do you believe bitflips will improve a computer program?
A single bitflip? Probably not.
But if you had a process by which the programs with the flipped bits could replicate and acquire additional bitflips while under some form of selective pressure? Sure.

>>16996299
>>16996306
Orphan genes were one specific example listed by the OP among other examples of things he's too stupid to understand. Acting like any comment that doesn't explicitly explain orphan genes is off topic is disingenuous.

Anyway, orphan genes can be explained by gene duplication, rapid alteration from various sources, and/or ancestral genes dying off. It's not that puzzling.

>>16996066
*disproves neo-darwinism

>>16996279
>where anything comprehensible is selectively retained
by what

>>16996388
Natural selection.

>>16996390
a book?

>>16996398
for a book, I mean.

>>16996398
Obviously the book analogy breaks down at that point. But that's a problem with the analogy, not the principle.

>>16996402
but it still begs the question how natural selection kickstarted the process to begin with, assuming the absolute earliest stages of life was akin to a "book" aka static bundles of information.

>>16996405
We don't know exactly what the earliest stages of life were like, but once you have some chemical composition capable of self replication with variation then all the selection principles previously outlined apply. A book does not self-replicate which is precisely why the analogy breaks down.

>>16996066
They don’t

File: Dorudon.jpg (33.4 KB)

>>16996053
But whales have legs