Refuting Evolution

[pocaracas]

Look at it this way: most harmful mutations didn't propagate to the whole species and, since only less than 1% of the species population becomes a fossil, the odds of finding such a fossil are extremely low.
You practically only get fossils from members of the established population.... the ones that got some beneficial mutation.
Here's a nice link to start learning about it: Fossilization processes

[paulpablo]

Where are the billions and billions of Mutated (wrongly developed) species????

Dead. Evolution works because those that aren't successful don't pass on their genes therefore don't live.

[Tiberius]

Look at it this way: most harmful mutations didn't propagate to the whole species and, since only less than 1% of the species population becomes a fossil, the odds of finding such a fossil are extremely low.
You practically only get fossils from members of the established population.... the ones that got some beneficial mutation.
Here's a nice link to start learning about it: Fossilization processes

That, and the fact that mutations happen on a genetic level, and the harmful ones aren't always going to have a some physical feature that is preserved in fossilization.

[Angrboda]

In your own words, explain what a "stochastic process" is. Then, again in your own words, explain what a "random stochastic process" is.

[Minimalist]

(Human are an exception of course)

I agree. Idiots like you haven't evolved at all.

[Angrboda]

Refutation I

The strongest and most spelling refutation will be..................................

My proof of God existence

Shall we revisit that proof?

Part II
Then to prove the necessity for a creator
Assuming that Existence E=U+G where U is the universe and G is another object/deity (which can be 0 )
(E = Existence, U=Known Universe, G=something external to the universe)
According to Axiom 1; the universe states are dynamic not constant
As the universe is part of the existence (or all of it) then Existence is dynamic as well (i.e. can be represented by a function)
E(t)=U(t)+G

In addition as proved time itself had a start which means that that the universe state U(0) was not a function at all it was either nothing or a constant; taking Limit as t-->0 U=C or U= 0
As U(0) was constant then G must exist and be dynamic as well G≠0 Ʌ G=G(p)
The correct formula should be E(t,p)=T U(t)+G(p); p is another parameter that changes the states of G
A complete Universe function must include another parameter to change from constant to dynamic at t=0 E(0,p)=C+G(p)
It should be E(t,p)=T U(t)+G(p)
G must exist and did created/changed the universe at its beginning
We can call this parameter the actions of a creator (G)

(This part is a proof by contradiction, based on the definition of
static vs. dynamic (constant vs. variable))

Asserting that U(0) was either nothing or a constant is incorrect. U(0) is technically undefined, mathematically speaking, as there is no possible state of U such that there exists a U(t) which is equivalent to your hypothetical interpretation of the meaning of U(0). Since the rest follows from assuming that U(0) is defined and has a value, the rest is simply wrong. Even if your assumptions were valid (they aren't; see uniformitarianism), your make-believe mathematical interpretations aren't correct either physically or mathematically.

Thank you, and have a nice day.

[pocaracas]

apo, you think he'll get it this time?

[downbeatplumb]

He probably doesn't even read the replies.

He will just declare himself the winner.

[Minimalist]

Assuming that Existence E=U+G where U is the universe and G is another object/deity (which can be 0 )

You know what, abdul? E = U and doesn't need your fucking G which then does not have to be 0.

Your error is in the first word. You have no basis for such assumptions.

[Esquilax]

Evolutionists brained washed you by claiming that all non-beneficial mutations are Fatal ones, in other words "Don't look for them"

The truth is that
If Evolution happened (UN-Intelligently) then the number of Fossils showing the other groups should be an order of magnitude of fossils showing beneficial mutations.

What are you talking about? There are species alive today that have harmful or less optimal features developed through evolution. Hell, the nerves in the human spine aren't configured properly for upright motion, they're still in positions more suited to quadrupedal movement. Our eyes are the same, there's countless technical flaws there. The flanges in our feet are fused toward the outside, so our little toes are near useless for balance, hinting at their evolutionary origin. A little change in some of our joints would almost eliminate our propensity for arthritis.

So it's not that evolutionary biologists don't look for harmful mutations, it's that you are an ignorant fucker who hasn't bothered to do any fucking research before arrogantly deciding he knows more than people who study this stuff for decades.

Are we clear on this?

As there is almost none, there is no even a slight probability that evolution (if it happened at all) is Intelligent.

It's called evolutionary baggage, you arrogant fuckstain, and here's some examples of it. Now go right ahead and fuck yourself, 'cause we done here.