Makes Perfect Sense
We have often discussed the problem of “early complexity,” and how as we peer back in time—whether in the geographic strata or by phylogenetic reconstruct—things don’t get simpler. This makes no sense on evolution and this week’s news of a fossil specimen in northwest China, revealing and ancient, and highly complex, tree, just makes it worse. As one of the authors admitted:This raises a provoking question: why are the very oldest trees the most complicated?
Fortunately evolution is a fact.
Nothing makes sense on evolution. It's probably the biggest pile of pseudoscientific crap ever conjured up by humans.
ReplyDeleteHere's another question for the gutless dirt worshippers to chew on. How come the most complex species have the slowest reproductive rates? It should be other way around.
PS. to dirt worshippers. Don't answer the question. I don't want to hear it. Just pack it up your rear ends.
Oops! I forgot to laugh.
Deleteahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
"How come the most complex species have the slowest reproductive rates? It should be other way around."
DeleteVery, but very, interesting. I wish I knew some gutless dirt worshippers. Then I could ask them how come that a complex life form requires more time and energy to be developed, leaving little resources for faster reproductive rates. Clearly, it should be the other way around.
An authentic puzzle.
Louis is not interested in an answer, but I am. Any answers gutless dirt worshippers?
Louis is not interested in an answer, but I am. Any answers gutless dirt worshippers?
DeleteLOL. I know what the answer is. It's just not the kind of answer dirt worshipers (Darwinists) would accept. Dirt worshippers are know-nothing, gutless, lying jackasses.
“We have often discussed the problem of “early complexity,”“
ReplyDeleteAnd yet it is the evolutionary biologists who observe and publish these findings. And do the research to try to answer the questions that the observations raise. So much for the censorship conspiracy.
You are right. Evolutionary biologists must be given credit their research. The problem is that they then ridicule themselves by trying to fit these facts into their materialistic nonsense theory, aka, Darwinism.
DeleteWhy resort to “poof”, god did it when the data doesn’t require it?
DeleteThe data doesn't support natural selection doing it. The data doesn't support unguided evolution doing it.
DeleteSo why resort to those?
We can resort to an intelligent designer did it because the data does support it.
Joke: “The data doesn't support natural selection doing it.“
DeleteSadly, people more knowledgeable than you and I, disagree.
Sadly, people more knowledgeable than you and I, disagree.
DeleteEven more sad is those same people cannot demonstrate what they say. So no one cares if they disagree or not because they don't have any evidence to support their claims. If they did then peer-reviewed journals would be full of such demonstrations as opposed to being full of speculations based on the assumption.
And no one has ever demonstrated natural selection producing anything beyond a change in allele frequency. It doesn't matter that people disagree with that as they cannot demonstrate otherwise.
That is where you and I differ. I require evidence and you just blindly believe people that you think are some authority.
Joke G: And no one has ever demonstrated natural selection producing anything beyond a change in allele frequency.
DeleteWhich Joke G thinks is the same as allele wavelength. :D
Timmy thinks alleles have a wavelength. Talk about stupidity...
Delete"no one has ever demonstrated natural selection producing anything beyond a change in allele frequency"
DeleteI don't understand why we should be surprised or uncomfortable, or whatever, that natural selection does what natural selection is supposed to do by definition. Natural selection is a metaphor for the higher probability of survival of individuals with advantageous allies, and lower probability of survival for individuals with disadvantageous alleles.
If we found natural selection doing something other than what it stands for, then we would have quite a problem with our conceptual frameworks.
Wait, natural selection is supposed to be a designer mimic. That is what Darwin said and that is how it is being promoted today.
DeleteMerely changing allele frequency doesn't get you to a designer mimic.
Timmy:
ReplyDeletethinks is the same as allele wavelength
No, because I, unlike Timmy and Willie, understand that CONTEXT is important. And CONTEXT seems to be a word that those two evoTARDs cannot understand.
Evolutionary innovations are often kludges, which are later optimized and refined. In the case of the Devonian Cladoxylopsida, it's as if several trees are growing together, resulting in complication.
ReplyDeleteEvolutionary innovations are often kludges, which are later optimized and refined.
DeleteEvolutionism doesn't have a process capable of optimization. Natural selection isn't about optimization.
Several trees growiing togheter were selected and then the "refined" tree were selected again?
ReplyDeleteBlas: Several trees growiing togheter were selected and then the "refined" tree were selected again?
ReplyDeleteWell, at this point, no one knows the exact evolutionary history, but several trees joined together can grow taller than any single tree, allowing the plant to crowd out other plants.
several trees joined together can grow taller than any single tree
DeleteEvidence, please. Coastal redwoods are the tallest trees and they do not grow with several joined together
Well, at this point, no one knows the exact evolutionary history,
ReplyDeleteAt this point nobody knows if there is an evolutionary history.
but several trees joined together can grow taller than any single tree, allowing the plant to crowd out other plants.
But trees joined togheter is a rarity if it is better, if it is a reproductivity winner why the most of the trees are not trees joined togheter?
Blas: At this point nobody knows if there is an evolutionary history.
DeleteThe fossil record clearly shows an evolutionary history.
Blas: But trees joined togheter is a rarity if it is better, if it is a reproductivity winner why the most of the trees are not trees joined togheter?
These early complicated kludges were supplanted by more optimized and refined structures.
The fossil record clearly shows an evolutionary history.
DeleteIn your mind, perhaps.
These early complicated kludges were supplanted by more optimized and refined structures
What optimized and refined them? Show your work.
The fossil record clearly shows an evolutionary history.
ReplyDeleteNot clear enough if you can´t say if kludges followed refinements or/and viceversa.
These early complicated kludges were supplanted by more optimized and refined structures.
Then why first were selected kludges and after were selected refinements?
Blas: Not clear enough if you can´t say if kludges followed refinements or/and viceversa.
ReplyDeleteThe kludge must necessarily precede refinements to the kludge, of course.
Blas: Then why first were selected kludges and after were selected refinements?
Because kludges provide an evolutionary benefit. They are further refined for additional benefits.
What if the kludge is the refinement?
DeleteBecause kludges provide an evolutionary benefit.
What benefit? Show your work
Joke: “What benefit? Show your work.”
DeleteIn the immortal (and inane) words of Mapou:
“ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...”
Please correct me if I misquoted him or took him out of context.
Yes, willie, we all know that is the extent of your scientific knowledge. It is also the extent of Zachriel's scientific knowledge.
DeleteStrange how ignorance runs amok amongst evolutionists.
Zachriel :The kludge must necessarily precede refinements to the kludge, of course.
ReplyDeleteSo life started with a kludge?
Zachriel :Because kludges provide an evolutionary benefit. They are further refined for additional benefits.
What makes that this trees couldn´t get additional benefit refining their kludge?
Blas: So life started with a kludge?
DeletePossibly, but we were discussing the evolution of trees.
Blas: What makes that this trees couldn´t get additional benefit refining their kludge?
Huh? They did get additional benefits from refining the kludge.
Article:
ReplyDelete"The narrow strands were arranged in an organised fashion and were interconnected to each other like a finely tuned network of water pipes."
"The new discovery shows conclusively that the connections between each of the strands would split apart in a curiously controlled and self-repairing way to accommodate the growth."
"complex growth mechanisms that they employed."
Kludges?? Article doesn't suggest anything like that, quite the opposite.
"Rather than the tree laying down one growth ring under the bark every year, each of the hundreds of individual strands were growing their own rings, like a large collection of mini trees."
Delete