Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

I think my creative ability is natural and uses the atoms in my brain.

God wants to be ignored, therefore. How He must hate you bursting His cover... :-)

Honestly, why would any creator hide his work? Makes no sense.

Do you think your creative ability is caused by the atoms in your brain, or do the atoms in your brain cause you to have intelligence?

That's a false alternative, like your previous attempt also was...

A proof or disproof is a kind of a transaction. There is no such thing as absolutely proving or disproving something; there is only such a thing as proving or disproving something to SOMEBODY'S satisfaction. If the party of the second part is too thick or too ideologically committed to some other way of viewing reality, then the best proof in the world will fall flat and fail.

In the case of evolution, what you have is a theory which has been repeatedly and overwhelmingly disproved over a period of many decades now via a number of independent lines reasoning and yet the adherents go on with it as if nothing had happened and, in fact, demand that the doctrine be taught in public schools at public expense and that no other theory of origins even ever be mentioned in public schools, and attempt to enforce all of that via political power plays and lawsuits.

At that point, it is clear enough that no disproof or combination of disproofs would ever suffice, that the doctrine is in fact unfalsifiable and that Carl popper's criteria for a pseudoscience is in fact met.

Once again for anybody who may have missed this earlier:


The educated lay person is not aware of how overwhelmingly evolution has been debunked over the last century.

The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:

The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s. Those tests were intended to demonstrate macroevolution; the failure of those tests was so unambiguous that a number of prominent scientists disavowed evolution at the time.

The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen...)

The fact that the info code explained the failure of the fruit-fly experiments (the whole thing is driven by information and the only info there ever was in that picture was the info for a fruit fly...)

The discovery of bio-electrical machinery within 1-celled animals.

The question of irreducible complexity.

The Haldane Dilemma. That is, the gigantic spaces of time it would take to spread any genetic change through an entire herd of animals.

The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs. This includes soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, good radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains (blind tests at the University of Georgia's dating lab), and native American petroglyphs clearly showing known dinosaur types.

The fact that the Haldane dilemma and the recent findings related to dinosaurs amount to a sort of a time sandwich (evolutionites need quadrillions of years and only have a few tens of thousands).

The dna analysis eliminating neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.

The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types. "Punctuated Equilibria" in fact amounts to an attempt to get around both the Haldane dilemma and the lack of intermediate fossils, but has an entirely new set of overwhelming problems of its own...

The question of genetic entropy.

The obvious evidence of design in nature.

The arguments arising from pure probability and combinatoric considerations.


Here's what I mean when I use the term "combinatoric considerations"...

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, the specialized system which allows flight feathers to pivot so as to open on upstrokes and close to trap air on downstrokes (like a venetian blind), a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

I ask you: What could be stupider than that?


Fruit flies breed new generations every few days. Running a continuous decades-long experiment on fruit flies will involve more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of anything resembling humans on Earth. Evolution is supposed to be driven by random mutation and natural selection; they subjected those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations and recombined the mutants every possible way, and all they ever got was fruit flies.

Richard Goldschmidt wrote the results of all of that up in 1940, noting that it was then obvious enough that no combination of mutation and selection could ever produce a new kind of animal.

There is no excuse for evolution to ever have been taught in schools after 1940.

This exactly describes Gunga Dim and his denial of any science which is not a pseudo-science from the fringes of the internet. It nicely accounts for all of the hilarious bullsh*t that he touts here.

Apart from that, this appears to be some IDiotic screed that he has copied and pasted from some IDiot web page. I don't for a moment believe that he wrote this himself, although he may had modified it from the source.

you're right. Do you think the movement of the atoms of your brain causes your intelligence, or does your intelligence cause your atoms to move in your brain.

IMO, both statements are true: matter gets to spring up the mind, and mind gets written down on matter.

But how is that topical?

I don't think you can prove what you believe scientifically. There is evidence that people's minds are not physical and are something different from their bodies. That would mean intelligence is the cause of your ideas, and your mind uses your body to convey ideas.

If gunga is so dim witted, why don't you simply refute a few of his points?

These are theological questions, but I'll go there if you want.

God does not want to be ignored, he wants to be discovered. I can not blow his cover because he is hiding in plain sight, both materially and metaphorical. The problems with evolution and existence itself are obvious to anyone who seriously considers and studies it rather than just taking it as truth based on what 'authorities' say.

God's existence is hidden in plain sight within each of us. At best, I can only urge others to look there. I'm not even very good at that since I tend to come off as an egotistical know it all.

The theological reason for God wanting you to discover him rather than making himself physically obvious and undeniable has to do with free will. There is no way you could have that with a God breathing down your neck. He wants no negative factors like fear or coercion involved in your decision to seek him. There will be no draftees in his kingdom, only volunteers who answered the call they felt within.

Sorry but you come across a bit confused... OF COURSE I can't "prove scientifically" my beliefs about the relations between body and mind, because so far science has not understood much about the relations between body and mind. What I believe in this case is just a guess, just as what you believe is just a guess.

I have no problem with the hypothesis that my mind uses my body to communicate. But vice versa, my body (and more generally material things) does seem to determine what my mind can do: eg without a coffee in the morning I'm pretty useless. Si I do believe that it's a two way street between body and mind. To assume that it's always the mind bossing matter, or vice versa always matter bossing the mind, strikes me as counter-intuitive.

The Guy, as you describe Him, is too complicated for my taste. I'm a simple man. I play hide and seek with kids only, not with putative divinities. If He wants to be hidden, I respect His wishes and won't seek Him out, and if He wants to be discovered, He's welcome to show Himself. The ball is in His court.

So, if your mind can boss around the matter in your brain, why can't there be a mind that bossed around matter in DNA during evolution? It fits the pattern doesn't it?

Well... DNA in itself is already information bossing matter. No need to invent any god. But yes of course it is possible that some gods oriented or nudged evolution. The question is: how would anyone know for sure that it happened?

Another question would be: why would a deity do it, and why would it limit itself (or themselves) to nudging evolution here or there, as opposed to designing brand new organisms with, say, 5 legs, 3 ears and seven fingers?

Why is there a process of evolution? Why can't your gods invent all the species all at once?

Why are they no mammal with feathers, no fish with hands, no bird with four legs and two wings? Why stick to the same basic design all the time? Your gods lack imagination?

The idea of an intelligent designer behind evolution sounds improbable because so much in life is recycled, reused oportunistically. Just like if there was no designer and nature had to slowly, slowly build upon the past...

Then I have utterly failed, because my intention was to show how simple his reality is.

God wants your willing and un coerced love and company.
Everything else is corollary.

Couldn't resist commenting on this.
That is one of my questions about evolution. There is too much consistency in biological architecture for it to be driven by random change. There should be even more diversity than there is. These bi-limbs with five digits smack of design. Even neutral traits with no purpose or detriment should be much more prevalent if random mutations are the driver. And surely a third eye in the back would have been handy for avoiding predictors way back when.

If evolution were the sole driver, I would have expected something like 'Alien' to have evolved. Either that or the earth covered in a slime mold capable of metabolizing raw minerals. That would be the most logical outcome, not creatures debating the theological implications of existence on the Internet.

No gods, just nature.

Couldn't resist commenting on your comment.
Multiple 'eyed' organisms and asymmetric structures in biology are well known despite some being short lived. And pessimistically, we indeed may be no more than a complex slime mold engaged in a relatively sophisticated form of interrelationship compared to other species. In cosmological terms, humans have just arrived' and how long we ' will stay' is somewhat debateable
given the prevalence of less sophisticated aspects of our relationships !

Oh he's got my company alright. I'm right here. As for my love, i love his supposed creation and that's already quite a feat, why with all the natural disasters and diseases he made... :-)