Thread: God and DNA

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

I never claimed anything at all. You are making that all up. I am whatever you say I am.

C'mon man, don't be so modest. You found all the holes in evolution. You put every scientist on the planet to shame. You shattered one of the most popular, evidence-supported theories in history! You even said it yourself -- scientists are retards. Now where's that energetic, pre-deflation Chayba we all know and love?

Let me sum up my argumentation and the logical fallacies I'm trying to point out in the evolution theory. If you already replied to the arguments, there is no point in replying again.



1. The mere notion of "random" is going against the very first premise of science, that the universe follows a fixed set of laws. And the very goal of science, is to figure out this fixed set of laws, it is to figure out randomness and choas. So I hope you see, that labeling anything "random" is going against the very goal of science. The very goal of science, is to explain random. So if you use random as an explanation, you are going against science. You are going against the concept of causality.


2. There is no physical evidence whatsoever of gradual trans-species evolution. There is only evidence of intra-species evolution.All so called evidence for gradual evolution has missing links, without any single exception. For a scientific theory to be valid, it requires emperical evidence. Sure you can claim it is impossible to provide complete geological evidence, yet this doesn't take away the fact, that there is no evidence, and it only supports my point. If it is impossible to provide complete geological evidence, than this is not a valid scientific theory, as a scientific theory requires emperical evidence. This is the scientific method. This is why evolution theory is going against science.


3. The mathematical possibility of DNA being generated at randomly, is near zero. This has already been mathematically evidenced by using the infinite monkey theory

"Even if the observable universe were filled with monkeys typing from now until the heat death of the universe, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. As Kittel and Kroemer put it, "The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event…", and the statement that the monkeys must eventually succeed "gives a misleading conclusion about very, very large numbers." This is from their textbook on thermodynamics, the field whose statistical foundations motivated the first known expositions of typing monkeys.[3]"

Infinite monkey theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On this page, you have mathematical proof. Ignoring mathematical proof is going against science. Yet this is what evolution theory is doing and claiming. It is based on a mathematical impossibility. That is why evolution theory is going against science.


4. Instant proof: Try generating a sentence that actually makes sense

Random Mutation Generator







These are the points I wish to discuss. If you already given your opinion on them, there is no need to repeat it. I have read it, and I have kept them in my mind, and I am considering them. But right now at this moment, I haven't read any convincing counter-arguments. If you already tried to counter this, do not try again as this would lead into pointless repeating and going in circles. I am only interesed in new arguments. I do very much realize there are people out there who think all my arguments are "bullshit". If you believe I am not making any logical sense, and that my arguments are "bullshit", I suggest you simply ignore them. I only accept logical argumentation, I do not accept arguments ad hominem.

If you disagree with my way of discussing, just ignore me like I don't even exist. If you already replied to these arguments, ignore them, as if they don't exist.

Yay! Reposts! Arguments that good need to be reposted, amirite?

Originally Posted by chaybachayba

the infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of william shakespeare.

omg ur rite best argument eva

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

If you honestly believe I have no concept of logic, why even bother discussing with me?

What can I say, I'm a masochist.

How exaclty is this logical? It is you who is abandoning logic for the sake of defending your ego, you are attacking my person, you are using an argument ad hominem, which is a logical fallacy.

I don't think I need to defend my ego from you.

Also: "The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy,[2] but it is not always fallacious. For in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue." Your personal conduct and character has been questioned many times in this thread. Now, if I called you a retard (a title you so beautifully applied to yourself, oddly enough), that would be an ad hominem.

But the mere fact, that we are able to understand eachother, the mere fact, that we are able to communicate is proof that we both posses logic. How can you even deny this?

I can deny it quite easily. The mere fact that we are able to understand each other shows that we both know how to read and formulate responses.

It's making me sad you choose pride over reason. I believe every human being is capable of logic, which has been evidenced by Plato: he made an illiterate slave proof the theorem of pythogaros through question and answer.

It seems to me that you're the only one choosing pride over reason here. For one, you've not only shown a devastating misunderstanding of evolution, but the theory of gravity as well. It's almost like you realized you got in too deep and instead of disappearing or admitting you are in fact wrong, decided to stick around to save face.

I suggest, if you truly believe that I make no sense whatsoever, and am incapable of logic, that in the future, you simply ignore my posts. Problem solved.

Or you can just follow the advice I implied to above and do one of two things: realize you don't understand the topics being discussed and quit while you're behind, or take up a brief education in such topics.

1.- I think someone explained this, that random is "not having enough information to predict the outcome". You see, this means that despite the universe working for a set of laws, as long as we don't know them good enough as to predict the outcome of something, it can be called random.

2.- You are saying there is NO? Or you mean that there is not ENOUGH? Because the fossil records is proof, maybe it isn't enough for you, but thats another story.

3.- You said "near zero" right? That is higher than zero and means it can happen. You know, that probability isn't so low when you use it on something as big as the universe. Even less if you use an infinite amount of time.

4.- Got "Do I?" In only 98 attempts! Which means in small steps, it can be done.

1. My point is that the very goal of science is to figure out random, so calling something random is pretty pointless.
2. The fossil record is limited. Scientific theories require complete scientific evidence. This is not my choice, that's just how science works.
3. If you would check out the page, there is mathematical proof that it can never happen.
4. Ok, but the 97 attempts before that, failed, which would make your sentence extinct. You shouldn't even be able to arrive at your 98th attempt. It's like claiming nature had to do 98 attempts before it arrived at a good mutation, but if you would consider that, the previous attempts would have to be a failure, and you couldn't possibly arrive at the next attempts as they would have been extinct by natural selection. So how exactly would an extinct organism evolve into the next mutation? Shouldn't all your attempts be a correct sentence, or the organism would not be able to survive at all? It would be deformed etc..

Thanks for your reply, you made pretty good arguments and I might change my mind on them

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

3. If you would check out the page, there is mathematical proof that it can never happen.

What the hell is wrong with you? Are you mentally insane? There is a mathematical proof that given unlimited time it will always happen. That is the whole point of the infinite monkeys argument.

4. Ok, but the 97 attempts before that, failed, which would make your sentence extinct. You shouldn't even be able to arrive at your 98th attempt. It's like claiming nature had to do 98 attempts before it arrived at a good mutation, but if you would consider that, the previous attempts would have to be a failure, and you couldn't possibly arrive at the next attempts as they would have been extinct by natural selection. So how exactly would an extinct organism evolve into the next mutation? Shouldn't all your attempts be a correct sentence, or the organism would not be able to survive at all? It would be deformed etc..

Good thing that in any given random population, you have a huge sum of individuals all developing different mutations. Good thing that the good mutations get passed on and the weak ones die out. Good thing your argument is invalid, or else we wouldn't be here today.

Thanks for your reply, you made pretty good arguments and I might change my mind on them

Those are the exact same arguments we've been giving you this whole time.

But... DNA strands are not editions of Hamlet, and particle collisions are not monkeys pressing 1,000 keys per second. Why do you think the numbers are the same for these utterly different things? It's the most retarded thing I've ever heard, except all the other things you've said.

So, no answer?

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Listen to yourself Xei... OMG YOURE SUCH A FUCKING RETARD EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS SO RETARDED YET I KEEP ARGUING WITH YOU FOR 17 PAGES LONG OMG YOU RETARDED MOTERFUCKER!!! STOP BEING RETARDED OR I WILL COME TO YOUR HOUSE AND BEAT THE RETARDATION OUT OF YOU!

Nerdrage ftw.

1.- Ah well yeah, but I have an easier time saying random than saying "that set of laws we don't understand yet have a probability of x/y".

2.- Oh, indeed it is limited, but that doesn't means that the evidence is non-existant. That might be how science works, but that is when we have access to the full record. For example, lets say that you are watching a TV program, where people are asked questions to win money and have to compete against each other, but you turned the TV on half-way and don't know who answered best. Here you are shown the amount of money people have won, based on that you can determine who has answered the most, right? Sometimes, we don't have access to the full record and need to use other methods to make a theory and try to prove it.

3.- The page says that the probability is so low, that it can as well be considered 0, or in other words, if we have 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000001, it can be considered as 0. Yes, that would mean it is impossible, but for that to be applicable you need a set amount of time and tries, if you can try this to infinity the number is no longer considered too low to count and is now nearly 0, but won't = 0. I would quote, but too lazy. The text is giving the limits, it says that from start to end of universe, with a number of monkeys equals to the atoms in the universe, to get a whole book of Hamlet is 0, note how they took infinity out of the equation to make it 0.

4.- Ah, I see the problem here, you see, for that to be applicable to mutations, extinction and evolution, you need to add way more variables, it can't be worked just like that. Of course the probability becomes lower when you take the variables out, but that wouldn't be fair for evolution theory, now would it?

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Let me sum up my argumentation and the logical fallacies I'm trying to point out in the evolution theory. If you already replied to the arguments, there is no point in replying again.



1. The mere notion of "random" is going against the very first premise of science, that the universe follows a fixed set of laws. And the very goal of science, is to figure out this fixed set of laws, it is to figure out randomness and choas. So I hope you see, that labeling anything "random" is going against the very goal of science. The very goal of science, is to explain random. So if you use random as an explanation, you are going against science. You are going against the concept of causality.

Where did you get the idea that everything in science was fixed and predictable? The idea that everything has a purpose is a distinctly religious point of view.

Uncertainty principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chaos theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A noteworthy quote in the chaos theory page:

Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

2. There is no physical evidence whatsoever of gradual trans-species evolution. There is only evidence of intra-species evolution.All so called evidence for gradual evolution has missing links, without any single exception. For a scientific theory to be valid, it requires emperical evidence. Sure you can claim it is impossible to provide complete geological evidence, yet this doesn't take away the fact, that there is no evidence, and it only supports my point. If it is impossible to provide complete geological evidence, than this is not a valid scientific theory, as a scientific theory requires emperical evidence. This is the scientific method. This is why evolution theory is going against science.

Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If a timeline of fossils from the earliest bacteria all the way up to modern humans isn't "trans-species" enough for you, I don't know what is...

3. The mathematical possibility of DNA being generated at randomly, is near zero. This has already been mathematically evidenced by using the infinite monkey theory

Infinite monkey theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On this page, you have mathematical proof. Ignoring mathematical proof is going against science. Yet this is what evolution theory is doing and claiming. It is based on a mathematical impossibility. That is why evolution theory is going against science.

What mathematical formula are you using to come to this conclusion? What are the variables? I want you to post the exact equation you're using, it should only take a line or two.

4. Instant proof: Try generating a sentence that actually makes sense

Random Mutation Generator

Nice, a website designed and programed by proponents of intelligent design that wants you to give them your email so they can sign you up on some "course"...

A sentence of words has no commonality with a living organism, I don't know how to put it any other way. Is "This is a sentence." supposed to survive better in the wild than "aoidoafwaoifawefinaw" ?


Now I have some questions. Do you believe in the Roman Empire? I'm just trying to see what else you don't believe in.

Everyone in this thread needs to chill out. Now you're all calling each other mentally retarded, insane, trolls, etc. etc. This really, is not acceptable forum behavior guys. I'm closing thread until further notice.