Morality only works when people are self-motivated to adhere to that morality. But if they do not adhere then morality disappears. If morality disappears it takes freedom and rights with it.
When the socialists begin pushing Christianity out of western civilization, tyranny filled in the blanks. Europe is reverting to serfdom faster than we are.
When the government controls behavior then there is no liberty or rights.
This is why an ethical people following a moral code derived from God is essential to freedom.
We must learn to control ourselves or someone else will.
Our founding fathers fully understood that principle. That is why they said the Constitution was written for a moral and religious people and is totally inadequate for the governance of any other.
No other leader in any other government (with the exception of ancient Israel) cares or understands that principle. Nearly every single leader throughout history, though of their own power and not the liberty of the people.
In Christianity there is a reward and punishment system that God set up as an incentive for people to govern themselves. Unfortunately, far too many Christians focus only on the punishment and spend very little time focusing on the reward. They think they need to scare people in to heaven. The rewards far outweigh the punishment.
So now you are talking about planned coordinated mutations. If one species has 10 offspring each with the same beneficial mutation of their parent. Well then each one of the offspring needs to pass that same beneficial mutation to their offspring and they would need their own beneficial mutations that builds on their parents. The ones that don't have a mutation or pass on their parents mutations do not evolve.
In order for the theory that multiple children, grandchildren, etc., all contributing to the mutations that eventually change into another species does nothing but complicate the issue.
And like I said in an earlier post, in order for each offspring to pass parental and it's own mutation in the period of time between the pre-Cambrian and Cambrian era is just far too short. Not even the entire existence of the earth makes it any more plausible. The Cambrian explosion is why it would take over 200 beneficial mutations per individual to create all of the unique species that appeared by the end of the Cambrian era.
"Your model assumes all of the following simultaneously:
50–100 mutations must appear before any selection occurs"
I never said anything about natural selection. You're stuck on adaptation. The species that can adapt to its changed environment is the one that survives or is selected.
Far too many people are stuck on adaptation as proof of something that cannot be observed or replicated. Adaption can be observed and replicated. It happens all of the time.
To use that as the foundation upon which complete speciation happens is utterly ridiculous.
"Life existed 3+ billion years before
Multicellular complexity began hundreds of millions of years earlier
Cambrian diversification involved existing genetic toolkits"
That is what science teaches but all lifeforms remained mostly unchanged until the Cambrian explosion. Meaning no complete speciation occurred. Life entered the pre-Cambrian era as microscopic single cell organisms and by the end of the Cambrian era nearly every basic body type and physiology that exists today was found.
That is an incredibly short period of time for nearly all complete speciation to happen.
"Comes from an invalid probability model"
I cannot tell you if Claude AI is accurate. I don't know how the code was written or eve how to write AI code. All I can do is tell you what it told me. The question is how far off from the truth is it? Even if it is off by 75% that's still not enough
Nice try. Didn't I tell you that I am a software developer. I've been programming for over 30 years. I'm not perfect with math but I certainly understand what the number 10^341 is.
"1. What you are calling “speciation” is not how evolution claims change happens"
There are deference levels of speciation. Simple speciation is what I was referring to when when I said adaptation. It is how we have several different kinds of bears or other animals. They remain bears, and not walruses, elephants, or something new that is no longer a bear.
You are looking at adaptation as the entire driving force behind complete speciation. It is and it isn't. Evolution is about random mutations. It about one species changing into another species. It is about how simple single cells changed into a simple organism, like bacteria. And those organisms changing into simple plant life or simple animal life. Eventually building up to being dinosaurs (and just in case you are wondering, I do believe there were dinosaurs).
Full speciation is change in overall physiology. Like how, many years ago I watched a documentary that talking about how some dolphin-like creature turned into a dog-like creature. A dolphin by itself cannot survive living entirely on land and a dog cannot survive living entirely in water.
To fit full speciation into the time frame that science is saying it happen it would take 50-200+ specific *beneficial* mutations per individual. Nothing has that many mutations on them. By "beneficial" it means mutations that when combined with other "beneficial" mutations though multiple generations each contributing their "beneficial" mutations until a new species arrives.
Unless something changed to all live forms on the planet, we're lucky to see 1 mutation of any kind on any given animal. But if that is how evolution worked then how did every species on the planet simultaneously stop excessive mutations?
This is why it would take 10^340 years for complete speciation.
Where did I get those numbers for mutation per individual? Claude AI. Claude AI went into a lot of detail, a lot more than what I have posted here. And once I got it to consider doing its own calculations based on the evidence collected, without anyone's opinions, that is when I started getting evolutions impossibilities.
You've apparently done more research into those guys than I have. I never heard of them before and I didn't look into who they were.
I've always had strong concerns about evolution. There are far too many unexplained issues. Issues that are not being resolved. And when you find out that when anything that is contradictory to the theory is swept under the rug it just bothers me.
Discrediting people who show flaws in a theory is not scientific, it's political. The only way to discover the truth is to is to follow each issue to their conclusion. If it is false then dump it, but if it true and it causes problems with the theory, even minor one, then it should cause some rethinking of a small part or even the entire theory.
But that isn't happening. I hear all of the time that some scientist discovers something that goes against evolution and that scientist is immediately discredited.
Look what happened to those scientists who came up with Intelligent Design. they were called religionist shills, and every other name. It was mocked and ridiculed. But they never answered the question that is still out there. It was just swept under the rug.
I.D. had absolutely nothing to do with any religion. It was a very valid question asked by actual scientists.
When science becomes politicized it is no longer science, its propaganda
Those pushing for a global fascist\socialist regime must end religion and get the people to worship the state. It has been a stated goal of socialists for over a century. They have been working with the culture of western civilization to lampoon and discredit Christianity and Judaism. The are driven to turn people away from God because the demand that the people's only higher power is the state.
These same people have been very successful in mitigating the horrors of socialism. Many of its newer followers have absolutely no clue what socialism is. They think it is something like a social club and that the government will take care of everything for them.
Basically put, Evolution is the religion of socialism.
