I don't know which article to post this on, so I'll do it here.
"the issue is how forty million genetic differences can accumulate in two populations over nine million years." - Vox Day, Probability Zero
One possible solution is genetic alteration by viruses. There are examples of it in the literature. However, just like genetic bottlenecks the viral genetic alterations are identifiable in the genome and there simply aren't enough of them to account for the millions of mutations that are observed to have fixated.
"evidence for the common descent of all life from primitive life forms?"
Probability Zero demonstrates that common descent is impossible absent intelligent gene manipulation to bridge the genetic gaps.
The observable genetic fixation rate does not support common descent. Intelligent intervention to manipulate the genetic code is a necessary precondition for common descent to be possible.
`Darwinists have done a great job showing that all life is related.`
They haven't. Genetic similarities can be understood as common "gene software libraries" used by intelligent genetic manipulators. Common design is the simplest and best explanation for life and the commonality between life, rather than common descent modified by natural selection.
The development of genetic understanding has shown that the vast majority of genetic sequences are non-functional. It's a giant ocean of dead-ends with tiny islands of functionality scattered throughout. There is no way to random-walk from one island to the other.
Vox's book further points out there is not enough time or speed to travel from any island to the next. Several orders of magnitude more time is needed given observed genetic travel rates.
The common genetics is the definition of “related.” The major differences between species do require intelligent manipulation. How that was done, we don’t know.
If there are significant unused genetic sequences in modern life forms, that points strongly to a guided common descent theory.
A designer creating each new species by hand from raw materials using a common library of pre-existing code would have no reason to leave unused code in the final product.
Genetics as a field is based on gene theory. Gene theory is from Mendel, who is not a Darwinist. Studying genetics is not a scientific contribution specifically attributable to Darwinists.
When it comes to Darwinists, their main thing is to take every piece of biological science and market it as proof of Darwinian evolution. Marketing is not science. Miscrediting everything to evolutionary theory is anti-scientific cultism. Do a simple word replacement and notice how many "evolution did this" claims would work better as "God did this".
"A designer creating each new species by hand from raw materials using a common library of pre-existing code would have no reason to leave unused code in the final product."
That happens every day in every kind of engineering. Cleaning up unused code is a development cost. You're also assuming that "unused code" has no emergency/backup functionality. Unused is not non-functional or useless.
You might argue a perfect designer would not create imperfect designs, but that assumes a lot about what a perfect designer is intending to do.
The person whose argument you really need to address when you talk of Natural selection is Jim of Jim's Blog. Like you, he has a very high IQ among other gifts and his argument should be addressed. I believe sometime in 2013, you and he did debate. But he addresses your objections to evolution by natural selection, while, it appears that you don't address his. I'll post a snippet of a comment from his blog from this article, https://blog.reaction.la/economics/tech-decline/
Reflect on the evolution by artificial selection of corn from teosinte. Obviously artificial selection explains corn. Why then should not natural selection explain other kinds?
Teosinte. to corn is four point mutations in six thousand years. Six thousand years is plenty of time for four cell division point mutations. And obviously corn is an unrecognisably different species to teosinte.
If teosinte to corn is four mutations that actually matter, and which can take place in parallel rather than in series, then ape to man is something like a dozen mutations that actually matter, and can take place in parallel rather than in series.
vox’s argument is that it is millions and billions of mutations, and they have to take place in series. Obviously it is not millions and billions, and they do not have to take place in series.
That is the point of sexual reproduction, so that evolution can happen in parallel rather than in series.
So by random mutation, one peasant selected a variant of teosinte with one mutation, and a thousand miles away another peasant selected another variant of teosinte with a different mutation, and a thousand years later their descendants met, each teosinte variant cross pollinated the other, and each peasant selected those descendants with both mutations in a single plant.
So probably what happened is that four random point mutations plus artificial selection produced four different crop plants, and then hybridisation and artificial selection of those hybrids produced corn.
Ape to man is probably something like a dozen or two mutations, each of which independently makes an ape handier as a ground dwelling predator, and less handy as a tree dwelling fruit eater. Take an ancestral population of chimp like creatures, who mostly eat fruit, but also do war and hunting — then they spread onto the lightly treed Savannah, and each mutation is independently selected for in parallel.
If teosinte to corn to is four mutations that matter and make the important differences, how many mutations between ape and man that matter and make the important differences? Cannot be very many. And none of those mutations that make the differences that matter need to evolve serially. They could evolve in parallel.
Aryans were the result of natural selection working on a hybrid population of brown eyed dark haired middle eastern farmers and blonde haired, red haired, and blue eyed, but brown skinned, western hunter gatherers.
Suppose there are a dozen mutations that matter between ape and man. Then you could get a dozen races of man like creature on the savannah, each with one major mutation that selects for upright position or for better cooperation in hunt and war. Then sex, and more natural selection. Plenty of time for all that.
Vox Days argument is a million mutations that have to take place sequentially. But if teosinte to corn if four mutations that could have taken place in parallel, ape to man is something like a dozen or so mutations that could have taken place in parallel.
Artificial selection is allowed to use sex, allowed to do evolution in parallel, but natural selection is for some reason forbidden to do evolution in parallel — each mutation must go to fixation before the next mutation is allowed.
Given that chimps cooperate to hunt, and that they frequently stand upright during hunting and war, a mutation for upright stance, a mutation for greater intelligence, and mutation for more distinct vocalisations can each be selected for independently — you can have one kind of apeman that is more upright, another that is smarter, and a third that is more fluent, then they encounter each other and abduct each other’s females.
You're literally retarded. So is Jim of Jim's Blog. Of course I dealt with parallel fixation. That was the very first thing that evolutionists run to, never mind that it also disproves Darwin and natural selection.
He hasn't done the math. You haven't done the math. You're too stupid and lazy to do it.
I did. So did JBS Haldane. So did Stanislaw Ulam. We all reached the same conclusion. The only difference is that I had access to the genetic data required to empirically support the math.
"But he addresses your objections to evolution by natural selection, while, it appears that you don't address his."
"That is the point of sexual reproduction, so that evolution can happen in parallel rather than in series."
You didn't read the book. You also haven't read that Vox has repeatedly addressed "parallel fixation". Or seen his response in the comments pointing out that parallel fixation contradicts natural selection. If the genes get fixed in parallel without reproductive advantage selecting for the genes, it's not natural selection.
Well, I finished the book and it was really well put together.
Since I never formally studied evolution or even gave it much concerted thought, I always held a bit of residual doubt -- maybe I was missing something obvious, maybe the evolutionists I spoke with were just the runts of the litter -- that sort of thing.
Well, no. I independently and amateurishly arrived at essentially the same objections as Eden.
Within our solar system, positioned where we are in the Milky Way, our earth is subject to our Sun’s 12,000 year recurrent Micronova cycle.
Emanating from the centre of our galaxy is the galactic magnetic current sheet that sweeps particles ahead of it. This current sheet acts like a wave length and at our position in the galaxy, means we encounter it every 12,000 years. As the current sheet encounters our solar system, the particles collected from across the galaxy get deposited on the sun that results in a Micronova that causes a global cataclysm on earth. Whilst the severity of these events and the areas of the globe most effected varies for each event, the fact is that each species is deeply impacted and most see a massive bottleneck in their available gene pool. Additionally, with the significant increased exposure to radiation from the Sun and in some events the reversal or collapse of the magnetic field, it can also be seen that these events have a direct role in changing DNA within that now limited gene pool.
Certainly the Theory of Natural Selection as defined by previous understanding of the universe is incorrect. Mathematical models can never replicate the real world if the starting assumptions are incoherent to reality.
Thank you for this. I was shaken out of my adolescent agnosticism by reading a book called Human Destiny that argued that a single cell was too complex to mathematically complex to arrive by chance. Now you nail the coffin of common descent by showing it's impossibility. I will definitely have to get this book.
Just purchased my copy today. This is a must read book and will change the field of biology forever. Exciting to be an early witness to this happening right now. This is irrefutable proof that MITTENS is simply impossible. Will serve well when trying to enlighten midwit biologists. Thank you very much, Vox, for your diligent and rigorous efforts to dispel this modern myth of our time.
1. Finish the entire document. Maintain a list. 2. Compile the list in a text format. Make sure that at least three words are included in each typo reference. 3. Email me the text file.
Thank you. This is why I always release ebooks before print.
Well done. I’ve made the purchase and will get started on it soon.
It appears that you have successfully slain this retarded giant. If David had an abacus…
The logical follow on to all of this is in working out what mechanism we’re missing whether natural, artificial or some combination of both. That’s where the real fun begins.
I don't know which article to post this on, so I'll do it here.
"the issue is how forty million genetic differences can accumulate in two populations over nine million years." - Vox Day, Probability Zero
One possible solution is genetic alteration by viruses. There are examples of it in the literature. However, just like genetic bottlenecks the viral genetic alterations are identifiable in the genome and there simply aren't enough of them to account for the millions of mutations that are observed to have fixated.
Also quite sceptical of adaptation, in its current state. Are you religious?
Vox continues to destroy Enlightenment and Post-Enlightenment bs
Read the Thiaoouba Prophecy <3
Bot plus Vox is a great combination.
Just using perfidious in a sentince made me happy. Using it to destroy modern economic trash doubly so.
Keep it up. Not everyone will get it. It will help those of us who do.
Am I correct in guessing that all the “evidence” for Darwinism is in fact only evidence for the common descent of all life from primitive life forms?
Darwinists have done a great job showing that all life is related. They have done a poor job showing that it developed automatically.
Should circle back to this point:
"evidence for the common descent of all life from primitive life forms?"
Probability Zero demonstrates that common descent is impossible absent intelligent gene manipulation to bridge the genetic gaps.
The observable genetic fixation rate does not support common descent. Intelligent intervention to manipulate the genetic code is a necessary precondition for common descent to be possible.
`Darwinists have done a great job showing that all life is related.`
They haven't. Genetic similarities can be understood as common "gene software libraries" used by intelligent genetic manipulators. Common design is the simplest and best explanation for life and the commonality between life, rather than common descent modified by natural selection.
The development of genetic understanding has shown that the vast majority of genetic sequences are non-functional. It's a giant ocean of dead-ends with tiny islands of functionality scattered throughout. There is no way to random-walk from one island to the other.
Vox's book further points out there is not enough time or speed to travel from any island to the next. Several orders of magnitude more time is needed given observed genetic travel rates.
The common genetics is the definition of “related.” The major differences between species do require intelligent manipulation. How that was done, we don’t know.
If there are significant unused genetic sequences in modern life forms, that points strongly to a guided common descent theory.
A designer creating each new species by hand from raw materials using a common library of pre-existing code would have no reason to leave unused code in the final product.
Genetics as a field is based on gene theory. Gene theory is from Mendel, who is not a Darwinist. Studying genetics is not a scientific contribution specifically attributable to Darwinists.
When it comes to Darwinists, their main thing is to take every piece of biological science and market it as proof of Darwinian evolution. Marketing is not science. Miscrediting everything to evolutionary theory is anti-scientific cultism. Do a simple word replacement and notice how many "evolution did this" claims would work better as "God did this".
"A designer creating each new species by hand from raw materials using a common library of pre-existing code would have no reason to leave unused code in the final product."
That happens every day in every kind of engineering. Cleaning up unused code is a development cost. You're also assuming that "unused code" has no emergency/backup functionality. Unused is not non-functional or useless.
You might argue a perfect designer would not create imperfect designs, but that assumes a lot about what a perfect designer is intending to do.
CONGRATULATIONS TO THE SUPREME DARK LORD!
The person whose argument you really need to address when you talk of Natural selection is Jim of Jim's Blog. Like you, he has a very high IQ among other gifts and his argument should be addressed. I believe sometime in 2013, you and he did debate. But he addresses your objections to evolution by natural selection, while, it appears that you don't address his. I'll post a snippet of a comment from his blog from this article, https://blog.reaction.la/economics/tech-decline/
******************************************************************************************************
Reflect on the evolution by artificial selection of corn from teosinte. Obviously artificial selection explains corn. Why then should not natural selection explain other kinds?
Teosinte. to corn is four point mutations in six thousand years. Six thousand years is plenty of time for four cell division point mutations. And obviously corn is an unrecognisably different species to teosinte.
If teosinte to corn is four mutations that actually matter, and which can take place in parallel rather than in series, then ape to man is something like a dozen mutations that actually matter, and can take place in parallel rather than in series.
vox’s argument is that it is millions and billions of mutations, and they have to take place in series. Obviously it is not millions and billions, and they do not have to take place in series.
That is the point of sexual reproduction, so that evolution can happen in parallel rather than in series.
So by random mutation, one peasant selected a variant of teosinte with one mutation, and a thousand miles away another peasant selected another variant of teosinte with a different mutation, and a thousand years later their descendants met, each teosinte variant cross pollinated the other, and each peasant selected those descendants with both mutations in a single plant.
So probably what happened is that four random point mutations plus artificial selection produced four different crop plants, and then hybridisation and artificial selection of those hybrids produced corn.
Ape to man is probably something like a dozen or two mutations, each of which independently makes an ape handier as a ground dwelling predator, and less handy as a tree dwelling fruit eater. Take an ancestral population of chimp like creatures, who mostly eat fruit, but also do war and hunting — then they spread onto the lightly treed Savannah, and each mutation is independently selected for in parallel.
If teosinte to corn to is four mutations that matter and make the important differences, how many mutations between ape and man that matter and make the important differences? Cannot be very many. And none of those mutations that make the differences that matter need to evolve serially. They could evolve in parallel.
Aryans were the result of natural selection working on a hybrid population of brown eyed dark haired middle eastern farmers and blonde haired, red haired, and blue eyed, but brown skinned, western hunter gatherers.
Suppose there are a dozen mutations that matter between ape and man. Then you could get a dozen races of man like creature on the savannah, each with one major mutation that selects for upright position or for better cooperation in hunt and war. Then sex, and more natural selection. Plenty of time for all that.
Vox Days argument is a million mutations that have to take place sequentially. But if teosinte to corn if four mutations that could have taken place in parallel, ape to man is something like a dozen or so mutations that could have taken place in parallel.
Artificial selection is allowed to use sex, allowed to do evolution in parallel, but natural selection is for some reason forbidden to do evolution in parallel — each mutation must go to fixation before the next mutation is allowed.
Given that chimps cooperate to hunt, and that they frequently stand upright during hunting and war, a mutation for upright stance, a mutation for greater intelligence, and mutation for more distinct vocalisations can each be selected for independently — you can have one kind of apeman that is more upright, another that is smarter, and a third that is more fluent, then they encounter each other and abduct each other’s females.
***************************************************************************************************
You're literally retarded. So is Jim of Jim's Blog. Of course I dealt with parallel fixation. That was the very first thing that evolutionists run to, never mind that it also disproves Darwin and natural selection.
He hasn't done the math. You haven't done the math. You're too stupid and lazy to do it.
I did. So did JBS Haldane. So did Stanislaw Ulam. We all reached the same conclusion. The only difference is that I had access to the genetic data required to empirically support the math.
"But he addresses your objections to evolution by natural selection, while, it appears that you don't address his."
"That is the point of sexual reproduction, so that evolution can happen in parallel rather than in series."
You didn't read the book. You also haven't read that Vox has repeatedly addressed "parallel fixation". Or seen his response in the comments pointing out that parallel fixation contradicts natural selection. If the genes get fixed in parallel without reproductive advantage selecting for the genes, it's not natural selection.
I'm going to need a lot of popcorn.
Well, I finished the book and it was really well put together.
Since I never formally studied evolution or even gave it much concerted thought, I always held a bit of residual doubt -- maybe I was missing something obvious, maybe the evolutionists I spoke with were just the runts of the litter -- that sort of thing.
Well, no. I independently and amateurishly arrived at essentially the same objections as Eden.
Within our solar system, positioned where we are in the Milky Way, our earth is subject to our Sun’s 12,000 year recurrent Micronova cycle.
Emanating from the centre of our galaxy is the galactic magnetic current sheet that sweeps particles ahead of it. This current sheet acts like a wave length and at our position in the galaxy, means we encounter it every 12,000 years. As the current sheet encounters our solar system, the particles collected from across the galaxy get deposited on the sun that results in a Micronova that causes a global cataclysm on earth. Whilst the severity of these events and the areas of the globe most effected varies for each event, the fact is that each species is deeply impacted and most see a massive bottleneck in their available gene pool. Additionally, with the significant increased exposure to radiation from the Sun and in some events the reversal or collapse of the magnetic field, it can also be seen that these events have a direct role in changing DNA within that now limited gene pool.
Certainly the Theory of Natural Selection as defined by previous understanding of the universe is incorrect. Mathematical models can never replicate the real world if the starting assumptions are incoherent to reality.
Evidence for literally anything you just said? Besides fake pictures from NASA or more theories based on theories from the Darwinism cult?
Of course not. And that's why one Dark Lord is dismantling it all.
Math > Fiction/Storytelling.
Cheers.
Congratulations, and thank you, Vox!
Thank you for this. I was shaken out of my adolescent agnosticism by reading a book called Human Destiny that argued that a single cell was too complex to mathematically complex to arrive by chance. Now you nail the coffin of common descent by showing it's impossibility. I will definitely have to get this book.
Just purchased my copy today. This is a must read book and will change the field of biology forever. Exciting to be an early witness to this happening right now. This is irrefutable proof that MITTENS is simply impossible. Will serve well when trying to enlighten midwit biologists. Thank you very much, Vox, for your diligent and rigorous efforts to dispel this modern myth of our time.
Vox- do you want proofreading/typo feedback? If so, how would you like it communicated?
1. Finish the entire document. Maintain a list. 2. Compile the list in a text format. Make sure that at least three words are included in each typo reference. 3. Email me the text file.
Thank you. This is why I always release ebooks before print.
Well done. I’ve made the purchase and will get started on it soon.
It appears that you have successfully slain this retarded giant. If David had an abacus…
The logical follow on to all of this is in working out what mechanism we’re missing whether natural, artificial or some combination of both. That’s where the real fun begins.
I can't wait for the print copy. It'll look great next to Jordanetics, SJWs Always Lie, and Cuckservative.