That’s interesting because you didn’t say “horse,” brendanman did. Did you forget to change accounts or is this another metaphysical conundrum?
Evolution is as much math as it is biology.
As soon as you have a situation where:
- Entities produce imperfect copies of themselves which generally preserve attributes but allow for occasional random variation.
- Whether an entity successfully copies itself (in it’s environment) depends on its attributes.
Evolution is mathematically inevitable.
That these two conditions exist in biology is self evident, and so evolution is guaranteed.
As an aside I am really curious at to what profession you have that would engender a “more severe” opinion of evolution.
Curator at the Creationism museum?
I chose to use AI to do a comparison (ChatGPT) and was rewarded thus:
Note: I used the somewhat unscientific method of copy pasting all of “each” author’s efforts in this thread alone (eg, all posts by @cladking vs all posts by @brendanman)
But @cladking, at least, won’t mind “somewhat unscientific” methods, I imagine.
Then, the mechanism followed by evolutionists is miscarried. Darwin was just what today is called “an idiot with initiatives”. He inherited a theory of evolution that never was science but poor philosophy. The proof is that there is no author for such so called theory. When you go back to those past centuries, no observations were obtained to conclude that past species were worst, inferior and simpler that their current species. The whole thing was just opinions, not validated studies. The idea of evolutionary steps came from philosophy, from thoughts, from ideas of all kind, the discussions in Europe were based on he says she says.
Now well, because everything is connected in this universe, that doesn’t mean that you can include farce with truth just “because”.
It comes a moment when a review reveals that the theory of evolution was just a common error, a conventional idea based on illusion.
Maintaining that illusion alive is causing ignorance instead of progress in knowledge on biology.
Yeah, you’ve already told us you don’t understand evolution or Darwin. I guess if you’re confused about that it’s hard to see how it all fits together.
ETA: But I assume there’s some hardworking Creationist scientists out there making the real advances in biology. Care to point any out?
AI is just a machine. The answers received from this machine is the data input by its programmers. The programmers are paid by special interest companies, agencies and people who manipulate your brain making you believe that AI can really “think”. No computers can think.
Add this phrases to your inquires to AI. Lets see what AI responds. (Let’s make the experiment, please be honest with the results)
I’m with you. Its becoming clear that brenanman is more than just a run of the mill anti-evolutionist. He also has weird ideas on the nature of reality, that appear mesh surprisingly well with Cladking’s weird view or reality. It’s hard two imagine that there are two people in the world who share such a unique perspective much less that they should meet on a message board a few days after the first one reemerged after a long hiatus.
Enjoy them while you can folks, I don’t think that Cladking/brenanman are going to be around much longer.
Well, there’s that but there’s also, as steronz noted above, the issue of one of them responding as though they had posted something written by the other
Yeah, these are the same guy.
Would mating the two result in fertile offspring?
Either that or it’s just pure coincidence that another moron with exactly the same psychosis, commonly known as “delusions of grandeur” and Dunning-Kruger syndrome, joined up just in time to support the King of Clad 100% in explaining science and the nature of reality, such as evolution having nothing to do with speciation but evolutionary biologists are too dumb and narrow-minded to see it.
It would be extraordinary to suddenly have a new join with precisely the same mental illness as cladking. I’m sure he shares the same views on the construction of the pyramids, too.
Some experiments should never be performed.
When you think about it, not only do we all have our own DNA, but we also have captive mitochondrial DNA, plus trillions of bacteria with hundreds of different DNA profiles, all of which we’re dependent on for survival. Words like “poster” or “sock” are simply too reductive to be of any use, given the complexity of the “troll” “species.”
Are we even understanding this discussion?
As OP and Sock banned, thread closed.