The vaccine science EVOLUTION contradiction (video)

[BADecker]

The vaccine science EVOLUTION contradiction (video)

If the human body must have vaccines to survive, then evolution and natural selection are fraudulent scientific theories. Conversely, if natural selection is real, then all humans are the survivors of thousands of generations of ancestors who self-immunized without any vaccines at all.

Yet today, ridiculous scientists and vaccine propaganda pushers tell us that modern humans would all die without vaccines, claiming our immune systems are incapable of protecting us without vaccines.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/054317_vaccine_science_natural_selection_contradiction.html#ixzz4BE522kdM

The vaccine science contradiction

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-6OVPNix08


Read more at http://www.naturalnews.com/054317_vaccine_science_natural_selection_contradiction.html.

[1715469869]

1715469869

[Gimpeline]

Is there a special "Morons playing scientist" web page that you find all these idiots on?

[BADecker]

Is there a special "Morons playing scientist" web page that you find all these idiots on?

A special one? Aren't there a lot of AMA sites and FDA sites? You can find local medical clinics located in the yellow pages.

[protokol]

What a ridiculous premise, no-one is saying humans would go extinct without vaccines - there would almost certainly be small numbers of people with natural immunity that would survive.

Without vaccines however there would be huge percentages of people that would suffer terribly and die. Do some reading about smallpox and how its (near) eradication saved millions of lives. Take a good look at this graph and have a read of the following link.



https://ourworldindata.org/eradication-of-diseases/

In fact, ironically bacteria and viruses are very good evidence for evolution, because we can see them evolving in front of our very eyes! Some good examples would be H5N1 and HIV. You remember all that speculation that Ebola could become airborne? Very speculative, but based solidly on the theory of evolution and natural selection.

PS. Try sourcing your information from actual scientific outlets, rather than ridiculous websites like this. You think the owners themselves believe half of the stuff they post?? They are no more than cash cows, preying on the paranoid population and laughing all the way to the bank with their ad revenue cheque.

[tvbcof]

...
In future such failures are not likely to occur where there is dictatorship. Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.
...
 - Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society
 - Simon and Schuster, New York, 1953

http://canadianliberty.com/?p=15347

Don't forget to have your newborn hit with with a Hep-B shot on their first day of life just in case they start shooting up and/or start having unprotected sex with street hookers as soon as they get home.  It may protect some kids all the way up to their teens...or may not.

Actually, you won't have to worry about forgetting;  usually the health care industry, at least here in the land of the free/home of the brave, will take care of this for you unless you are quite pro-active.

[helloeverybody]

Do you actually Beleive this or are you just posting the videos to show how ridiculous it is?  If you actually Beleive this shit then maybe you should look up some photos of children that parents failed to vaccinate and ended up sick.

[tvbcof]

Do you actually Beleive this or are you just posting the videos to show how ridiculous it is?  If you actually Beleive this shit then maybe you should look up some photos of children that parents failed to vaccinate and ended up sick.

Or some pictures of those who's parents to 'succeeded'.

---

BTW, since the common cry when the guy's name is brought up is that he is a fraud, Dr. Wakefield's co-author was a wealthy individual who had half a million spare kicking around to 'clear his name.'  He did just this and in the process thoroughly humiliated the interests which demonized the research team.  Funny that this isn't reported so much.

http://www.ebcala.org/areas-of-law/vaccine-law/co-author-of-lancet-mmr-autism-study-exonerated-on-all-charges-of-professional-misconduct

According to this article the funding for Walker-Smith's defense was his insurance company, but the results were as described.

[BADecker]

Do you actually Beleive this or are you just posting the videos to show how ridiculous it is?  If you actually Beleive this shit then maybe you should look up some photos of children that parents failed to vaccinate and ended up sick.

Coffee works, too. Coffee has at least 119 poisons in it in small quantity. But these poisons - which are too small in quantity to harm anyone - activate the immune system which protects you against all kinds of things. What does this have to do with vaccines? Vaccines are poisons that do the same thing. Give the kid a shot of something - anything - and the immune system will activate, protecting the kid against all kinds of stuff.

If the medical spent half the money and time on educating people on nutrition and hygiene, their kids would never get sick. Why not? Because the parents would be healthy, and would impart their health to their kids through Mommy's colostrum, if nothing else.

You are missing a whole lot. And the medical loves you for it.

[protokol]

Do you actually Beleive this or are you just posting the videos to show how ridiculous it is?  If you actually Beleive this shit then maybe you should look up some photos of children that parents failed to vaccinate and ended up sick.

Or some pictures of those who's parents to 'succeeded'.

---

BTW, since the common cry when the guy's name is brought up is that he is a fraud, Dr. Wakefield's co-author was a wealthy individual who had half a million spare kicking around to 'clear his name.'  He did just this and in the process thoroughly humiliated the interests which demonized the research team.  Funny that this isn't reported so much.

http://www.ebcala.org/areas-of-law/vaccine-law/co-author-of-lancet-mmr-autism-study-exonerated-on-all-charges-of-professional-misconduct

According to this article the funding for Walker-Smith's defense was his insurance company, but the results were as described.

Oh jesus, you're not defending Wakefield are you? The guy is a disgrace to medicine. You do realize he paid kids at his son's birthday party for blood samples, does that seem like valid, ethical scientific research to you?

In terms of statistics, you know how many children were sampled in his retracted Lancet paper? 12.

Oh look, here's an article that references a meta-analysis of 10 studies, involving 1.2 million children. That's 1,266,327.

https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/new-meta-analysis-confirms-no-association-between-vaccines-and-autism

[BADecker]

If the human body must have vaccines to survive, then evolution and natural selection are fraudulent scientific theories. Conversely, if natural selection is real, then all humans are the survivors of thousands of generations of ancestors who self-immunized without any vaccines at all.

Yet today, ridiculous scientists and vaccine propaganda pushers tell us that modern humans would all die without vaccines, claiming our immune systems are incapable of protecting us without vaccines.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/054317_vaccine_science_natural_selection_contradiction.html#ixzz4BE522kdM

Evolution works on a large time scale.  Over time, animals that survived developed immunity to diseases that took out animals before them.
You either survive or you die.  That is how immune systems work in the context of evolution.

Evolution doesn't work at all except in the lab. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.msg14706492#msg14706492. Not only does the article at the link give evolution a tremendous, gigantic benefit of the doubt, the article doesn't even begin to talk about the things in nature that destroy evolution. The fact is, the longer the amount of time, the less chance evolution has of even getting a foothold.

Humans developed immunity to the diseases that happened in the past, but anything new has a potential to kill a large number of humans.  Some will survive and develop immunity naturally, their genes will be passed to the next generations.  The process is very brutal but the nature works that way.

Actually, it works exactly the other way around. Entropy shows that all complexity is breaking down... becoming more simple all the time. Adding poisons to a gradually weakening system, only makes that system break down faster.

What the proponents of vaccines are advocating is to get vaccines to known NEW viruses that you probably don't have antibodies for in your bloodstream.

This is a noble thought. But why not strengthen the system to fight the new viruses, rather than poisoning it with some old, dead viruses and all the poisons that are added to the vaccine... like mercury?

There are few problems:  the ingredients in the vaccines might be harmful to you (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vaccine_ingredients), the virus that you take the vaccine for might not be harmful to you or you might not get infected so you are taking something that you don't really need.

I think it is a personal choice, just like the insurance coverage.  You know things like life insurance.

It might be personal choice for you an adult. But government is forcing it on your kids. And, they are doing it while knowing it is bad for them.

[tvbcof]

Do you actually Beleive this or are you just posting the videos to show how ridiculous it is?  If you actually Beleive this shit then maybe you should look up some photos of children that parents failed to vaccinate and ended up sick.

Or some pictures of those who's parents to 'succeeded'.

---

BTW, since the common cry when the guy's name is brought up is that he is a fraud, Dr. Wakefield's co-author was a wealthy individual who had half a million spare kicking around to 'clear his name.'  He did just this and in the process thoroughly humiliated the interests which demonized the research team.  Funny that this isn't reported so much.

http://www.ebcala.org/areas-of-law/vaccine-law/co-author-of-lancet-mmr-autism-study-exonerated-on-all-charges-of-professional-misconduct

According to this article the funding for Walker-Smith's defense was his insurance company, but the results were as described.

Oh jesus, you're not defending Wakefield are you? The guy is a disgrace to medicine. You do realize he paid kids at his son's birthday party for blood samples, does that seem like valid, ethical scientific research to you?

In terms of statistics, you know how many children were sampled in his retracted Lancet paper? 12.

Oh look, here's an article that references a meta-analysis of 10 studies, involving 1.2 million children. That's 1,266,327.

https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/new-meta-analysis-confirms-no-association-between-vaccines-and-autism

I'm perfectly happy to defend Wakefield and the more I learn about the details of the medical and pharma industry and the humanitarians trying to mitigate the threats they pose, the more happy I am to defend the guy.

As for Wakefield's blood samples, yes I was aware of them and no, it doesn't strike me as a big deal as long as he didn't mis-represent any findings associated with them.  It also doesn't bother me that Hillerman got the mumps for his vaccine from his daughter.

What does bother me is that mumps is working less and less well and in order to keep their lucerative lock on the MMR market Merck had to flat out fabricate data.  This is especially pernicious because be using a defective vaccine a fairly begning childhood illness is being pushed into an older age catagory where it can cause real problems.  Of course it is true the 'thinkers' among us may not consider infertility among the masses as a 'problem' per-se.

Wakefield did an interesting missive on mumps as well if you are interested.  I find the science of general population ecology associated with vaccine regimes to be even more interesting than the science associated with individual response.  I also find 'meta-analysis' studies to be a rich in deliberate fraud.  Another good example is the '97% of scientists say...' one which is used ad-nauseam by the climate fraud crowd.

[BADecker]

Do you actually Beleive this or are you just posting the videos to show how ridiculous it is?  If you actually Beleive this shit then maybe you should look up some photos of children that parents failed to vaccinate and ended up sick.

Or some pictures of those who's parents to 'succeeded'.

---

BTW, since the common cry when the guy's name is brought up is that he is a fraud, Dr. Wakefield's co-author was a wealthy individual who had half a million spare kicking around to 'clear his name.'  He did just this and in the process thoroughly humiliated the interests which demonized the research team.  Funny that this isn't reported so much.

http://www.ebcala.org/areas-of-law/vaccine-law/co-author-of-lancet-mmr-autism-study-exonerated-on-all-charges-of-professional-misconduct

According to this article the funding for Walker-Smith's defense was his insurance company, but the results were as described.

Oh jesus, you're not defending Wakefield are you? The guy is a disgrace to medicine. You do realize he paid kids at his son's birthday party for blood samples, does that seem like valid, ethical scientific research to you?

In terms of statistics, you know how many children were sampled in his retracted Lancet paper? 12.

Oh look, here's an article that references a meta-analysis of 10 studies, involving 1.2 million children. That's 1,266,327.

https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/new-meta-analysis-confirms-no-association-between-vaccines-and-autism

Kerri Rivera has used chlorine dioxide (CD) to cure well over 200 kids from autism. Her book, Healing the Symptoms Known as Autism - 2nd Edition, can be purchased from https://www.amazon.com/Healing-Symptoms-Known-Autism-2nd/dp/0989289044/186-3275128-9122902?ie=UTF8&keywords=healing0autism&qid=1464406998.

How effective is her treatment? Google "CD autism." What you will find are a whole bunch of websites that want to ban CD (MMS) in the use of correcting autism. Why? Simply because it works.

Well, why wouldn't the medical use it if it worked so well? Because it sells for pennies, and they can't make any money on selling it. Even DuPont sells it as water treatment (http://www2.dupont.com/Chlorine_Dioxide_Solutions/en_US/assets/downloads/K-27437_ClO2-Works-in-the-Oil-Field.pdf and http://www.environmental-expert.com/products/dupont-cio2-chlorine-dioxide-generator-49024 and http://www.environmental-expert.com/companies/dupont-chlorine-dioxide-8130/products) - it is used all over the world in water treatment.

The point is, there is no problem with CD. Yet the medical has black-listed it. The medical is out there to keep you sick so that they can make money. Go to the medical and die.

[protokol]

If the human body must have vaccines to survive, then evolution and natural selection are fraudulent scientific theories. Conversely, if natural selection is real, then all humans are the survivors of thousands of generations of ancestors who self-immunized without any vaccines at all.

Yet today, ridiculous scientists and vaccine propaganda pushers tell us that modern humans would all die without vaccines, claiming our immune systems are incapable of protecting us without vaccines.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/054317_vaccine_science_natural_selection_contradiction.html#ixzz4BE522kdM

Evolution works on a large time scale.  Over time, animals that survived developed immunity to diseases that took out animals before them.
You either survive or you die.  That is how immune systems work in the context of evolution.

Evolution doesn't work at all except in the lab. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.msg14706492#msg14706492. Not only does the article at the link give evolution a tremendous, gigantic benefit of the doubt, the article doesn't even begin to talk about the things in nature that destroy evolution. The fact is, the longer the amount of time, the less chance evolution has of even getting a foothold.

Humans developed immunity to the diseases that happened in the past, but anything new has a potential to kill a large number of humans.  Some will survive and develop immunity naturally, their genes will be passed to the next generations.  The process is very brutal but the nature works that way.

Actually, it works exactly the other way around. Entropy shows that all complexity is breaking down... becoming more simple all the time. Adding poisons to a gradually weakening system, only makes that system break down faster.

What the proponents of vaccines are advocating is to get vaccines to known NEW viruses that you probably don't have antibodies for in your bloodstream.

This is a noble thought. But why not strengthen the system to fight the new viruses, rather than poisoning it with some old, dead viruses and all the poisons that are added to the vaccine... like mercury?

There are few problems:  the ingredients in the vaccines might be harmful to you (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vaccine_ingredients), the virus that you take the vaccine for might not be harmful to you or you might not get infected so you are taking something that you don't really need.

I think it is a personal choice, just like the insurance coverage.  You know things like life insurance.

It might be personal choice for you an adult. But government is forcing it on your kids. And, they are doing it while knowing it is bad for them.

I'm not going to spend too long trying to explain evolution to you, I really haven't got time and “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he never was reasoned into.”

Suffice to say, you don't understand the concept at all. Your main problem is that you're thinking of Evolution itself as some sort of "entity" with a plan, when in fact it is just an abstract concept.

The 2nd law of Thermodynamics, or entropy, doesn't apply here because we are not in an isolated system - the Earth gets energy from the Sun and therefore can decrease its entropy (even though the Universe as a whole does have slowly increasing entropy). It is possible for one part of the Universe to become more ordered, even as the whole thing is becoming less ordered over time. Nothing about the 2nd law is violated by the concept of Evolution.

You say evolution can occur in a lab, so I assume you're aware that we can witness bacteria and viruses evolve.

HIV is a really good example: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_04, "It reproduces sloppily, accumulating lots of mutations when it copies its genetic material. It also reproduces at a lightning-fast rate — a single virus can spawn billions of copies in just one day.").

Is it so hard to accept that the same process can happen in the wild, with more complex organisms (at a much slower pace)?

[BADecker]

If the human body must have vaccines to survive, then evolution and natural selection are fraudulent scientific theories. Conversely, if natural selection is real, then all humans are the survivors of thousands of generations of ancestors who self-immunized without any vaccines at all.

Yet today, ridiculous scientists and vaccine propaganda pushers tell us that modern humans would all die without vaccines, claiming our immune systems are incapable of protecting us without vaccines.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/054317_vaccine_science_natural_selection_contradiction.html#ixzz4BE522kdM

Evolution works on a large time scale.  Over time, animals that survived developed immunity to diseases that took out animals before them.
You either survive or you die.  That is how immune systems work in the context of evolution.

Evolution doesn't work at all except in the lab. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.msg14706492#msg14706492. Not only does the article at the link give evolution a tremendous, gigantic benefit of the doubt, the article doesn't even begin to talk about the things in nature that destroy evolution. The fact is, the longer the amount of time, the less chance evolution has of even getting a foothold.

Humans developed immunity to the diseases that happened in the past, but anything new has a potential to kill a large number of humans.  Some will survive and develop immunity naturally, their genes will be passed to the next generations.  The process is very brutal but the nature works that way.

Actually, it works exactly the other way around. Entropy shows that all complexity is breaking down... becoming more simple all the time. Adding poisons to a gradually weakening system, only makes that system break down faster.

What the proponents of vaccines are advocating is to get vaccines to known NEW viruses that you probably don't have antibodies for in your bloodstream.

This is a noble thought. But why not strengthen the system to fight the new viruses, rather than poisoning it with some old, dead viruses and all the poisons that are added to the vaccine... like mercury?

There are few problems:  the ingredients in the vaccines might be harmful to you (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vaccine_ingredients), the virus that you take the vaccine for might not be harmful to you or you might not get infected so you are taking something that you don't really need.

I think it is a personal choice, just like the insurance coverage.  You know things like life insurance.

It might be personal choice for you an adult. But government is forcing it on your kids. And, they are doing it while knowing it is bad for them.

I'm not going to spend too long trying to explain evolution to you, I really haven't got time and “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he never was reasoned into.”

Suffice to say, you don't understand the concept at all. Your main problem is that you're thinking of Evolution itself as some sort of "entity" with a plan, when in fact it is just an abstract concept.

The 2nd law of Thermodynamics, or entropy, doesn't apply here because we are not in an isolated system - the Earth gets energy from the Sun and therefore can decrease its entropy (even though the Universe as a whole does have slowly increasing entropy). It is possible for one part of the Universe to become more ordered, even as the whole thing is becoming less ordered over time. Nothing about the 2nd law is violated by the concept of Evolution.

You say evolution can occur in a lab, so I assume you're aware that we can witness bacteria and viruses evolve.

HIV is a really good example: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_04, "It reproduces sloppily, accumulating lots of mutations when it copies its genetic material. It also reproduces at a lightning-fast rate — a single virus can spawn billions of copies in just one day.").

Is it so hard to accept that the same process can happen in the wild, with more complex organisms (at a much slower pace)?

Entropy applies because it applies to everything. Even though something looks like it is "advancing," it is doing so at the expense of something else that is declining more rapidly. You virtually said this, above, in other language.

We can see evolution occur in the lab, after we make evolution occur in the lab.

We don't have even ONE clear example of evolution happening in nature, which could not be attributed to something else at the same time. All the "slower pace" happenings would be destroyed by nature - say by oxidation - long before they got off the ground. The slower they are, the longer they take, the more time there is for something to destroy them. And there are loads of natural chemical reactions that are out to break down more complex chemicals.

Evolutionists have play a trick. They have said that evolution takes a long time, and that's why we can't see it happening. The thing that they don't include in this thinking is that the longer the time, the more opportunity for evolved "things" to be attacked and destroyed.

Go ahead and turn away from solid science if you want. Delude yourself into thinking evolution might be able to happen. But the math of simple chemistry and physics show that evolution is utterly impossible.

[protokol]

Do you actually Beleive this or are you just posting the videos to show how ridiculous it is?  If you actually Beleive this shit then maybe you should look up some photos of children that parents failed to vaccinate and ended up sick.

Or some pictures of those who's parents to 'succeeded'.

---

BTW, since the common cry when the guy's name is brought up is that he is a fraud, Dr. Wakefield's co-author was a wealthy individual who had half a million spare kicking around to 'clear his name.'  He did just this and in the process thoroughly humiliated the interests which demonized the research team.  Funny that this isn't reported so much.

http://www.ebcala.org/areas-of-law/vaccine-law/co-author-of-lancet-mmr-autism-study-exonerated-on-all-charges-of-professional-misconduct

According to this article the funding for Walker-Smith's defense was his insurance company, but the results were as described.

Oh jesus, you're not defending Wakefield are you? The guy is a disgrace to medicine. You do realize he paid kids at his son's birthday party for blood samples, does that seem like valid, ethical scientific research to you?

In terms of statistics, you know how many children were sampled in his retracted Lancet paper? 12.

Oh look, here's an article that references a meta-analysis of 10 studies, involving 1.2 million children. That's 1,266,327.

https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/new-meta-analysis-confirms-no-association-between-vaccines-and-autism

I'm perfectly happy to defend Wakefield and the more I learn about the details of the medical and pharma industry and the humanitarians trying to mitigate the threats they pose, the more happy I am to defend the guy.

As for Wakefield's blood samples, yes I was aware of them and no, it doesn't strike me as a big deal as long as he didn't mis-represent any findings associated with them.  It also doesn't bother me that Hillerman got the mumps for his vaccine from his daughter.

What does bother me is that mumps is working less and less well and in order to keep their lucerative lock on the MMR market Merck had to flat out fabricate data.  This is especially pernicious because be using a defective vaccine a fairly begning childhood illness is being pushed into an older age catagory where it can cause real problems.  Of course it is true the 'thinkers' among us may not consider infertility among the masses as a 'problem' per-se.

Wakefield did an interesting missive on mumps as well if you are interested.  I find the science of general population ecology associated with vaccine regimes to be even more interesting than the science associated with individual response.  I also find 'meta-analysis' studies to be a rich in deliberate fraud.  Another good example is the '97% of scientists say...' one which is used ad-nauseam by the climate fraud crowd.

OK, well bear in mind that I'm not a big fan of the Pharmaceutical industry, and yes they have been know to corrupt studies and data to their own advantage. That doesn't mean that everything they do is corrupt.

Meta-analyses are used to try and find the most accurate results, to get around tactics like data fabrication and cherry picking (that Big Pharma have been known to use), I'm not sure why you think they are "rich in deliberate fraud". Of course they have to be properly designed, but when they are they are the gold standard of statistical significance in science/medicine.

Are you someone who still believes there to be a link between vaccines and autism (you haven't made your position very clear)?

If so, what problems do you have with any of the studies that show there to be no statistical link? Here's an article that references 20 studies that have been done, using different methods, with high numbers of samples and statistical power: http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/48/4/456.full

And no, I'm not interested in getting any information from youtube videos, I prefer scientific articles and journals that reference their sources.

[BADecker]

OK, well bear in mind that I'm not a big fan of the Pharmaceutical industry, and yes they have been know to corrupt studies and data to their own advantage. That doesn't mean that everything they do is corrupt.

Meta-analyses are used to try and find the most accurate results, to get around tactics like data fabrication and cherry picking (that Big Pharma have been known to use), I'm not sure why you think they are "rich in deliberate fraud". Of course they have to be properly designed, but when they are they are the gold standard of statistical significance in science/medicine.

Are you someone who still believes there to be a link between vaccines and autism (you haven't made your position very clear)?

If so, what problems do you have with any of the studies that show there to be no statistical link? Here's an article that references 20 studies that have been done, using different methods, with high numbers of samples and statistical power: http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/48/4/456.full

And no, I'm not interested in getting any information from youtube videos, I prefer scientific articles and journals that reference their sources.

You like medical studies, but you don't want to look at the coincidences?

Baby very healthy.
Vaccines administered.
Baby suddenly autistic.

http://www.naturalnews.com/026953_thimerosal_autism_mercury.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/027178_autism_vaccines.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/048753_Wakefield_study_MMR_vaccine_autism.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/027239_vaccine_flu_vaccines.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_vaccines_junk_science.html

[protokol]

If the human body must have vaccines to survive, then evolution and natural selection are fraudulent scientific theories. Conversely, if natural selection is real, then all humans are the survivors of thousands of generations of ancestors who self-immunized without any vaccines at all.

Yet today, ridiculous scientists and vaccine propaganda pushers tell us that modern humans would all die without vaccines, claiming our immune systems are incapable of protecting us without vaccines.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/054317_vaccine_science_natural_selection_contradiction.html#ixzz4BE522kdM

Evolution works on a large time scale.  Over time, animals that survived developed immunity to diseases that took out animals before them.
You either survive or you die.  That is how immune systems work in the context of evolution.

Evolution doesn't work at all except in the lab. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.msg14706492#msg14706492. Not only does the article at the link give evolution a tremendous, gigantic benefit of the doubt, the article doesn't even begin to talk about the things in nature that destroy evolution. The fact is, the longer the amount of time, the less chance evolution has of even getting a foothold.

Humans developed immunity to the diseases that happened in the past, but anything new has a potential to kill a large number of humans.  Some will survive and develop immunity naturally, their genes will be passed to the next generations.  The process is very brutal but the nature works that way.

Actually, it works exactly the other way around. Entropy shows that all complexity is breaking down... becoming more simple all the time. Adding poisons to a gradually weakening system, only makes that system break down faster.

What the proponents of vaccines are advocating is to get vaccines to known NEW viruses that you probably don't have antibodies for in your bloodstream.

This is a noble thought. But why not strengthen the system to fight the new viruses, rather than poisoning it with some old, dead viruses and all the poisons that are added to the vaccine... like mercury?

There are few problems:  the ingredients in the vaccines might be harmful to you (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vaccine_ingredients), the virus that you take the vaccine for might not be harmful to you or you might not get infected so you are taking something that you don't really need.

I think it is a personal choice, just like the insurance coverage.  You know things like life insurance.

It might be personal choice for you an adult. But government is forcing it on your kids. And, they are doing it while knowing it is bad for them.

I'm not going to spend too long trying to explain evolution to you, I really haven't got time and “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he never was reasoned into.”

Suffice to say, you don't understand the concept at all. Your main problem is that you're thinking of Evolution itself as some sort of "entity" with a plan, when in fact it is just an abstract concept.

The 2nd law of Thermodynamics, or entropy, doesn't apply here because we are not in an isolated system - the Earth gets energy from the Sun and therefore can decrease its entropy (even though the Universe as a whole does have slowly increasing entropy). It is possible for one part of the Universe to become more ordered, even as the whole thing is becoming less ordered over time. Nothing about the 2nd law is violated by the concept of Evolution.

You say evolution can occur in a lab, so I assume you're aware that we can witness bacteria and viruses evolve.

HIV is a really good example: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_04, "It reproduces sloppily, accumulating lots of mutations when it copies its genetic material. It also reproduces at a lightning-fast rate — a single virus can spawn billions of copies in just one day.").

Is it so hard to accept that the same process can happen in the wild, with more complex organisms (at a much slower pace)?

Entropy applies because it applies to everything. Even though something looks like it is "advancing," it is doing so at the expense of something else that is declining more rapidly. You virtually said this, above, in other language.

We can see evolution occur in the lab, after we make evolution occur in the lab.

We don't have even ONE clear example of evolution happening in nature, which could not be attributed to something else at the same time. All the "slower pace" happenings would be destroyed by nature - say by oxidation - long before they got off the ground. The slower they are, the longer they take, the more time there is for something to destroy them. And there are loads of natural chemical reactions that are out to break down more complex chemicals.

Evolutionists have play a trick. They have said that evolution takes a long time, and that's why we can't see it happening. The thing that they don't include in this thinking is that the longer the time, the more opportunity for evolved "things" to be attacked and destroyed.

Go ahead and turn away from solid science if you want. Delude yourself into thinking evolution might be able to happen. But the math of simple chemistry and physics show that evolution is utterly impossible.

Like I said above, the concept of entropy works in an isolated system (ie the whole Universe), but not necessarily on Earth. Chemistry and Physics do not show that it is impossible, in fact they support the idea, which is why it's a scientific theory.

The way you describe Evolution shows that you just don't get it - sentences like "the longer the time, the more opportunity for evolved "things" to be attacked and destroyed." and "All the "slower pace" happenings would be destroyed by nature" make so sense whatsoever. Natural selection comes from tiny mutations in DNA, and over time the beneficial ones stick around while the useless ones disappear.

I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain it. Maybe one day you'll accept it, but you've obviously been indoctrinated pretty hard with some strong opinions on this. My number one tip to you, if you really want to learn, is to challenge your views and try reading articles from other places, rather than stuff like AiG and new age health websites. And always check the sources and references.

New Scientist is a great source for mostly unbiased and accurate articles, without being too dry.

[protokol]

OK, well bear in mind that I'm not a big fan of the Pharmaceutical industry, and yes they have been know to corrupt studies and data to their own advantage. That doesn't mean that everything they do is corrupt.

Meta-analyses are used to try and find the most accurate results, to get around tactics like data fabrication and cherry picking (that Big Pharma have been known to use), I'm not sure why you think they are "rich in deliberate fraud". Of course they have to be properly designed, but when they are they are the gold standard of statistical significance in science/medicine.

Are you someone who still believes there to be a link between vaccines and autism (you haven't made your position very clear)?

If so, what problems do you have with any of the studies that show there to be no statistical link? Here's an article that references 20 studies that have been done, using different methods, with high numbers of samples and statistical power: http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/48/4/456.full

And no, I'm not interested in getting any information from youtube videos, I prefer scientific articles and journals that reference their sources.

You like medical studies, but you don't want to look at the coincidences?

Baby very healthy.
Vaccines administered.
Baby suddenly autistic.

http://www.naturalnews.com/026953_thimerosal_autism_mercury.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/027178_autism_vaccines.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/048753_Wakefield_study_MMR_vaccine_autism.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/027239_vaccine_flu_vaccines.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_vaccines_junk_science.html

See bolded. That is not a very scientific way to get your views.

I did read your links, but naturalnews is a very poor source for this sort of information. As I said earlier, the owners of sites like this probably don't believe the majority of the stuff they post, but they have pinpointed a demographic of people that lap it up. Notice all the ads on the page? Money in their pocket.

Of the links, the only one with much substance was the first, with the study on Thimerosal on in vitro (petri dish) cells. I'll have a closer look at the study, but as far as I'm aware Thimerosal isn't in any vaccines apart from the flu vaccine since 2001. So kind of irrelevant to anything about autism.

2nd link was just quotes from books, trying to prove a wishy-washy anecdotal link. Poor.
3rd link was just an outright lying headline - No his study hasn't been vindicated: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0/abstract see those big red letters that say "RETRACTED"?
4th and 5th were about flu vaccine, which I wasn't discussing.

The only way we can discuss this is if you make a clear position/argument so that we can debate it. Did you look through the article I linked with the 20 studies, did you pick up on any problems with any of the studies?

[BADecker]

If the human body must have vaccines to survive, then evolution and natural selection are fraudulent scientific theories. Conversely, if natural selection is real, then all humans are the survivors of thousands of generations of ancestors who self-immunized without any vaccines at all.

Yet today, ridiculous scientists and vaccine propaganda pushers tell us that modern humans would all die without vaccines, claiming our immune systems are incapable of protecting us without vaccines.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/054317_vaccine_science_natural_selection_contradiction.html#ixzz4BE522kdM

Evolution works on a large time scale.  Over time, animals that survived developed immunity to diseases that took out animals before them.
You either survive or you die.  That is how immune systems work in the context of evolution.

Evolution doesn't work at all except in the lab. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.msg14706492#msg14706492. Not only does the article at the link give evolution a tremendous, gigantic benefit of the doubt, the article doesn't even begin to talk about the things in nature that destroy evolution. The fact is, the longer the amount of time, the less chance evolution has of even getting a foothold.

Humans developed immunity to the diseases that happened in the past, but anything new has a potential to kill a large number of humans.  Some will survive and develop immunity naturally, their genes will be passed to the next generations.  The process is very brutal but the nature works that way.

Actually, it works exactly the other way around. Entropy shows that all complexity is breaking down... becoming more simple all the time. Adding poisons to a gradually weakening system, only makes that system break down faster.

What the proponents of vaccines are advocating is to get vaccines to known NEW viruses that you probably don't have antibodies for in your bloodstream.

This is a noble thought. But why not strengthen the system to fight the new viruses, rather than poisoning it with some old, dead viruses and all the poisons that are added to the vaccine... like mercury?

There are few problems:  the ingredients in the vaccines might be harmful to you (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vaccine_ingredients), the virus that you take the vaccine for might not be harmful to you or you might not get infected so you are taking something that you don't really need.

I think it is a personal choice, just like the insurance coverage.  You know things like life insurance.

It might be personal choice for you an adult. But government is forcing it on your kids. And, they are doing it while knowing it is bad for them.

I'm not going to spend too long trying to explain evolution to you, I really haven't got time and “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he never was reasoned into.”

Suffice to say, you don't understand the concept at all. Your main problem is that you're thinking of Evolution itself as some sort of "entity" with a plan, when in fact it is just an abstract concept.

The 2nd law of Thermodynamics, or entropy, doesn't apply here because we are not in an isolated system - the Earth gets energy from the Sun and therefore can decrease its entropy (even though the Universe as a whole does have slowly increasing entropy). It is possible for one part of the Universe to become more ordered, even as the whole thing is becoming less ordered over time. Nothing about the 2nd law is violated by the concept of Evolution.

You say evolution can occur in a lab, so I assume you're aware that we can witness bacteria and viruses evolve.

HIV is a really good example: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_04, "It reproduces sloppily, accumulating lots of mutations when it copies its genetic material. It also reproduces at a lightning-fast rate — a single virus can spawn billions of copies in just one day.").

Is it so hard to accept that the same process can happen in the wild, with more complex organisms (at a much slower pace)?

Entropy applies because it applies to everything. Even though something looks like it is "advancing," it is doing so at the expense of something else that is declining more rapidly. You virtually said this, above, in other language.

We can see evolution occur in the lab, after we make evolution occur in the lab.

We don't have even ONE clear example of evolution happening in nature, which could not be attributed to something else at the same time. All the "slower pace" happenings would be destroyed by nature - say by oxidation - long before they got off the ground. The slower they are, the longer they take, the more time there is for something to destroy them. And there are loads of natural chemical reactions that are out to break down more complex chemicals.

Evolutionists have play a trick. They have said that evolution takes a long time, and that's why we can't see it happening. The thing that they don't include in this thinking is that the longer the time, the more opportunity for evolved "things" to be attacked and destroyed.

Go ahead and turn away from solid science if you want. Delude yourself into thinking evolution might be able to happen. But the math of simple chemistry and physics show that evolution is utterly impossible.

Like I said above, the concept of entropy works in an isolated system (ie the whole Universe), but not necessarily on Earth. Chemistry and Physics do not show that it is impossible, in fact they support the idea, which is why it's a scientific theory.

But the probability math of chemistry and physics, and the way things work naturally, show that evolution is impossible, and absolutely should never have been moved into the science theory realm.

The way you describe Evolution shows that you just don't get it - sentences like "the longer the time, the more opportunity for evolved "things" to be attacked and destroyed." and "All the "slower pace" happenings would be destroyed by nature" make so sense whatsoever. Natural selection comes from tiny mutations in DNA, and over time the beneficial ones stick around while the useless ones disappear.

This is exactly the point that I and many others get. The scientific community has enslaved your mind into thinking in the wrong way. Here's what I mean.

Evolution is a slow thing. For example. A beneficial mutation process occurs. Molecule A attaches to molecule B in a beneficial mutation process. The odds of this happening are extremely poor. But let's say it happens. Because evolution takes so extremely long, the AB molecule combination sits there waiting for another beneficial mutation to happen to it, where molecule C would be added to the combo. Or does it sit there and wait? No! Rather, it is destroyed by all kinds of adverse chemistry, like oxidation.

Okay, step back from this for a minute and consider. There is no way for evolution "advancement" to happen. It is a wonderful science fiction story. But is is only science fiction. Mathematically, it is utterly impossible for anything like evolution to happen, ever, except in the realm of science fiction.

I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain it. Maybe one day you'll accept it, but you've obviously been indoctrinated pretty hard with some strong opinions on this. My number one tip to you, if you really want to learn, is to challenge your views and try reading articles from other places, rather than stuff like AiG and new age health websites. And always check the sources and references.

That's okay. Since there isn't anything more to explain, why keep on trying?

The most difficult thing to understand is why scientists ignore the greatest part of their science in favor of science fiction. I mean, they can barely make a small handful of things that might pertain to evolution work in the lab.

Suggesting that evolution might be possible somehow would be okay. But suggesting that it is fact in the face of so many aspects of science that prove it to be utterly impossible is religion.

New Scientist is a great source for mostly unbiased and accurate articles, without being too dry.

I think that if you juggle all the New Scientist articles with each other, you will see that it is very self-contradictory.

[BADecker]

OK, well bear in mind that I'm not a big fan of the Pharmaceutical industry, and yes they have been know to corrupt studies and data to their own advantage. That doesn't mean that everything they do is corrupt.

Meta-analyses are used to try and find the most accurate results, to get around tactics like data fabrication and cherry picking (that Big Pharma have been known to use), I'm not sure why you think they are "rich in deliberate fraud". Of course they have to be properly designed, but when they are they are the gold standard of statistical significance in science/medicine.

Are you someone who still believes there to be a link between vaccines and autism (you haven't made your position very clear)?

If so, what problems do you have with any of the studies that show there to be no statistical link? Here's an article that references 20 studies that have been done, using different methods, with high numbers of samples and statistical power: http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/48/4/456.full

And no, I'm not interested in getting any information from youtube videos, I prefer scientific articles and journals that reference their sources.

You like medical studies, but you don't want to look at the coincidences?

Baby very healthy.
Vaccines administered.
Baby suddenly autistic.

http://www.naturalnews.com/026953_thimerosal_autism_mercury.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/027178_autism_vaccines.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/048753_Wakefield_study_MMR_vaccine_autism.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/027239_vaccine_flu_vaccines.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_vaccines_junk_science.html

See bolded. That is not a very scientific way to get your views.

I did read your links, but naturalnews is a very poor source for this sort of information. As I said earlier, the owners of sites like this probably don't believe the majority of the stuff they post, but they have pinpointed a demographic of people that lap it up. Notice all the ads on the page? Money in their pocket.

Of the links, the only one with much substance was the first, with the study on Thimerosal on in vitro (petri dish) cells. I'll have a closer look at the study, but as far as I'm aware Thimerosal isn't in any vaccines apart from the flu vaccine since 2001. So kind of irrelevant to anything about autism.

2nd link was just quotes from books, trying to prove a wishy-washy anecdotal link. Poor.
3rd link was just an outright lying headline - No his study hasn't been vindicated: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0/abstract see those big red letters that say "RETRACTED"?
4th and 5th were about flu vaccine, which I wasn't discussing.

The only way we can discuss this is if you make a clear position/argument so that we can debate it. Did you look through the article I linked with the 20 studies, did you pick up on any problems with any of the studies?

I agree that Natural News is a poor place to look at studies and papers. But, it is a great place to get a good idea of how mixed up the medical industry is regarding the things that they say work.

One might have to track the things that NN says. But the tracking would bring one to the conclusion that there is more detrimental stuff going on in the medical than beneficial stuff.... except to make money for Big Pharma, if that can be called a benefit.

[protokol]

BADecker, I think something's just clicked... You're not talking about Darwinism/evolution/Natural Selection! You're talking about how living cells first came into being, or abiogenesis, right? That's what your molecule example sounds like, because that's not the sort of evolution I was talking about.

You see when most people talk about Evolution they are not talking about Abiogenesis - they are two totally separate things. Unlike the theory of Evolution, Abiogenesis has not been explained by science in any meaningful way, although there are some hypotheses.

[BADecker]

BADecker, I think something's just clicked... You're not talking about Darwinism/evolution/Natural Selection! You're talking about how living cells first came into being, or abiogenesis, right? That's what your molecule example sounds like, because that's not the sort of evolution I was talking about.

You see when most people talk about Evolution they are not talking about Abiogenesis - they are two totally separate things. Unlike the theory of Evolution, Abiogenesis has not been explained by science in any meaningful way, although there are some hypotheses.

Darwin didn't really have a clue how his idea of evolution would work. He mostly suggested that it was simply there. However, anyone who tries to find out where life came from, and goes the evolution route, sooner or later has to consider abiogenesis... or stop looking at the most fundamental part of evolution... where it all started.

The idea of separating evolution from abiogenesis completely, is one of two things:
A. It is separation to more directly focus on aspects of one or the other;
B. It is separation to cause conflicts in understanding, because both are together - cannot be separated, basically - and are being used by science to cover up the fact that evolution and abiogenesis are impossible.

There is a third thing: C) that scientists are trying to change the meaning of "evolution" to "change," so that they can gracefully step out of their appearance of stupidity while keeping their status in society. The medical does this on a regular basis by changing disease smptoms on the books, and suddenly you are looking at a whole new disease.

[protokol]

BADecker, I think something's just clicked... You're not talking about Darwinism/evolution/Natural Selection! You're talking about how living cells first came into being, or abiogenesis, right? That's what your molecule example sounds like, because that's not the sort of evolution I was talking about.

You see when most people talk about Evolution they are not talking about Abiogenesis - they are two totally separate things. Unlike the theory of Evolution, Abiogenesis has not been explained by science in any meaningful way, although there are some hypotheses.

Darwin didn't really have a clue how his idea of evolution would work. He mostly suggested that it was simply there. However, anyone who tries to find out where life came from, and goes the evolution route, sooner or later has to consider abiogenesis... or stop looking at the most fundamental part of evolution... where it all started.

The idea of separating evolution from abiogenesis completely, is one of two things:
A. It is separation to more directly focus on aspects of one or the other;
B. It is separation to cause conflicts in understanding, because both are together - cannot be separated, basically - and are being used by science to cover up the fact that evolution and abiogenesis are impossible.

There is a third thing: C) that scientists are trying to change the meaning of "evolution" to "change," so that they can gracefully step out of their appearance of stupidity while keeping their status in society. The medical does this on a regular basis by changing disease smptoms on the books, and suddenly you are looking at a whole new disease.

Hmm I don't know what you mean by most of this post, there's a lot of words but you haven't really got a coherent point. Let me try and break it down...

Darwin wasn't researching the origin of life itself, his famous book was titled "The Origin of Species". The theory of evolution is an explanation for the diversity of life we see, it says nothing of the initial origins of life. It is not something that can "simply be there" or not, it is a process, or concept.

The main hypotheses for the actual origin of life are based on ways in which certain chemicals could form amino acids and then RNA and DNA. Some think this may have happened in deep ocean vents, others think material from meteorites may be involved. It's all quite mysterious and no-one knows for sure what happened. The theory of evolution is everything that happened after these cells with RNA/DNA appeared, and is an accepted scientific theory.

Evolution and Abiogenesis are two separate areas.

Sure, if you are trying to answer the big questions in life such as "Where did we come from?" then you need to look at both of these areas. You would also need to look at many other fields, astrophysics and the Big Bang theory, microbiology to understand proteins and enzymes etc. That doesn't mean that these fields can't be studied and discussed separately, this is the easiest way to attempt to answer the big questions in life!

Evolution doesn't explain how life began, and was never designed to. What is does explain however, is the huge diversity of life and the way in which certain species seem to be engineered perfectly for their environment.

[BADecker]

BADecker, I think something's just clicked... You're not talking about Darwinism/evolution/Natural Selection! You're talking about how living cells first came into being, or abiogenesis, right? That's what your molecule example sounds like, because that's not the sort of evolution I was talking about.

You see when most people talk about Evolution they are not talking about Abiogenesis - they are two totally separate things. Unlike the theory of Evolution, Abiogenesis has not been explained by science in any meaningful way, although there are some hypotheses.

Darwin didn't really have a clue how his idea of evolution would work. He mostly suggested that it was simply there. However, anyone who tries to find out where life came from, and goes the evolution route, sooner or later has to consider abiogenesis... or stop looking at the most fundamental part of evolution... where it all started.

The idea of separating evolution from abiogenesis completely, is one of two things:
A. It is separation to more directly focus on aspects of one or the other;
B. It is separation to cause conflicts in understanding, because both are together - cannot be separated, basically - and are being used by science to cover up the fact that evolution and abiogenesis are impossible.

There is a third thing: C) that scientists are trying to change the meaning of "evolution" to "change," so that they can gracefully step out of their appearance of stupidity while keeping their status in society. The medical does this on a regular basis by changing disease smptoms on the books, and suddenly you are looking at a whole new disease.

Hmm I don't know what you mean by most of this post, there's a lot of words but you haven't really got a coherent point. Let me try and break it down...

Darwin wasn't researching the origin of life itself, his famous book was titled "The Origin of Species". The theory of evolution is an explanation for the diversity of life we see, it says nothing of the initial origins of life. It is not something that can "simply be there" or not, it is a process, or concept.

The main hypotheses for the actual origin of life are based on ways in which certain chemicals could form amino acids and then RNA and DNA. Some think this may have happened in deep ocean vents, others think material from meteorites may be involved. It's all quite mysterious and no-one knows for sure what happened. The theory of evolution is everything that happened after these cells with RNA/DNA appeared, and is an accepted scientific theory.

Evolution and  are two separate areas.

Sure, if you are trying to answer the big questions in life such as "Where did we come from?" then you need to look at both of these areas. You would also need to look at many other fields, astrophysics and the Big Bang theory, microbiology to understand proteins and enzymes etc. That doesn't mean that these fields can't be studied and discussed separately, this is the easiest way to attempt to answer the big questions in life!

Evolution doesn't explain how life began, and was never designed to. What is does explain however, is the huge diversity of life and the way in which certain species seem to be engineered perfectly for their environment.

Although abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different studies in science, they both work through a similar process... evolution/change/mutation. It is impossible in the scheme of things to ignore one in favor of the other. Mentally we can compartmentalize. In reality, they are connected. What this means is that the same probability math that makes changes in your definition of evolution, is the same thing that shows that such changes are impossible.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution:
All life on Earth shares a common ancestor known as the last universal ancestor, which lived approximately 3.5–3.8 billion years ago, although a study in 2015 found "remains of biotic life" from 4.1 billion years ago in ancient rocks in Western Australia.

The steps from the development of one form of life to any other, involve mutation or intelligent design. Mutation has been ruled out by probability math.

Btw, the "many other fields" are entirely inconclusive. They only serve as areas of science fiction with regard to every form of evolution/change from inorganic through any stage to fully developed mankind.



EDIT: The term "natural selection" suggests that selecting can happen without intelligence. There is absolutely no proof for this, especially in the light that cause and effect permeate everything that we know and understand.

[protokol]

BADecker, I think something's just clicked... You're not talking about Darwinism/evolution/Natural Selection! You're talking about how living cells first came into being, or abiogenesis, right? That's what your molecule example sounds like, because that's not the sort of evolution I was talking about.

You see when most people talk about Evolution they are not talking about Abiogenesis - they are two totally separate things. Unlike the theory of Evolution, Abiogenesis has not been explained by science in any meaningful way, although there are some hypotheses.

Darwin didn't really have a clue how his idea of evolution would work. He mostly suggested that it was simply there. However, anyone who tries to find out where life came from, and goes the evolution route, sooner or later has to consider abiogenesis... or stop looking at the most fundamental part of evolution... where it all started.

The idea of separating evolution from abiogenesis completely, is one of two things:
A. It is separation to more directly focus on aspects of one or the other;
B. It is separation to cause conflicts in understanding, because both are together - cannot be separated, basically - and are being used by science to cover up the fact that evolution and abiogenesis are impossible.

There is a third thing: C) that scientists are trying to change the meaning of "evolution" to "change," so that they can gracefully step out of their appearance of stupidity while keeping their status in society. The medical does this on a regular basis by changing disease smptoms on the books, and suddenly you are looking at a whole new disease.

Hmm I don't know what you mean by most of this post, there's a lot of words but you haven't really got a coherent point. Let me try and break it down...

Darwin wasn't researching the origin of life itself, his famous book was titled "The Origin of Species". The theory of evolution is an explanation for the diversity of life we see, it says nothing of the initial origins of life. It is not something that can "simply be there" or not, it is a process, or concept.

The main hypotheses for the actual origin of life are based on ways in which certain chemicals could form amino acids and then RNA and DNA. Some think this may have happened in deep ocean vents, others think material from meteorites may be involved. It's all quite mysterious and no-one knows for sure what happened. The theory of evolution is everything that happened after these cells with RNA/DNA appeared, and is an accepted scientific theory.

Evolution and  are two separate areas.

Sure, if you are trying to answer the big questions in life such as "Where did we come from?" then you need to look at both of these areas. You would also need to look at many other fields, astrophysics and the Big Bang theory, microbiology to understand proteins and enzymes etc. That doesn't mean that these fields can't be studied and discussed separately, this is the easiest way to attempt to answer the big questions in life!

Evolution doesn't explain how life began, and was never designed to. What is does explain however, is the huge diversity of life and the way in which certain species seem to be engineered perfectly for their environment.

...

What this means is that the same probability math that makes changes in your definition of evolution, is the same thing that shows that such changes are impossible.

...

The steps from the development of one form of life to any other, involve mutation or intelligent design. Mutation has been ruled out by probability math.

...

EDIT: The term "natural selection" suggests that selecting can happen without intelligence. There is absolutely no proof for this, especially in the light that cause and effect permeate everything that we know and understand.

OK, looks like you don't understand what the words "probability", "math", "mutation" or "evolution" mean, quite possibly all four.

I'm out, have a good day.

[BADecker]

BADecker, I think something's just clicked... You're not talking about Darwinism/evolution/Natural Selection! You're talking about how living cells first came into being, or abiogenesis, right? That's what your molecule example sounds like, because that's not the sort of evolution I was talking about.

You see when most people talk about Evolution they are not talking about Abiogenesis - they are two totally separate things. Unlike the theory of Evolution, Abiogenesis has not been explained by science in any meaningful way, although there are some hypotheses.

Darwin didn't really have a clue how his idea of evolution would work. He mostly suggested that it was simply there. However, anyone who tries to find out where life came from, and goes the evolution route, sooner or later has to consider abiogenesis... or stop looking at the most fundamental part of evolution... where it all started.

The idea of separating evolution from abiogenesis completely, is one of two things:
A. It is separation to more directly focus on aspects of one or the other;
B. It is separation to cause conflicts in understanding, because both are together - cannot be separated, basically - and are being used by science to cover up the fact that evolution and abiogenesis are impossible.

There is a third thing: C) that scientists are trying to change the meaning of "evolution" to "change," so that they can gracefully step out of their appearance of stupidity while keeping their status in society. The medical does this on a regular basis by changing disease smptoms on the books, and suddenly you are looking at a whole new disease.

Hmm I don't know what you mean by most of this post, there's a lot of words but you haven't really got a coherent point. Let me try and break it down...

Darwin wasn't researching the origin of life itself, his famous book was titled "The Origin of Species". The theory of evolution is an explanation for the diversity of life we see, it says nothing of the initial origins of life. It is not something that can "simply be there" or not, it is a process, or concept.

The main hypotheses for the actual origin of life are based on ways in which certain chemicals could form amino acids and then RNA and DNA. Some think this may have happened in deep ocean vents, others think material from meteorites may be involved. It's all quite mysterious and no-one knows for sure what happened. The theory of evolution is everything that happened after these cells with RNA/DNA appeared, and is an accepted scientific theory.

Evolution and  are two separate areas.

Sure, if you are trying to answer the big questions in life such as "Where did we come from?" then you need to look at both of these areas. You would also need to look at many other fields, astrophysics and the Big Bang theory, microbiology to understand proteins and enzymes etc. That doesn't mean that these fields can't be studied and discussed separately, this is the easiest way to attempt to answer the big questions in life!

Evolution doesn't explain how life began, and was never designed to. What is does explain however, is the huge diversity of life and the way in which certain species seem to be engineered perfectly for their environment.

...

What this means is that the same probability math that makes changes in your definition of evolution, is the same thing that shows that such changes are impossible.

...

The steps from the development of one form of life to any other, involve mutation or intelligent design. Mutation has been ruled out by probability math.

...

EDIT: The term "natural selection" suggests that selecting can happen without intelligence. There is absolutely no proof for this, especially in the light that cause and effect permeate everything that we know and understand.

OK, looks like you don't understand what the words "probability", "math", "mutation" or "evolution" mean, quite possibly all four.

I'm out, have a good day.

Actually, I understand them quite well. What you don't understand (except that you are intentionally part of the deception), is that there are scientists all over the place who are unwilling to look at the fact that probability math doesn't allow for evolution, and that mutation is destructive mutation, not beneficial mutation. While science can imagine these things, there is no fact showing that they actually exist (beneficial mutation and evolution), except a little bit, sort of, when they are created in the lab.