Evolution is a hoax

[BADecker]

How did humans get here on EARTH..

1 we evolved because the EARTH made us this way..

2 Aliens some how put us here..

3 a man like being went ZAP and everything was so ..

Can only be 3 outcomes..

Imagine a germ flying through space lands on a rock I.E our earth and then we humans come along..

We still evolved from this planet because with the different weather patterns and environmental changes we evolved to look like what we are today..

With a different environment who knows we might look so much different ?..
Still might be humanoid but look so much different ..

So only can be 3 outcomes to how we come to be..

And 1 of the outcomes is called EVOLUTION THEORIES ..

How did we evolved on this planet = EVOLUTION ..

So now you can make your choice 1   2  OR 3 what is your choice ..

I choose the earth made us because of DNA proves the fact even more so..

1. Evolution is scientifically impossible.

2. Where did the aliens come from? Were they created or did they evolve? Remember, evolution is impossible.

3. We see that mankind can't make any living thing from something inanimate. Therefore, it can't be some manlike being.


God created all things, and made man, as well.

1.Prove it

2.They always existed like god

3.Abiogenesis

1. Simply Google many forms of "Is evolution impossible?" The results might have been talked around by evolutionists. But the the proofs that evolution is impossible have never been rebutted.

2. The vast complexity of the universe shows that if there were more than one being that created it, they were acting in such "tight" concert, that they were acting as one. One God.

3. Are you stating that man created abiogenesis? Man might have created the word "abiogenesis." But man never made actual abiogenesis work.

1. I did and all of them are refuted, like I refuted them here and you couldn't even answer to them lol

2. I don't know how you think complexity shows any of that, mind explaining?

3. Im stating that there are successful experiments where they have created organic molecules from non living matter.

1. There is nothing to answer. All, 100%, of the things that you talk about can be shown to be part of at least 1 operation other than evolution. None of them are proven to support evolution. None of them answer the probability point.

2. The GM company is one company. Yet it has many people and robots working for it. Together they make cars. If they tried to make cars without one goal in mind, they wouldn't be able to make them. Cars are too complex to be built with everyone deciding on his own course of action. They think together as one. They act together as one. They are one... one company. If they didn't work like this, the only cars we would have would be the ones that an individual can individually make.

The universe is almost infinitely more complex than a car. Even if there were many makers of the universe and nature and everything in it, they acted together. One God.

The Bible shows us that there is one God. Yet there are three persons in that God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). And there are the 7 Spirits of God (Revelations). But God is one God.

3. There are big differences between making organic molecules in the lab, simply manipulating some organic parts to make other organic parts, and making life. Making organic molecules in the lab is simply a form of intelligent design. All it points at in nature is an Intelligent Designer.


Evolution doesn't exist. It is impossible. The whole story of evolution is a science fiction story. Getting people to believe it is causing them to fall for a hoax.

1.Literally all your arguments were debunked. The probability argument was shown to be wrong because of how it was calculated, did you not understand that part either?

2.Ehm ok? So you admit that it can be different makers. One company... full of people LOL. All the other religions also shows us there is a God, how is that useful?

3.There are yet it was done, you always claim it's impossible.

1. Your points talk around probability. They don't actually work with probability. All your points do is to distract from probability, and then call the distraction probability.

2. Different makers with car companies, and all kinds of things that mankind makes. One maker of the universe - God - whatever God is.

3. There are what? Yet what was done? What do I claim is impossible?
Having trouble, aren't you. You can't seem to spell out what you are talking about. Your trouble shows that you are losing the battle. Otherwise you would express what you mean.

My point is that the way the probability argument was calculated it's wrong because it assumes you need 200 beneficial mutations or it assumes that you need good mutations in a row and that also everything else has the same chance of happening. It is actually pretty easy to understand. Then again you can't refute it.

You claimed that it is impossible to have life from non matter.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, only religious people have trouble accepting it.

Two-hundred, shmoo-hundred. Two-hundred was only a simple example. The reality is way more complex. The little probability against 200 shows that the real probability is so great that it is the 200 times itself many times over.

Words are not what they should be. We often assume many things into words. My claim was meant to be more like we cannot have spontaneously occurring life from inanimate substances without God.

All - ALL - the evidence for evolution can be applied to non-evolution processes and operations, as well. Cause and effect - scientific law - shows that this is, in fact, what is happening. Evolution non-law is defeated by scientific law. And, all science knows this, if they only look at the fact. But like you, they want to ignore it.

[1713966190]

1713966190

[BADecker]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/#DenMinBodIntAssPreEstHar

2. Denial of Mind-Body Interaction, Assertion of Pre-established Harmony


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_action



The laws of movement and of rest deduced from this principle being precisely the same as those observed in nature, we can admire the application of it to all phenomena. The movement of animals, the vegetative growth of plants ... are only its consequences; and the spectacle of the universe becomes so much the grander, so much more beautiful, the worthier of its Author, when one knows that a small number of laws, most wisely established, suffice for all movements.

— Pierre Louis Maupertuis

Interesting stuff. I am in agreement with much of it. However, words are inadequate for expressing reality.

I have questioned about the idea that God is one, and that every last anything in the universe is simply God, buzzing around, like some kind of a "Higgs Boson" particle, becoming whatever is necessary to exist at some point and time, and then moving on to the next point. This God-particle moving way faster than the speed of light cubed, is all that there is in the universe.

There is no electron. There is no proton. There is no energy. There is only God... a God particle... zipping around and zapping around, being whatever is necessary for whatever He/It wants to exist at any time and place in the universe. And we see it as a universe filled with time and material and physical laws and the various dimensions.

I don't know that I believe this. And my explanation is not sufficient. But I think about it.

God is one.

Liebniz argument are purely logical, the monad is not a physical particule

Monad is more like atomic consciousness, but it's a whole logic system.

Thank you. However, is the logic of it truly within the grasp of human understanding? But if it were to some highly intelligent person, would he be able to express it so that others could understand what he meant? There is so much that we have to take on faith...

[IadixDev]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/#DenMinBodIntAssPreEstHar

2. Denial of Mind-Body Interaction, Assertion of Pre-established Harmony


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_action



The laws of movement and of rest deduced from this principle being precisely the same as those observed in nature, we can admire the application of it to all phenomena. The movement of animals, the vegetative growth of plants ... are only its consequences; and the spectacle of the universe becomes so much the grander, so much more beautiful, the worthier of its Author, when one knows that a small number of laws, most wisely established, suffice for all movements.

— Pierre Louis Maupertuis

Interesting stuff. I am in agreement with much of it. However, words are inadequate for expressing reality.

I have questioned about the idea that God is one, and that every last anything in the universe is simply God, buzzing around, like some kind of a "Higgs Boson" particle, becoming whatever is necessary to exist at some point and time, and then moving on to the next point. This God-particle moving way faster than the speed of light cubed, is all that there is in the universe.

There is no electron. There is no proton. There is no energy. There is only God... a God particle... zipping around and zapping around, being whatever is necessary for whatever He/It wants to exist at any time and place in the universe. And we see it as a universe filled with time and material and physical laws and the various dimensions.

I don't know that I believe this. And my explanation is not sufficient. But I think about it.

God is one.

Liebniz argument are purely logical, the monad is not a physical particule

Monad is more like atomic consciousness, but it's a whole logic system.

Thank you. However, is the logic of it truly within the grasp of human understanding? But if it were to some highly intelligent person, would he be able to express it so that others could understand what he meant? There is so much that we have to take on faith...

Yes it's easy to understand !

One of the basics is into the link between events, and putting that for the universe to reach a particular state, it require a particular chain of event, and that what link one event to the next is basically "reason" or "truth", and there is one possible truth that link event to the next to make the universe what it is.

If instead of writing a "." Here I write a "," that imply an entierely different universe/logic.

It can be seen as wave in the ocean,  and the wave will be continuous over space & time, there is not a point where the waves physic will become something else.

All is continuous, the link between events is the same everywhere, all the time And there is only one "physic" For the whole universe.

What give the impression of different identity is only the limited amount of events that one can witness.

But the limited amount of event one can witness still contain the same truth than the other events another can witness.

It's this same truth everywhere, there is no fragmentation in the event chain anywhere,and there is only one possible existing chain of event to make up the reality.

But that's quick summary.

Need to read the whole thing, because the implication of this thinking applied to physics or mathematics are deep.

[IadixDev]

http://www.iep.utm.edu/leib-met/

5. Necessary Being

The complete concept of Caesar, according to Leibniz, cannot explain itself in its entirety. Expressed ontologically, this means that Caesar himself provides no explanation of why Caesar should have existed at all--Caesar is a contingent being. "Contingent" here simply means something that could have been otherwise; in the case of Caesar as a being, then, it means something that could have not existed at all. The principle of sufficient reason must not only apply to each predicate in the complete concept of a subject, but also it must apply to the concept itself in its entirety as the concept of an existing thing. Thus, there must be a sufficient reason for why this particular substance, Caesar, exists, rather than some other substance, or nothing at all.

What, then, sufficiently explains a contingent being such as Caesar? Possibly other substances, such as his parents, and they in turn are explained by still others? But the entire course of the universe, the total aggregate of substances across space and time, are one and all contingent. There are other possible things, to be sure; but there are also other possible universes that could have existed but did not. The totality of contingent things themselves do not sufficiently explain themselves. Here again, the principle of sufficient reason applies. There must be, Leibniz insists, something beyond the totality of contingent things which explains them, something which is itself necessary and therefore requires no explanation other than itself. (Note, however, that this does not assume an origin or beginning in any sense. Even if time stretched infinitely into the past, there would still be no explanation for the total course of things.)

God, according to Leibniz, is the necessary being which constitutes the sufficient explanation of the totality of contingent things--why the universe is this way rather than any other. Thus far, God's necessity is the only thing mentioned about such a being (there is not much religious or theological about this initially bare metaphysical concept). God as a being may be necessary, but if the contingent universe were simply a random or arbitrary act of God, then God would not constitute the required explanation of all things. In other words, God must not only be necessary, but also the source of the intelligibility of all things. It must be possible, therefore, to inquire into the reasons God had for authorizing or allowing this, rather than any other, universe to be the one that actually exists. And if God is to be the explanation of the intelligibility of the universe, then God must have access to that intelligibility, such that God could be said to know what it is that is being allowed to exist--that is, God must have the ability to grasp complete concepts, and to see at once the "whole demonstration" discussed above. God so far is therefore (i) a necessary being, (ii) the explanation of the universe, and (iii) the infinite intelligence.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/#WhatSuffReas

Leibniz presents arguments for the existence of God from the PSR in a number of different places (for example, The Ultimate Origination of Things, G VII 302–3; L 486–8. Monadology §37). Suppose that God does not exist. If God does not exist, then the only things that exist are contingent beings. Would the entire series of contingent things have an explanation? The explanation of the entire series cannot be a member of the series since then it would explain itself and no contingent thing is self-explanatory. But the explanation cannot be outside of the series because we have assumed that there is no non-contingent being, i.e., God. Thus if God did not exist, there would be something unexplained: the series of contingent beings. Everything has an explanation. Therefore God exists.

[9000]

OMG, this thread is hilarious.

People eat any shit thrown at them, I assume the majority of "Evolution Skeptics" are from USA, their failed education system and government hijacked by religious zealots enables the promotion of these kind of propaganda.

Fortunately, they are an exception in the civilized world.

[indrakusumaindra]

theory means to be a theory we dont know if its true or not. it's indeed would be great if we knew where we came from

[Astargath]

How did humans get here on EARTH..

1 we evolved because the EARTH made us this way..

2 Aliens some how put us here..

3 a man like being went ZAP and everything was so ..

Can only be 3 outcomes..

Imagine a germ flying through space lands on a rock I.E our earth and then we humans come along..

We still evolved from this planet because with the different weather patterns and environmental changes we evolved to look like what we are today..

With a different environment who knows we might look so much different ?..
Still might be humanoid but look so much different ..

So only can be 3 outcomes to how we come to be..

And 1 of the outcomes is called EVOLUTION THEORIES ..

How did we evolved on this planet = EVOLUTION ..

So now you can make your choice 1   2  OR 3 what is your choice ..

I choose the earth made us because of DNA proves the fact even more so..

1. Evolution is scientifically impossible.

2. Where did the aliens come from? Were they created or did they evolve? Remember, evolution is impossible.

3. We see that mankind can't make any living thing from something inanimate. Therefore, it can't be some manlike being.


God created all things, and made man, as well.

1.Prove it

2.They always existed like god

3.Abiogenesis

1. Simply Google many forms of "Is evolution impossible?" The results might have been talked around by evolutionists. But the the proofs that evolution is impossible have never been rebutted.

2. The vast complexity of the universe shows that if there were more than one being that created it, they were acting in such "tight" concert, that they were acting as one. One God.

3. Are you stating that man created abiogenesis? Man might have created the word "abiogenesis." But man never made actual abiogenesis work.

1. I did and all of them are refuted, like I refuted them here and you couldn't even answer to them lol

2. I don't know how you think complexity shows any of that, mind explaining?

3. Im stating that there are successful experiments where they have created organic molecules from non living matter.

1. There is nothing to answer. All, 100%, of the things that you talk about can be shown to be part of at least 1 operation other than evolution. None of them are proven to support evolution. None of them answer the probability point.

2. The GM company is one company. Yet it has many people and robots working for it. Together they make cars. If they tried to make cars without one goal in mind, they wouldn't be able to make them. Cars are too complex to be built with everyone deciding on his own course of action. They think together as one. They act together as one. They are one... one company. If they didn't work like this, the only cars we would have would be the ones that an individual can individually make.

The universe is almost infinitely more complex than a car. Even if there were many makers of the universe and nature and everything in it, they acted together. One God.

The Bible shows us that there is one God. Yet there are three persons in that God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). And there are the 7 Spirits of God (Revelations). But God is one God.

3. There are big differences between making organic molecules in the lab, simply manipulating some organic parts to make other organic parts, and making life. Making organic molecules in the lab is simply a form of intelligent design. All it points at in nature is an Intelligent Designer.


Evolution doesn't exist. It is impossible. The whole story of evolution is a science fiction story. Getting people to believe it is causing them to fall for a hoax.

1.Literally all your arguments were debunked. The probability argument was shown to be wrong because of how it was calculated, did you not understand that part either?

2.Ehm ok? So you admit that it can be different makers. One company... full of people LOL. All the other religions also shows us there is a God, how is that useful?

3.There are yet it was done, you always claim it's impossible.

1. Your points talk around probability. They don't actually work with probability. All your points do is to distract from probability, and then call the distraction probability.

2. Different makers with car companies, and all kinds of things that mankind makes. One maker of the universe - God - whatever God is.

3. There are what? Yet what was done? What do I claim is impossible?
Having trouble, aren't you. You can't seem to spell out what you are talking about. Your trouble shows that you are losing the battle. Otherwise you would express what you mean.

My point is that the way the probability argument was calculated it's wrong because it assumes you need 200 beneficial mutations or it assumes that you need good mutations in a row and that also everything else has the same chance of happening. It is actually pretty easy to understand. Then again you can't refute it.

You claimed that it is impossible to have life from non matter.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, only religious people have trouble accepting it.

Two-hundred, shmoo-hundred. Two-hundred was only a simple example. The reality is way more complex. The little probability against 200 shows that the real probability is so great that it is the 200 times itself many times over.

Words are not what they should be. We often assume many things into words. My claim was meant to be more like we cannot have spontaneously occurring life from inanimate substances without God.

All - ALL - the evidence for evolution can be applied to non-evolution processes and operations, as well. Cause and effect - scientific law - shows that this is, in fact, what is happening. Evolution non-law is defeated by scientific law. And, all science knows this, if they only look at the fact. But like you, they want to ignore it.

What it shows is that is wrong. If they knew the real one, why not use that instead of using a simple example that is flawed?

[PMmesexycoins]

I have questioned about the idea that God is one, and that every last anything in the universe is simply God, buzzing around, like some kind of a "Higgs Boson" particle, becoming whatever is necessary to exist at some point and time, and then moving on to the next point. This God-particle moving way faster than the speed of light cubed, is all that there is in the universe.

There is no electron. There is no proton. There is no energy. There is only God... a God particle... zipping around and zapping around, being whatever is necessary for whatever He/It wants to exist at any time and place in the universe. And we see it as a universe filled with time and material and physical laws and the various dimensions.

I don't know that I believe this. And my explanation is not sufficient. But I think about it.

God is one.

Hopefully we all are but the divided god, an Universe that is zero sum/loss.

[BigBall]

I think that we evoluted from human which was less smart than human of this histroy so i think that we dont have nothing with monkeys.If we have some connections with money in our gens that dont mean that we are cousins.

[toomanygoldy2]

We always argue about things we can't understand, but evolution is a fact, maybe not like we now it nowadays.

[BADecker]

What it shows is that is wrong. If they knew the real one, why not use that instead of using a simple example that is flawed?

No. What it shows is that you are afraid of saying anything that makes sense.

What what?
What it?
What showing?
Which that?
What is the wrongness?

They who?
which real what?
What that?
Which simple example of what?
What flaw?

You seem to be moving towards mindlessness.

[Astargath]

What it shows is that is wrong. If they knew the real one, why not use that instead of using a simple example that is flawed?

No. What it shows is that you are afraid of saying anything that makes sense.

What what?
What it?
What showing?
Which that?
What is the wrongness?

They who?
which real what?
What that?
Which simple example of what?
What flaw?

You seem to be moving towards mindlessness.

http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/ This link is the argument against evolution.

This is the response: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n832l/the_mathematical_impossibility_of_evolution_can/

I think it's pretty simple to understand that the calculated probability is simply wrong since it doesn't take in count many important factors and it's just assuming things.

[Kotone]

There are many kind of evolution around internet and i don't know which one is true even though we already tacle about the history of our country that human are came from ash or came from eva and adan and mostly is people are came up of money form

[IadixDev]

http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/ This link is the argument against evolution.

For me,this is only a part of the problem, because even so you could have the 200 concomitent mutation, it's only part of the problem when it come to explain the continuity through the whole chain of evolution, in sort that the first bacteria already have what it take to get to mozart, and there is still a sort of string of evolution which make that the "good" of those mutation cant always be known "a priori" only from the point it evolve from.

It's impossible for a monkey to know what "good mutation" get to einstein.

[IadixDev]

What it shows is that is wrong. If they knew the real one, why not use that instead of using a simple example that is flawed?

No. What it shows is that you are afraid of saying anything that makes sense.

What what?
What it?
What showing?
Which that?
What is the wrongness?

They who?
which real what?
What that?
Which simple example of what?
What flaw?

You seem to be moving towards mindlessness.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+2%3A6-16  

God’s Wisdom Revealed by the Spirit

For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

[Astargath]

http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/ This link is the argument against evolution.

For me,this is only a part of the problem, because even so you could have the 200 concomitent mutation, it's only part of the problem when it come to explain the continuity through the whole chain of evolution, in sort that the first bacteria already have what it take to get to mozart, and there is still a sort of string of evolution which make that the "good" of those mutation cant always be known "a priori" only from the point it evolve from.

It's impossible for a monkey to know what "good mutation" get to einstein.

You obviously do not understand evolution. It usually happens to people that deny it, it's pretty funny actually. An animal does not need to know what a good mutation is nor can they actually hold on to it or anything because it seems that's what you are implying. Mutations just happen for a number of reasons, if it's a good mutation then it usually stays and if it's not it's usually neutral or affects it very little. The article assumes that all the beneficial mutations must occur consecutively with no other mutations occurring in the meantime. When one allows harmful mutations that get selected out along the way, 200 beneficial mutations would accumulate fairly quickly. The real world is quite a bit more complicated yet. In particular, large populations and genetic recombination via sex can allow beneficial mutations to accumulate at a greater rate. BUT there is more to evolution than mutation. A small percentage of mutations are beneficial, and selection can cause the beneficial mutations to persist and the harmful mutations to die off. The combination of mutation and selection can create new useful adaptations.

[IadixDev]

http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/ This link is the argument against evolution.

For me,this is only a part of the problem, because even so you could have the 200 concomitent mutation, it's only part of the problem when it come to explain the continuity through the whole chain of evolution, in sort that the first bacteria already have what it take to get to mozart, and there is still a sort of string of evolution which make that the "good" of those mutation cant always be known "a priori" only from the point it evolve from.

It's impossible for a monkey to know what "good mutation" get to einstein.

You obviously do not understand evolution. It usually happens to people that deny it, it's pretty funny actually. An animal does not need to know what a good mutation is nor can they actually hold on to it or anything because it seems that's what you are implying. Mutations just happen for a number of reasons, if it's a good mutation then it usually stays and if it's not it's usually neutral or affects it very little. The article assumes that all the beneficial mutations must occur consecutively with no other mutations occurring in the meantime. When one allows harmful mutations that get selected out along the way, 200 beneficial mutations would accumulate fairly quickly. The real world is quite a bit more complicated yet. In particular, large populations and genetic recombination via sex can allow beneficial mutations to accumulate at a greater rate. BUT there is more to evolution than mutation. A small percentage of mutations are beneficial, and selection can cause the beneficial mutations to persist and the harmful mutations to die off. The combination of mutation and selection can create new useful adaptations.

I dont deny evolution lol

But how can the "good"  of the mutation that make it stay lead to a result that has zero obvious interest when it come by.


It's not like understanding time dilation do any good to a monkey peeling his banana.


Evolution is not goal-directed, whatever works is what is preserved, it isn't aiming at a specific outcome many generations in advance.

It's really this point that I find moot.

And it's something that has been issued by many great minds, including Nobel.

But im in vacation, I dont have my books here and im with the tablet so I feel a bit handicaped to really demonstrate this lol even typing 3 sentences look herculean lol

But if you are interested in more than hamering a doctrine , I will be able to find more water to this point.

If you really study the thing, you will see this point is hard to really hold.



You obviously dont know what I understand

[BADecker]

What it shows is that is wrong. If they knew the real one, why not use that instead of using a simple example that is flawed?

No. What it shows is that you are afraid of saying anything that makes sense.

What what?
What it?
What showing?
Which that?
What is the wrongness?

They who?
which real what?
What that?
Which simple example of what?
What flaw?

You seem to be moving towards mindlessness.

http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/ This link is the argument against evolution.

This is the response: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n832l/the_mathematical_impossibility_of_evolution_can/

I think it's pretty simple to understand that the calculated probability is simply wrong since it doesn't take in count many important factors and it's just assuming things.

It's kinda like taking a look at nature, and assuming there is any evolution at all. Since evolution has never been seen happening, and anything that somebody says is evolution can be shown to be other things instead, all of evolution is a make-believe story.

Now, if this were the only point against evolution, the odds that evolution was false would be astronomical. But add to it things like
- the probability against the parts coming together,
- Irreducible Complexity,
- the fact that nature must have been smarter than scientists to be able to do what scientists can't,
- machinery design of nature that points to an Intelligent Designer,
- cause and effect programming,
- entropy that shows that things devolve rather than evolve,
- the fact that in the few cases where nature makes complex chemicals that it destroys them almost immediately,
- and many other things that you can find when you Google search for them...
shows that the entire probability against evolution is way beyond what science considers necessary for there to even be a chance that evolution happened.

Evolution isn't just a hoax. It is a grand hoax.

[bkbirge]

Why do the creationists on this thread embrace the most magical mythical stories as possible and part of the plan of an omnipotent unknowably complex god yet also say that probability math makes evolution impossible?

[BADecker]

Why do the creationists on this thread embrace the most magical mythical stories as possible and part of the plan of an omnipotent unknowably complex god yet also say that probability math makes evolution impossible?

As for other creationists, I don't know.

Scientifically speaking, science has proven God exists:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

Cause and effect alone show that mutations are not at all random. This shows design, thereby disrupting the clear explanation of evolution.

Entropy suggests devolution is the fact.

It isn't only probability.