Evolution

[The_Barbarian]

An interesting situation arose when Mr. Miller preformed this experiment. He used gasses that he thought were most likely present in the beginning. But he left out undiluted oxygen. Why?

Because he was trying to recreate the condition in the early Earth. The reduced iron deposits show that there wasn’t much free oxygen in the atmosphere of the early Earth.

By around 4.2 Ga, the earth’s atmosphere was becoming relatively stable and consisted primarily of volcanic gas. At this time the atmosphere was primarily water vapor (94%), CO (4%), N2(4%), CO, and SO 2 (7). Fig 3 (left, 2d from bottom) is an artist’s rendition of the earth at about 4.0 Ga (note that the moon is much closer) corresponding to the time that Life first appeared on the earth. (8) The final Figure above, Fig 3a (bottom), represents the appearence of stromatolites, earth’s first reef system occurring in shallow seas, formed by early Archaean bacteria around 3.6 - 3.8 Ga.
chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/oec/motm.htm

He had too, because empirical science proves that life can’t be started in the presence of oxygen.

See above. There’s a good reason for that.

it affects the cellular structure. but oxygen is necessary for the ozone layer to prevent the earth from instantly frying due to the sun’s rays.

Unless it happened in the water. There’s a good reason for that, too.

so life with or without oxygen, is not possible.

Wrong again. Many organisms can’t even live in the presence of oxygen.

Need for a Creator God…100% no need…0%

The only difference between you and me is that I am not offended by the way He did it. Maybe you’d like to try again? This time, how about some actual odds?
(hint: odds about evolution are calculated probabilities, and should actually be about evolution, not God or abiogenesis)

 

[grannymh]

You have my attention as a type of Chrsitian but not as a reasoning individual Christian and I address you as the former.I want you to look at as many holocaust videos or images as you can until you get sick or realise that the core of the empirical ‘cause’ for evolution is based on an essay on national supremacy. .

Dear oriel16,

I had hoped that you would answer my question in post 404. Maybe you will answer my question in the future.
When I see pictures of people in the “holocaust” camps, I wonder if they are any of my relatives who didn’t make it to America.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[oriel16]

Dear oriel16,

I had hoped that you would answer my question in post 404. Maybe you will answer my question in the future.
When I see pictures of people in the “holocaust” camps, I wonder if they are any of my relatives who didn’t make it to America.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

Those images are of real suffering of real people and you can forget putting inverted commas around the holocaust camps,they were real places created by real people who took the idea of superior/inferior national supremacy to its logical conclusion.Your question is of a person who is out of their depth and too silly to know how dangerous ideologies can be,this is why I require a different type of Christian among Christians here.

They must deal with this matter openly and at least connect the dots in outlines as a symptom of an empirical/Arian strain that is rotting Christianity from the inside.I owe it to these people who died for no good reason and for future generations who may have the chance of an education instead of an indoctrination.

Now,if you can’t grasp what is in front of you and I mean grasp the consequences of an empirical ideology then stay away from the topic.

“Till at length the whole territory, from the confines of China to the shores of the Baltic, was peopled by a various race of Barbarians, brave, robust, and enterprising, inured to hardship, and delighting in war. Some tribes maintained their independence. Others ranged themselves under the standard of some barbaric chieftain who led them to victory after victory, and what was of more importance, to regions abounding in corn, wine, and oil, the long wished for consummation, and great reward of their labours. An Alaric, an Attila, or a Zingis Khan, and the chiefs around them, might fight for glory, for the fame of extensive conquests, but the true cause that set in motion the great tide of northern emigration, and that continued to propel it till it rolled at different periods against China, Persia, italy, and even Egypt, was a scarcity of food, a population extended beyond the means of supporting it.” Thomas Malthus

“One day something brought to my recollection Malthus’s “Principles of Population,” which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of his clear exposition of “the positive checks to increase”—disease, accidents, war, and famine—which keep down the population of savage races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are continually acting in the case of animals also… because in every generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the superior would remain—that is, the fittest would survive.… The more I thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the origin of species.” Charles Darwin

“Without consideration of traditions and prejudices, Germany must find the courage to gather our people and their strength for an advance along the road that will lead this people from its present restricted living space to new land and soil, and hence also free it from the danger of vanishing from the earth or of serving others as a slave nation. The National Socialist Movement must strive to eliminate the disproportion between our population and our area—viewing this latter as a source of food as well as a basis for power politics—between our historical past and the hopelessness of our present impotence”
National socialism

lazerbrody.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/30/holocaust.jpg

 

[Maranatha33]

Barbarian,
I took exception to your sarcasm, but then I realized that I actually started it. It is unnecessary, unproductive, and certainly un-Christian, and I apologize.

The calculations that I presented were based on Old Testament prophecies and New Testament fulfillment. I consider these to be Scriptual numbers.

Maybe we differ on the definition of “evolution”. I consider changes of species “within their own kind”, to be evolutionary. Granted, it is not “random mutation and natural selection” because this could imply an evolving process outside of a species “own kind.”
Evolution is, however, not new to theists, since it comes from the first Book in the Bible, Genesis. (10x).

Evolution begins with the first living cell. From this, Darwin developed the “tree of life” to explain the origin of the species. Since species is all encompassing, doesn’t that mean that this one cell that randomly mutated billions of times to end up with the wolf, is the same cell that randomly mutated however many times, into a tree? Darwin only had one foundational cell at the base of his tree.

Miller stated that his goal in this experiment was not the development of life, but the development of the building blocks of life, aka amino acids. This experiment, despite being a failure, has been in text books for over 50 years. This would lead me to believe that it was much more of a targeted experiment than you asserted.

The 40 year old Murchison meteorite is now in question. There has been found to be contamination that has led to opposition by some scientists, that has yet to be resolved. Maybe we should put that on hold until a scientific determination by consensus, can be obtained.

I still have a problem with the amino acids. You show much expertise in science, but I still think that since only left handed amino acids have been found in living proteins. and no right handed ones. And that a human death will change this to a balance of left and right, and that even when scientists start with all left handed ones, they can not stop the production of right handed ones that are only found in non-living matter, it is a problem for science to explain the evolution of living existence that needs only left handed amino acid formations which can not be produced by science, or even maintained when starting with all left handed ones.

With all due respect, if you learned more about Christianity, maybe you wouldn’t be opposed to it. If I believed in your faith (of evolution), I might agree with you more before I become worm food. If you believed in my faith, you may question what reality is, but you would have forever in Paradise to do it.

 

[grannymh]

Evolution begins with the first living cell. From this, Darwin developed the “tree of life” to explain the origin of the species. Since species is all encompassing, doesn’t that mean that this one cell that randomly mutated billions of times to end up with the wolf, is the same cell that randomly mutated however many times, into a tree? Darwin only had one foundational cell at the base of his tree.
.

My question is – Why is evolution based on only the first living cell?

This is a pretty big earth. Surely, natural forces or whatever would not have been limited to the tiny spot where the foundational cell developed. What would have prevented other foundational cells from developing two inches away?

Suppose there were two or more foundational cells evolving. Common sense would say that there would be similarities between them since they came from the same substances. The differences would come from environmental adaptations or random mutations.

 

[Maranatha33]

For the exact answer, you will have to find away to ask Darwin. It’s his theory. Here’s my guess. Darwin and other scientists of his time all thought the cell was the simplest form of life. We now know that the opposite is true. He also knew, I believe, that he had to start with life (the cell) because there is no explanation on how it was formed. Neither creationists nor evolutionists have any idea how life actually started, or where the composition of the cell (like DNA) came from. ( there were no substances of any kind at the time of this creation, for the cells to be formed by.) If it were possible for the first cell to create itself, the odds have been calculated that this would have been a 1x 10 to the 40,000th power long shot. 1x10 to the 50th power are the smallest odds ever observed by man. This means a trillion, trillion, trillion, etc, etc, times 800. You can safely say it is impossible. Thus he started with just one (impossible) cell as the base of what he called the “tree of life.” and submitted that “the origin of the species” meaning all species, all living existence, came from this one tiny cell. (his book, by the same name, was released in 1859.) If it is impossible for one cell to self create, well, I am sure you understand.
And we have another problem equally as difficult. Where would this single cell go? Among scientists of the first order, including evolutionists ( like Dawkins), creationists, and I.D.ers there is agreement that at one time in history, the universe was a complete void. Absolutely nothing, not even a black hole. So where did the matter come from? It is hard to have a big bang if you don’t have something that can go bang.
I think of it like a 10 story building under construction. Evolutionists have to start on the third floor, which of course, is impossible. Why the third floor? Because the first floor is entitled “the origin of the universe” and the second is “the origin of life,” and Darwinain evolutionists have neither.

 

[The_Barbarian]

For the exact answer, you will have to find away to ask Darwin. It’s his theory. Here’s my guess. Darwin and other scientists of his time all thought the cell was the simplest form of life.

Strike one. Back then, it was hypothesized by most biologists, (including Darwin) that a living fluid might be possible)

We now know that the opposite is true.

Strike two. The simplest form of life is in fact, a single-celled organism.

He also knew, I believe, that he had to start with life (the cell) because there is no explanation on how it was formed.

Chemistry had to start with atoms, because early chemists had no explanation for the way atoms formed. No one with any sense thinks this reflects poorly on chemistry or biology.

Neither creationists nor evolutionists have any idea how life actually started,

Strike three. There is considerable evidence for abiogenesis, although it’s not yet settled. Would you like to learn about it?

or where the composition of the cell (like DNA) came from.

Um, you only get three strikes. But take another swing. Turns out the evidence shows DNA was a modification of RNA.

( there were no substances of any kind at the time of this creation, for the cells to be formed by.) If it were possible for the first cell to create itself, the odds have been calculated that this would have been a 1x 10 to the 40,000th power long shot.

Interesting. Show us your calculations.

1x10 to the 50th power are the smallest odds ever observed by man.

Um, that’s strike five. Take a deck of cards, shuffle it well, and then deal the cards out one at a time, noting the order. That order has a much smaller probability than the one you cited. And the one with cards is actually true; it wasn’t just pulled out of the air to impress people.

This means a trillion, trillion, trillion, etc, etc, times 800. You can safely say it is impossible.

The same reasoning, given the genomes of your great-grandparents, “proves” you are impossible.

Thus he started with just one (impossible) cell as the base of what he called the “tree of life.” and submitted that “the origin of the species” meaning all species, all living existence, came from this one tiny cell. (his book, by the same name, was released in 1859.)

It’s “The Origin of Species.”

And Darwin just thought God created the first living things, but didn’t say how. He had that right, too.

 

[grannymh]

For the exact answer, you will have to find away to ask Darwin. It’s his theory. Here’s my guess. Darwin and other scientists of his time all thought the cell was the simplest form of life. We now know that the opposite is true. He also knew, I believe, that he had to start with life (the cell) because there is no explanation on how it was formed. Neither creationists nor evolutionists have any idea how life actually started, or where the composition of the cell (like DNA) came from. ( there were no substances of any kind at the time of this creation, for the cells to be formed by.) If it were possible for the first cell to create itself, the odds have been calculated that this would have been a 1x 10 to the 40,000th power long shot. 1x10 to the 50th power are the smallest odds ever observed by man. This means a trillion, trillion, trillion, etc, etc, times 800. You can safely say it is impossible. Thus he started with just one (impossible) cell as the base of what he called the “tree of life.” and submitted that “the origin of the species” meaning all species, all living existence, came from this one tiny cell. (his book, by the same name, was released in 1859.) If it is impossible for one cell to self create, well, I am sure you understand.
And we have another problem equally as difficult. Where would this single cell go? Among scientists of the first order, including evolutionists ( like Dawkins), creationists, and I.D.ers there is agreement that at one time in history, the universe was a complete void. Absolutely nothing, not even a black hole. So where did the matter come from? It is hard to have a big bang if you don’t have something that can go bang.
I think of it like a 10 story building under construction. Evolutionists have to start on the third floor, which of course, is impossible. Why the third floor? Because the first floor is entitled “the origin of the universe” and the second is “the origin of life,” and Darwinain evolutionists have neither.

Dear Maranatha33

Third floor Because I automatically credit the creation of the universe to God, I forget about it. Do you mind if I use your analogy?

I’m working on a way that Adam and Eve can be recognized as the parents of the entire human race. But please don’t confuse me with a creationist. One more idea from the beginning of your post. Maybe I should be looking at the Neo-Darwinism?

Blessings,
granny

All human beings have a soul which connects them to God.

 

[grannymh]

Dear Barbarian,

Why is it that every time I’m ready to take a sabbatical from the forum, you pop up with your can’t-resist-question “Would you like to learn about it?” It’s like you are dangling a cold Pepsi before my keyboard.

There is considerable evidence for abiogenesis, although it’s not yet settled. Would you like to learn about it?

 

[The_Barbarian]

I took exception to your sarcasm, but then I realized that I actually started it. It is unnecessary, unproductive, and certainly un-Christian, and I apologize.

No need to apologize. I respect bluntness.

The calculations that I presented were based on Old Testament prophecies and New Testament fulfillment. I consider these to be Scriptual numbers.

Evolution begins with the first living cell. From this, Darwin developed the “tree of life” to explain the origin of the species.

Actually, Linneaus, a creationist, did it.

Since species is all encompassing,

?

doesn’t that mean that this one cell that randomly mutated billions of times to end up with the wolf, is the same cell that randomly mutated however many times, into a tree?

It would be a complete contradiction to evolutionary theory if wolves evolved into trees.

Miller stated that his goal in this experiment was not the development of life, but the development of the building blocks of life, aka amino acids.

Actually, no. It was to test the hypothesis of A. I. Oparin that the pre-biotic conditions of Earth would produce complex organic compounds. Turns out that it does.

This experiment, despite being a failure,

It not only succeed, but the discovery of such compounds in the Murchison meteorite shows that it happens in nature.

has been in text books for over 50 years. This would lead me to believe that it was much more of a targeted experiment than you asserted.

Now you know better.

The 40 year old Murchison meteorite is now in question. There has been found to be contamination that has led to opposition by some scientists, that has yet to be resolved.

Nope. The discovery that some of the amino acids are not found in living things pretty much put an end to that story. Also, it’s a bit hard to explain where the D-forms came from, since they are exceedingly rare in living things.

Maybe we should put that on hold until a scientific determination by consensus, can be obtained.

That’s been in a long time. No one who knows anything about it, doubts that they are abiotic.

I still have a problem with the amino acids. You show much expertise in science, but I still think that since only left handed amino acids have been found in living proteins. and no right handed ones.

Almost never. But not entirely. And it’s significant that there are an excess of L-forms in naturally-occuring aminos acids.

With all due respect, if you learned more about Christianity, maybe you wouldn’t be opposed to it.

I’m a Catholic. The only difference between us is that I’m willing to let God create as He will.

If I believed in your faith (of evolution), I might agree with you more before I become worm food.

I’m always surprised that creationists have so little regard for faith that they want to use it as an insult. There’s nothing wrong with having faith. It’s just that faith won’t work in science. Have a little faith in Christianity, and the truth won’t be so scary.

Let God decide for Himself, and you’ll cease to be concerned about the way He does things.

 

[edwest2]

“the truth”? What truth? Unless you are willing to believe you are just a slightly more complicated snowflake.

No. The Holy Father made it clear that science cannot answer all questions about man. God is integral to His Creation. He is not the great kick starter. He is the Creator. And we are told in the Bible that all of Creation is aware of this. The Living God is not just standing around, watching nature “do” things. His word does the work and does not return to Him void.

The worship of a man named Darwin is idolatry, but his name is faithfully mentioned as if he were some deity. And he is defended as if he were a deity.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

No. The Holy Father made it clear that science cannot answer all questions about man.

That’s what we’ve been telling you, ed. Pleased to know you finally got it. I’m also pleased to know that you’ve admitted that God is involved in His creation.

The worship of a man named Darwin is idolatry

We’d appreciate it if you didn’t worship Darwin. He was a great scientist, and worthy of respect, but he was just a man, and capable of error like everyone else.

but his name is faithfully mentioned as if he were some deity. And he is defended as if he were a deity.

Haven’t seen that here. Where did you see that?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Of course I would like to learn about the evidence. BTW my favorite animal is the amoeba. Please see if you can work that into your evidence.

Give me until tomorrow; I’ll make it worth the wait.

 

[Maranatha33]

Strike one. Back then, it was hypothesized by most biologists, (including Darwin) that a living fluid might be possible.

according to David Berlinski, Professor at NYU, Baroque college (sp) and world renown author who specializes in evolutionary studies “Darwin and all the scientists of his time thought the cell was the simplest form of life.” Hypothesized, and might be possible are hardly factual scientific data.

Strike two. The simplest form of life is in fact, a single-celled organism. Chemistry had to start with atoms, because early chemists had no explanation for the way atoms formed. No one with any sense thinks this reflects poorly on chemistry or biology.

Your statement is irrelevant. The point was Darwin’s perception.
We must be speaking two different languages. I said nothing about atoms, early chemistry or poor reflections. The cell was considered to be the simplest form of life in the mid 19th century scientists, including Darwin.

Strike three. There is considerable evidence for abiogenesis, although it’s not yet settled. Would you like to learn about it?

Evidence for the origin of life? Considerable evidence? Not yet settled? Is reindeer poop considerable evidence for Santa Claus? Does that translate into an educated (or even uneducated) guess? In science, factual data is preferred. If it ever becomes verifiable or proven factual, not hypothetical, then teach me.

Um, you only get three strikes. But take another swing. Turns out the evidence shows DNA was a modification of RNA.

For the sake of brevity, I have cut and pasted this from Wikipedia:

First, convert each template DNA base to its RNA complement (note that the complement of A is now U), as shown below. Note that the template strand of the DNA is the one the RNA is polymerized against; the other DNA strand would be the same as the RNA, but with thymine instead of uracil.

It doesn’t say replaced, it says “polymerized against.” Don’t both the RNA and DNA have to be present to be against each other? “The DNA would be the same as the RNA, but”… different? Doesn’t the difference show that both are present?

Interesting. Show us your calculations.

The calculations were presented by Mike Riddle, Evolutionary and microbiological author and lecturer. He stated that science has calculated the odds of the first protein being formed randomly was 1x10 to the 191th power, and the first cell at 1x10 to the 40,000 power. Microbiologist Doug Axe simply said, and I quote “a billion, billion, billion, billion billion, billion to 1.” (that is an exact quote, not done to impress anyone.) I understand if you find this ambiguous, but I find these 2 experts quite credible.

Um, that’s strike five. Take a deck of cards, shuffle it well, and then deal the cards out one at a time, noting the order. That order has a much smaller probability than the one you cited. And the one with cards is actually true; it wasn’t just pulled out of the air to impress people.

Actually I wasn’t trying to impress at that time, but maybe this will. The smallest observable odds in the law of probabilities is 1 x -100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. How you can compare the smallest odds ever observed to a deck of cards is beyond me. But you may want to get your umpire a seeing eye dog.

The same reasoning, given the genomes of your great-grandparents, “proves” you are impossible.

That may be true. If your great-grandparents gave you 12 lego blocks and told you to make a house, and you compared that house to the Empire State Building, you still wouldn’t accurately differentiate the odds. But I do agree that they are similar in the fact that they are both buildings. (btw, I don’t need my grandparents to prove I am impossible, thats what I pay the psychiatrist for.

It’s “The Origin of Species.”

I stand corrected, I added an extra “the”. (did it change the meaning?)

And Darwin just thought God created the first living things, but didn’t say how. He had that right, too.

True, but did he maintain that position when he became an atheist and started promoting Eugenics? (see the last part of “the descent of man”.)

These quote boxes give me fits. Maybe I should have stayed in school until the 3rd grade. I am going to bed. Goodnight.

 

[Maranatha33]

Dear Maranatha33

Third floor Because I automatically credit the creation of the universe to God, I forget about it. Do you mind if I use your analogy?

I would be honored.

 

[agangbern]

Obviously,you continue to make creation, God and Jesus in your own image rather than the other way around.

How obviously? Is there any man on earth who can create, that is, to cause something come to existence out of nothing? What is sure obvious is: NO MAN CAN CREATE GOD AND JESUS according to one’s own image.

 

[agangbern]

The origin of life has everything to do with evolution. Since life cannot arise from nothing, then that creates a problem that, so far, science has not solved.
Peace,
Ed

Yes, that must be true. Evolution of organic things cannot simply be presented as starting from a particular product and then from it formulate the concept of its development. If for example it is claimed that evolution began from a certain molecule or group of molecules, then the evolutionist must also present how those molecules evolved or came to be. If the “evolutionist” could not do that, then his theory remains a theory, and therefore not yet worthy of treatment as a scientific fact.

 

[agangbern]

I have already shown in another post that the Divinely inspired text of Genesis is a reflection of the Divine inspiration in the actual life of Jesus.To wish to mix the magnificant life of Jesus and his lifespan as a human being like everyone else here with the exaggerated ages of the Patriarchs,of which Adam was one, is something that demonstrates a complete disregard for both the Hebrews who created the Genesis text and the life of Jesus.

But one thing is sure: The Hebrews did not create "the Genesis text and the life of Jesus." When we know someone or something and then write about that someone or something, we do not say that we create that someone or something. We simply narrate or communicate what we personally experienced with that someone or something.

I still require genuine Chrsitians with an interest in science as it actually existed before the empirical intrusion in the late 17th century,not easy as the educational machinary basically indoctrinates students to believe that Newton inherited the works of Christian astronomers such as Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo.

How I wish you would make your sentences generally shorter than this so that the idea you want to communicate to us would not disappear at its end.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The origin of life has everything to do with evolution.

No. That’s pretty silly, Ed. In science theories are only responsible for the things they make claims about. Since evolution is indifferent to the way life began, you can accept that life came from the earth, as God says, or you can believe what the creationists say and think He did it magically. Makes no difference to evolution.

Evolution of organic things cannot simply be presented as starting from a particular product and then from it formulate the concept of its development.

You might as well say “Chemistry can’t do anything unless it explains where matter came from.” But both chemistry and evolution work very well.

If for example it is claimed that evolution began from a certain molecule or group of molecules, then the evolutionist must also present how those molecules evolved or came to be.

Wrong. Evolution assumes life exists and describes how it changes. Pretty safe assumption, I think.

If the “evolutionist” could not do that, then his theory remains a theory, and therefore not yet worthy of treatment as a scientific fact.

If you knew anything about science, you’d know that “it’s just a theory” is profoundly ignorant of what theories are. Why not learn about it? Libraries are free.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Interesting. Show us your calculations.

The calculations were presented by Mike Riddle, Evolutionary and microbiological author and lecturer.

But you don’t know what they are? If you don’t know what you’re talking about, what makes you think it’s right? Mike Riddle, BTW, knows no more than you do about it. He has no background in biology or evolution at all. He’s got a bachelor’s degree in math, and currently makes a living speaking at conferences dedicated to “saving Catholics” from the Pope.

He stated that science has calculated the odds of the first protein being formed randomly was 1x10 to the 191th power, and the first cell at 1x10 to the 40,000 power.

But no calculations. Darn. BTW, most people in abiogenesis realize it wasn’t random. And, as you probably figured out by now, it has nothing to do with evolution.

Microbiologist Doug Axe simply said, and I quote “a billion, billion, billion, billion billion, billion to 1.” (that is an exact quote, not done to impress anyone.) I understand if you find this ambiguous, but I find these 2 experts quite credible.

Doug Axe is the guy who thinks that all mutations have to do some kind of observable change to the organism, and continues to argue so, even after being shown numerous examples that don’t. Persistent denial of reality isn’t very credible to me.

Barbarian observes:
Um, that’s strike five. Take a deck of cards, shuffle it well, and then deal the cards out one at a time, noting the order. That order has a much smaller probability than the one you cited. And the one with cards is actually true; it wasn’t just pulled out of the air to impress people.

Actually I wasn’t trying to impress at that time, but maybe this will. The smallest observable odds in the law of probabilities is 1 x -100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000.

Odds vary from 1.0 (absolutely certain to happen) to 0 (absolutely certain not to happen). Someone’s led you down the path on that one.

How you can compare the smallest odds ever observed to a deck of cards is beyond me.

Maybe you should go learn about odds, and what they actually are?

The same reasoning, given the genomes of your great-grandparents, “proves” you are impossible.

That may be true.

You’re here. And yet the odds say you are effectively impossible. That should be a tip-off for you, if you’re curious enough to go find out why.

Barbarian observes:
And Darwin just thought God created the first living things, but didn’t say how. He had that right, too.

True, but did he maintain that position when he became an atheist and started promoting Eugenics? (see the last part of “the descent of man”.)

Late in life he said he was “leaning toward agnosticism.” And in the “Descent of Man”, he declared the eugenic idea to be an “overwhelming evil.”