This is

 for all the 

"Evolutionary Bigots" 

out there.

Who want to just ignore evidence 

that contradicts what they think 

because they simply don't like an "idea". 

Rigid adherence to Dogma much? 

In spite of evidence to the contrary? 

Interesting...

Bigot 

/ˈbɪgət/  

noun

plural bigots

Britannica Dictionary definition of 

BIGOT

a person who 

strongly and unfairly 

dislikes other people,

ideas, etc.

From a recent discussion online:

"I figured you were heading in this direction.

Abiogenesis is the scientific theory that proposes 

life on Earth originated 

from simple organic compounds, 

which, through a series of natural processes, evolved into increasingly complex forms, eventually leading to the diversity of life observed today. This theory is grounded in empirical research and 

seeks to explain 

the transition from non-living to living matter 

through chemical and physical processes

 

(Those doesn't produce information BTW

and genetic code is information)

inherent to Earth's early environment."

"Seeks to explain"

Just because scientist can come up with a reason 

explaining how something

"may have happened"?

(In a lab 

directed by outside agents of course,

think about it :-)

Does not mean that is the way 

that it did or 

HAD to have happened.

No matter how many millions of adherents convince themselves 

that it had to have happened that way.

Observe:

"The Cambrian and 

Other Information Explosions"

"The fossil record on our planet documents the origin of major innovations in biological form and function. These episodes if we take the fossil record at face value often occur abruptly or discontinuously, meaning that newly arising forms bear little resemblance to what existed earlier. In my book Darwin's Doubt the sequel to Signature in the Cell- I wrote about one of the most dramatic of those discontinuous events  (having intervals or gaps) the Cambrian explosion. During this event, beginning about 530 million years ago, most major groups of animals first appear in the fossil record in a geologically abrupt fashion.

(ie, 

they didn't "evolve")

.

Although the Cambrian explosion of animals is especially striking, it is far from the only "explosion" of new living forms. The first winged insects, birds, flowering plants, mammals, and many other groups also appear abruptly in the fossil record, with no apparent connection to putative ancestors in the lower, older layers of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock. Evolutionary theorist Eugene Koonin describes this as "a hiological big bang" pattern. As he notes, "Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups... 

do not seem to fit the pattern 

that, following Darwn's original proposal, 

remains the dominant description of biological evolution."

(WHY?)

In the Origin of Species, Darwin depicted the history of life as a gradually unfolding, branching tree, with the trunk representing the first one cell organism and the branches representing all the species that evolved from these first forms. In this view novel animal and plant species arose from a series of simpler precursor and intermediary forms over vast stretches of geologic time. Darwin argued vigorously for this view. At the same time he acknowledged that the sudden appearance of many major groups of organism in the fossil record did not fit easily into his picture of gradual evolutionary change.

(Translation, 

the author of

 On the Origin of Species

saw problems in the fossil record

that the rigid adherents 

to evolutionary dogma/orthodoxy today

refuse to admit to themselves.)

Instead, this pattern challenged Darwin's claim that natural selection acting on random variations had produced all the new forms of life.

As Darwin understood it. the process of natural selection acting on random variations  necessarily operated slowly and gradually thus rendering any pattern of sudden appearance a puzzling anomaly.

(Its not an anomaly.

It is the standard that we 

OBSERVE

(that's for all you multiverse fans BTW)

 repeatedly in the fossil record.)

Darwin saw natural selection as slow and gradual because of the intrinsic logic of the process. Significant biological changes in any population occur only when randomly arising variations in the features of traits of organisms confer functional advantages in the competition for survival and reproduction. These organisms that acquire new advantageous traits tend to prevail in the competition, enabling them to pass on these traits to the next generation. As nature "selects" successful variations the features of a population change.

Yet, as Darwin conceived of the process, the variations responsible for permanent changes would have to be relatively modest, or "slight" in any given generation. Major or large-scale variations what evolutionary biologists would later term "macromutations" would inevitably induce dysfunction, deformities, or even death. Only minor variations would he viable and therefore heritable.

Any larger-scale changes would have to be built slowly from a long series of smaller-scale, heritable variations. Significant changes to organismal form and function would thus require many hundreds of millions years. 

That is precisely what appears unavailable 

in the case of many salient (Most noticeable or important) episodes of evolutionary innovation, 

such as the Cambrian explosion (Fig. 10.1), the angiosperm (flowering-plant) "big bloom" during the Cottaceous (130 million years ago), and the mammalian radiation in the Eocene period (about 55 million years ago). 

Darwin hoped the mystery of the missing ancestral fossils would be solved by future geological discoveries documenting the gradual transitions his theory predicted. 

But the opposite has occurred. 

In the 160 years since the publication of the Origin, paleontologists have combed geological strata worldwide, looking for the expected precursors to many major groups of organism 

and have not found the pattern of gradual change that Darwin anticipated. 

Instead, new findings have often shown explosions of novel biological form to have been even mots dramatic than Darwin realized."

"The origin of animals.

Darwinian theory (top) predicts gradual evolutionary change 

in contrast to the fossil record evidence (Bottom)

which shows the abrupt appearance of the major animal groups."

(The bottom image above  is supported in the fossil record

not the top.)

Representatives of some of the major animal groups that first appear 

abruptly in the sedimentary rock record during the Cambrian period.

(You may have to download it or zoom in on it , sorry about that.)

(and there are many footnotes 

referencing sources

that I didn't include.

If you want them?

Then Go buy the book :-).

(Chapter 10, pp. 189-192)

Or check it out at you local library. :-)

Deeply indebted sir.

Thank you.

Stephen C Meyer

Studied at Cambridge University, 

where he earned a Master of Philosophy 

and Doctor of Philosophy in history 

and the philosophy of science in 1991.

Translation?

He aint exactly no slouch

or lightweight.

Few side notes

go figure right lol.

Even if this pictured below were true?

(and as demonstrated its not)

The molecular biologist will tell you

that while they know DNA can store 

and transmit information?

They have no idea 

how it got there to start with.

Information simply does not get created 

by physical or chemical means. 

(Thanks Stephen)

We see this absolutely nowhere in nature.

(You know like, through observation and such :-)

And molecular biologist know it, 

(Even if certain cosmologist, astro-physicist, 

particle physicist and astronomers don't want to admit it

to themselves).

I don't know about you?

But I don't go to a plumber 

to get a haircut.

(or a beard trim)

Think about it.

Information is always a sign of an intellect.

This is simply another part of the story 

they don't want to tell you. 

I wonder why?

And?

Here is what happens if you try 

and convince people of this 

on social media platforms these days:

And here are the reasons they gave lol

    So?

The guy with

165 post in a lil over ten years?

(Thats like 1.5 a month BTW)lol

Cares about getting:

Likes 

views 

and shares 

in a misleading way?

All the sudden?

Who gives a fuck about likes views and shares?

I dont need nor do I desire any kind of social media validation lol...People...Please.

Trying to help you 

let the holy spirit in your lives

and save your soul.

Likes views and shares lol.

Nothing to do with the content 

of what was said right?

Yeah...right...:-).

So asinine as to be comical.

You know you are on the right path

when they dont want people to hear what you have to say.

I expect more of it TBH.

I really do.