Origins Thread

[Haven]

That’s 100% wrong.

In a desperate attempt to avoid answering a question that shatters your belief in evolution, you’re now trying to steer the debate to be what is and isn’t AI. That’s even worse than promissory scientism.

You are a bullshit artist and you've been caught.

 

[Tiger]

You are a bullshit artist and you've been caught.

Pathetic deflection. That’s all you and James have. The only person caught was you trying to answer a difficult question with an article that didn’t answer the question.

Ladies and gentlemen, just a reminder that this is the question that has stumped the purveyors of scientism in their tracks…

If random mutations almost always break existing functions rather than create new ones, how can they plausibly explain the origin of the complex information encoded in even the simplest cell?

Insert deflection response here

 

[AN2]

You answered nothing.

lol Tiger, folks

Of course I did, post #1,351 -

Post in thread 'Origins Thread' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/origins-thread.639/post-146654

Or if you want, we can use AI to show why you're a mug for asking the question in the first place -

 

[Haven]

Pathetic deflection. That’s all you and James have. The only person caught was you trying to answer a difficult question with an article that didn’t answer the question.

Ladies and gentlemen, just a reminder that this is the question that has stumped the purveyors of scientism in their tracks…

If random mutations almost always break existing functions rather than create new ones, how can they plausibly explain the origin of the complex information encoded in even the simplest cell?

Insert deflection response here

Since you are using AI lets see what it says:

The concern that random mutations primarily break existing functions rather than create new ones is a common challenge raised against evolution, but the evolutionary mechanism relies on a crucial distinction: the interplay between random mutation and non-random natural selection. While it is true that most mutations that do affect function—especially in essential, highly optimized genes—are often deleterious or neutral (a loss-of-function is far more likely than a direct, instant gain-of-function), evolution does not rely on the majority of mutations being beneficial. Instead, it depends on the sheer power of numbers over vast timescales.

The "complex information" in a cell doesn't arise from a single beneficial leap; it emerges through three main avenues, all stemming from mutations: gene duplication, neutral drift, and selection acting on small changes. Gene duplication is key: one copy retains the original, essential function, while the second, redundant copy is free to accumulate significant, often breaking, mutations without killing the organism. Over time, this redundant copy can accidentally gain a new function (gain-of-function) that proves beneficial under selection. Furthermore, many mutations are neutral and don't break or immediately improve function; these accumulate and provide a massive reservoir of raw genetic material upon which selection can later act if the environment changes. Therefore, the seemingly "broken" functions are often necessary stepping stones or raw materials that, through duplication and later modification, provide the novel parts needed to build the complex informational structures observed in life.

 

[AN2]

lol I think it's been established that Tiger doesn't understand the fundamentals of evolution (that small children do)

 

[Tiger]

Wow, and there you have it folks - two eejits, completely out of their depth, throwing AI shade at their opponents and then both replying with explicitly AI responses. Go figure.

What’s worse, is that neither of them realise how weak the AI responses are, despite the AI doing it’s best to give them a pleasing answer.

 

[Tiger]

lol I think it's been established that Tiger doesn't understand the fundamentals of evolution (that small children do)

James, your responses to my question (even using AI) show that it’s YOU who is struggling. You actually think that your AI covers the problem. It doesn’t.

 

[AN2]

James, your responses to my question (even using AI) show that it’s YOU who is struggling. You actually think that your AI covers the problem. It doesn’t.

My answer in post #1,351 wasn't AI, you fool

 

[AN2]

Wow, and there you have it folks - two eejits, completely out of their depth, throwing AI shade at their opponents and then both replying with explicitly AI responses. Go figure.

What’s worse, is that neither of them realise how weak the AI responses are, despite the AI doing it’s best to give them a pleasing answer.

No, that's what you do. If and when I use AI, I copy your written ID junk verbatim, the only alteration ever made being to the first word (as explained in your failed Tiger Challenge 2)

 

[Haven]

Wow, and there you have it folks - two eejits, completely out of their depth, throwing AI shade at their opponents and then both replying with explicitly AI responses. Go figure.

Its been good enough for you to use. So why not?

What’s worse, is that neither of them realise how weak the AI responses are, despite the AI doing it’s best to give them a pleasing answer.

How are you judging the AI material you are posting?

 

[Tiger]

No, that's what you do. If and when I use AI, I copy your written ID junk verbatim, the only alteration ever made being to the first word (as explained in your failed Tiger Challenge 2)

This is gibberish James. Gibberish.

 

[AN2]

This is gibberish James. Gibberish.

To you it is, everything is

Surely by now, even your boyfriends are starting to realise what an obtuse twat you are (although I often give people credit for having average intelligence)

 

[Tiger]

Its been good enough for you to use. So why not?


How are you judging the AI material you are posting?

I don’t need AI to know that your reply is defective. I can read it and understand that it’s not answering the question properly. Unlike you.

Before unpacking your reply, can you confirm that you believe it answers the question in favour of evolutionary theory?

 

[Tiger]

To you it is, everything is

Surely by now, even your boyfriends are starting to realise what an obtuse twat you are (although I often give people credit for having average intelligence)

More schoolyard gibberish.

 

[AN2]

Its been good enough for you to use. So why not?


How are you judging the AI material you are posting?

Tiger's two latest dodges ^

It never stops

 

[Tiger]

Tiger's two latest dodges ^

It never stops

Gibberish.

 

[Haven]

I don’t need AI to know that your reply is defective. I can read it and understand that it’s not answering the question properly. Unlike you.

Can you explain why?

Before unpacking your reply, can you confirm that you believe it answers the question in favour of evolutionary theory?

What does your AI site say about it?

 

[AN2]

Almost? So you're not going with your boy Meyer who says always?

So we've got: neutral, good and bad mutations, would you accept that?

Do you know what natural selection is?

So what's wrong with that ^, @Tiger

 

[Haven]

Tiger is now running his AI content though a detector, and making repeated revisions to make it sound human. It does take time.

 

[AN2]

He'll have a tough time finding an AI that will deny the basic evolutionary process:

random mutation + non-random selection = complexity over time

So I think he'll come back with his other favourite thing to do, which is hand-waving

 

[Hermit]

View attachment 8310

You're not exactly scoring perfectly yourself:

It is not abandoning free speech by choosing to state a view and disengage from a specific argument; free speech is not a forced obligation to endlessly debate all challengers. When you disengage from debate, as you always do, as thats your right to do so. But don"t be butthurt when I call you out: labeling a viewpoint as "mindless propaganda" is always a lazy rhetorical dismissal, not a counter-argument. And to equate sharing a view you don't agree with with platform abuse is to demand that the site exclusively host views you agree with, which is effectively cancel culture.

Now lets get back to our regular programming.

 

[Haven]

View attachment 8312
View attachment 8314

How many AI detectors did you try before you got the answer you wanted?

You're not exactly scoring perfectly yourself:


View attachment 8313

91% that the content is human generated.

 

[Wolf]

You answered nothing.

@Tiger, @Hermit WTF are you doing posting on the retards thread??
Should be renamed the 'One flew over the cuokoo's nest" thread.

 

[AN2]

@Tiger, @Hermit WTF are you doing posting on the retards thread??
Should be renamed the 'One flew over the cuokoo's nest" thread.

Quit spamming ffs

Go and copy paste an article in the Ukraine thread, photos and all (as if that makes a difference from just posting the link) or do some f*cking other thing than butting in in this thread with spam and abuse

 

[Tiger]

View attachment 8312
View attachment 8314

You're not exactly scoring perfectly yourself:


View attachment 8313

Tank’s a notorious troll.

His MO is to disrupt any forum discussions which are not in line with the establishment narrative. He passionately defended lockdowns, supported medical apartheid and forced vaccination. Promotes everything LGBTQ related. Thinks Ukraine is 2 weeks away from winning the war against Russia on any given day. Climate change…there’s literally no subject that he isn’t an establishment bootlicker on. He has zero credibility. So, I’m actually glad he’s a vocal supporter of evolution.

So, here today, his focus is to push an awkward question about evolution that he and James can’t answer properly into a discussion about AI.

 

[AN2]

Tank’s a notorious troll.

His MO is to disrupt any forum discussions which are not in line with the establishment narrative. He passionately defended lockdowns, supported medical apartheid and forced vaccination. Promotes everything LGBTQ related. Thinks Ukraine is 2 weeks away from winning the war against Russia on any given day. Climate change…there’s literally no subject that he isn’t an establishment bootlicker on. He has zero credibility. So, I’m actually glad he’s a vocal supporter of evolution.

So, here today, his focus is to push an awkward question about evolution that he and James can’t answer into a discussion about AI.

You're utterly deluded

PS. I was right - hand-waving

 

[Haven]

Tank’s a notorious troll.

His MO is to disrupt any forum discussions which are not in line with the establishment narrative. He passionately defended lockdowns, supported medical apartheid and forced vaccination. Promotes everything LGBTQ related. Thinks Ukraine is 2 weeks away from winning the war against Russia on any given day. Climate change…there’s literally no subject that he isn’t an establishment bootlicker on. He has zero credibility. So, I’m actually glad he’s a vocal supporter of evolution.

So, here today, his focus is to push an awkward question about evolution that he and James can’t answer into a discussion about AI.

Your credibility is shot. You have been caught. Badly.

You are using AI and least you can do is tell us which one you are using.

 

[Tiger]

Your credibility is shot. You have been caught. Badly.

You are using AI and least you can do is tell us which one you are using.

Ladies and gentlemen, just a reminder that this is the question that has stumped the purveyors of scientism in their tracks…

If random mutations almost always break existing functions rather than create new ones, how can they plausibly explain the origin of the complex information encoded in even the simplest cell?

Insert AI deflection here

 

[AN2]

Your credibility is shot. You have been caught. Badly.

You are using AI and least you can do is tell us which one you are using.

This guy thinks that an "awkward question" for "evolutionists" is one a child could answer - but he can't. Nor of course does he accept the answer, twas always thus

 

[Wolf]

Quit spamming ffs

Go and copy paste an article in the Ukraine thread, photos and all (as if that makes a difference from just posting the link) or do some f*cking other thing than butting in in this thread with spam and abuse

LOL's, yer on the right thread now alright.
Insomniacs 'R' Us

 

[Tiger]

This guy thinks that an "awkward question" for "evolutionists" is one a child could answer - but he can't. Nor of course does he accept the answer, twas always thus

My question has you on the ropes. The two 24 hour online bums are on the run.

There has been precisely zero satisfactory answers to the question. Zero.

 

[Haven]

Ladies and gentlemen, just a reminder that this is the question that has stumped the purveyors of scientism in their tracks…

If random mutations almost always break existing functions rather than create new ones, how can they plausibly explain the origin of the complex information encoded in even the simplest cell?

Insert AI deflection here

If I post a response, you have to tell us what AI site you will use to generate a reply.
We all know you are using one. Just tell us and we can move on.

 

[AN2]

My question has you on the ropes. The two 24 hour online bums are on the run.

There has been precisely zero satisfactory answers to the question. Zero.

D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-L

 

[AN2]

My question has you on the ropes. The two 24 hour online bums are on the run.

There has been precisely zero satisfactory answers to the question. Zero.

If you had any interest in improving yourself.. you'd realise that you asked a stupid question (mostly based on a false premise) that has a simple answer

But you don't, you just double down and have summoned your pals here to try to deflect from your (latest) self-own

 

[AN2]

Your credibility is shot. You have been caught. Badly.

You are using AI and least you can do is tell us which one you are using.

At the end of the day, the reason he has no credibility is because he's an IDiot, who doesn't have even a remedial understanding of evolution

You have to laugh every time he talks about 'Fake Dave' (the reason they call him Fake is as dull as they are) but other IDiots like Stephen Meyer are like scientists 'n shit

 

[AN2]

91% that the content is human generated.

I think this AI stuff is actually somewhat of a red herring that suits Tiger (after all, he doesn't have an actual argument)

I also think that it was certainly a fail by @Hermit, fail is fail, and I'm not sure that you've interpreted the result correctly. What it says, in English, is that it's overwhelmingly likely that you wrote that post yourself

 

[Tiger]

Ladies and gentlemen, the reason Tank and Jimmy cannot answer the question is straightforward: it exposes a fundamental weakness in the evolutionary fairytale, one that they want to quietly ignore.

Random mutations destroy existing functions, and natural selection could only possibly act on what is already alive and capable of replication. Yet their AI responses (they personally provided zero personal response) want us to be impressed by prebiotic chemistry experiments and impossible hypotheticals, while the real question remains: how did lifeless molecules ever organise themselves into a cell capable of storing and transmitting functional information? Simple.

No schoolyard taunts, no trolling, no clever phrasing, no AI-generated summary, no appeal to “vast stretches of time” can cover the fact that the mechanism for creating life’s first functional information is entirely absent. That is the reality. That's why they are stumped. They won’t engage the debate in good faith. James seems slightly traumatised.

The two trolls will inevitably reply to this post with more trolling and no debate.

 

[AN2]

Ladies and gentlemen, the reason Tank and Jimmy cannot answer the question is straightforward: it exposes a fundamental weakness in the evolutionary fairytale, one that they want to quietly ignore.

Random mutations destroy existing functions, and natural selection could only possibly act on what is already alive and capable of replication. Yet their AI responses (they personally provided zero personal response) want us to be impressed by prebiotic chemistry experiments and impossible hypotheticals, while the real question remains: how did lifeless molecules ever organise themselves into a cell capable of storing and transmitting functional information? Simple.

No schoolyard taunts, no trolling, no clever phrasing, no AI-generated summary, no appeal to “vast stretches of time” can cover the fact that the mechanism for creating life’s first functional information is entirely absent. That is the reality. That's why they are stumped. They won’t engage the debate in good faith. James seems slightly traumatised.

The two trolls will inevitably reply to this post with more trolling and no debate.

 

[Tiger]

View attachment 8318

Troll

@mods are ye keeping an eye on James today? He’s in the mood for trolling.

 

[AN2]

Ladies and gentlemen, the reason Tank and Jimmy cannot answer the question is straightforward: it exposes a fundamental weakness in the evolutionary fairytale, one that they want to quietly ignore.

Random mutations destroy existing functions, and natural selection could only possibly act on what is already alive and capable of replication. Yet their AI responses (they personally provided zero personal response) want us to be impressed by prebiotic chemistry experiments and impossible hypotheticals, while the real question remains: how did lifeless molecules ever organise themselves into a cell capable of storing and transmitting functional information? Simple.

No schoolyard taunts, no trolling, no clever phrasing, no AI-generated summary, no appeal to “vast stretches of time” can cover the fact that the mechanism for creating life’s first functional information is entirely absent. That is the reality. That's why they are stumped. They won’t engage the debate in good faith. James seems slightly traumatised.

The two trolls will inevitably reply to this post with more trolling and no debate.

Notice where he's slips in abiogenesis above. It's becoming very obvious what his playbook is..