How complex must the organism be before its population can be subject to natural selection?
Complex enough to reproduce.
Of course, this is a moot point because of the mathematical absurdity that a series of perfectly-coordinated beneficial mutations could occur that would happen to form mind-bogglingly complex, symmetrical, sexual (different organisms having perfectly matched sexual subsystems), self-reproducing machines in the first place.
You're indeed playing roulette in a wheel so big, anyone who saw you playing would be laughing.
This brings me to the topic-starter for this thread:
http://urlbam.com/ha/M0024I believe it speaks for itself.
It's plain to you, yet you can't explain it at all. That's the conclusion I have to draw here since you have yet to provide anything close to an attempt to explain how natural laws are insufficient.
Evolution is so silly to those of us who can see through the mountain of artificial lies propping it up (much like the Wizard in
The Wizard of Oz), that in our minds, you may as well be telling us that the world is flat.
Secondly, evolution is your assertion. Perhaps you should be explaining to us how these masterfully complex, symmetrical, sexual, self-reproducing machines form by themselves.
Third, here's a hint to satisfy your challenge.
Simple rules: opposite charges attract. So, an atom with a positive charge will bind to one with a negative charge. This is a fundamental rule that is woefully insufficient to build a highly-complex, symmetrical, sexual, self-reproducing machine.
Evolution is a pipe dream for those who strive to believe there is no God.
which is why eggs and sperm can never become a baby...Ah entropy.
Is that what you call entropy?
Um, well, let's just read the first post in this thread. That should clear up my position.
http://urlbam.com/ha/M0024So natural selection doesn't occur?
Just for fun: In this world where you claim that quadrillions of mutations formed our bodies through natural selection, why don't you name a few for us; Let's say, three?
Also, if this process has been going on for billions of years, where are all the dead bodies? Why do fossils demonstrate a sudden appearance of life?
Just admit it. There is no evidence supporting evolution. The more you look at the "evidence" that is provided for us by the powers that be, the more find lie upon lie upon lie.
One day, you'll just have to admit that evolution is a fairytale for grownups.
http://urlbam.com/ha/Khttp://urlbam.com/ha/yIt's time for science to break free from the antiquated chains of myths related to evolution.
Of course, the powers that be don't want you to ever realize that evolution is a myth because then you would be faced with the reality that a God created all things, and this would lead you on a search that would likely include the Bible, which would teach you that the current powers that be are killing us, stealing from us, and lying to us, and they don't want you to know that.
Indeed, an understanding that the Bible is a revolutionary, technical, prophetic, numerologically-perfect book would (and has) lead many to freedom.
The Bible would teach many about personal rights like land ownership, privacy, personal responsibility, personal rights to protect our property, and much more; All things that the powers that by don't want us to know about because it would topple their power structure.
We really need to wake up and face the hard truth that evil really does exist, and is affecting each of our lives profoundly each day because we continue to pretend it doesn't. (Affect or exist? Both.)
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306
"It is a mistake to believe that even one fossil species… can be demonstrated to have been ancestral to another."—Dr. Gareth J. Nelson, American Museum of Natural History
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
