# Evolution is Unscientific

Don't try to understand this. It is beyond your reach.

Don't try to understand this. It is beyond your reach.
..but not yours?

Yes, EricPH cannot understand this. He does not want to understand it because it is in conflict with his religious beliefs, his pre-suppositions.

I understand because I tried to understand. I did my bachelors in Physics, Maths and Geology. I wanted to work in Particle Physics or Astronomy, but Maths undid me. Perhaps Biology would have been better for me. Also, I was 18 years of age and there were other distractions.

Last edited:
RJM
Don't try to understand this. It is beyond your reach.
Whew! Thank you, that makes life so much easier.

Yes, EricPH cannot understand this.
I have a fascination with maths and design.

You have not suggested a path, how single cell life from 3.8 billion years ago, could evolve into species with a trillion plus cells. Random mutation does not seem a viable explanation. It would need a million incremental steps, and each step on average would have to produce and organise and add a further million cells each time.

Please don't dismiss random mutation, because it has to happen every time before natural selection can play its part. How can that randomly work a million times with a million cells?

Do you understand the enormity of the problem?

Whew! Thank you, that makes life so much easier.
True.
Do you understand the enormity of the problem?
Don't try, don't try. Life is so easier without trying to understand - like Wil said. I understand your problem, it is not my problem.,

You have an interest in Maths, take it this way. If a cell bifurcates in 1 second, how many total cells will be there in 10 minutes?
Calculate and let us know.

Last edited:
Don't try, don't try. Life is so easier without trying to understand..
What a cop out .. fingers in the ears .. la la la.

You have an interest in Maths, take it this way. If a cell bifurcates in 1 second, how many total cells will be there in 10 minutes?
Calculate and let us know.
That would be blazing fast, cells that multiply by splitting take a bit longer than 1 second.

Mathematically you are saying every second the quantity would double. At second 1 there are two, at second 2 there are 4, at second three there are 8, and so on for 600 seconds. It becomes a very large number. What is the lifespan of a cell that can reproduce at that speed? Reproduction takes a toll on the life "force." Where a cell-ibate cell might live to a ripe old age, in this example perhaps the whole ten minutes, a prodigious cell might live half that length of time. In other words, even if I were to chase the numbers to their conclusion, "entropy" would claim a considerable number of cells by the end of the ten minutes, so any answer would be inexact.

At some point, creatures / life began using sex to procreate...which seems contrary to evolution, in that sex is a bit more complicated than "bifurcating" and requires a good bit more time to mature. We are told entropy is the norm in nature, so becoming more complex flies in the face of entropy. No surprise though, if galaxies are speeding up as they move away from each other, then even on the level of the universe, entropy is not the whole of the story.

You have an interest in Maths, take it this way. If a cell bifurcates in 1 second, how many total cells will be there in 10 minutes?
Calculate and let us know.
Quantity and speed is not the problem. Producing new cells, and new mutations then organizing a trillion cells into all the body parts is the real problem.

What a cop out .. fingers in the ears .. la la la.
I was only repeating what Wil said.

Quantity and speed is not the problem. Producing new cells, and new mutations then organizing a trillion cells into all the body parts is the real problem.
Checked. Cell division is not so fast. It takes 10/15 hours for human cells to divide. Further more, after 40 or 50 divisions, the cells die. Even then, if you start with a single cell (Zygote), it will have trillions of cells at the end of 9 months.

At some point, creatures / life began using sex to procreate...which seems contrary to evolution, in that sex is a bit more complicated than "bifurcating" and requires a good bit more time to mature.
Why do you term it as contrary? Even if a cell complete the division in 12 hours, it is not creating a new human. It is adding organs and capabilities.
Sex is simple in itself even if there is no penetration, like in case of salmon, the eggs are fertilized. And once their evolutionary purpose is over, the fish die. Evolution is a single purpose process, preservation of the species. It tries its best. When that fails, it favors another branch, like rodents over dinosaurs, or Homos over Australopithecines.

Last edited:
Why do you term it (*sex) as contrary?
Because sex is added complexity that is not required for single celled creatures to procreate.

Even if a cell complete the division in 12 hours, it is not creating a new human. It is adding organs and capabilities.
??? Regardless, cell division is for procreation at the cellular level.

It is estimated by some that the entire human body is replicated over the course of about 7 years, in other words every 7 years you are a new you - every cell will have been replaced.
Sex is simple in itself even if there is no penetration, like in case of salmon, the eggs are fertilized. And once their evolutionary purpose is over, the fish die.

View attachment 3918
Regardless, it is added complexity that flies in the face of entropy and atrophy.

And yet there is parthenogenesis:

Virgin birth is so much simpler...except every creature would be female. There would be no need whatsoever for males.

Which comes back around to there being more to reality than the physical alone...

Last edited:
Sex is simple in itself even if there is no penetration
But for every species that require male, female and penetration, how is this possible. Supposing the male bits develop first, but if there is no female with all her bits, there will be no next generation.

Virtually everything to do with life, needs several things to happen at once. Evolution works by incremental steps. How can male and female sexuality develop incrementally together, it either works as a complete union, or it doesn't.

But for every species that require male, female and penetration, how is this possible. Supposing the male bits develop first, but if there is no female with all her bits, there will be no next generation.
That is no problem. A 50 year-old can impregnate a 15 year-old (or vice-versa).
"Erramatti Mangamma currently holds the record for being the oldest living mother who gave birth at the age of 73 through in-vitro fertilisation via caesarean section in the city of Hyderabad, India. She delivered twin baby girls, making her also the oldest mother to give birth to twins." - Google Search
(Of course, I do not understand what made her do so)

Because sex is added complexity that is not required for single celled creatures to procreate.
It is estimated by some that the entire human body is replicated over the course of about 7 years, in other words every 7 years you are a new you - every cell will have been replaced.

And yet there is parthenogenesis:

Virgin birth is so much simpler...except every creature would be female. There would be no need whatsoever for males.

Which comes back around to there being more to reality than the physical alone...
What matters to evolution is only that the species survive. How it comes about is of no concern.
That is correct and OK. What helps is that the neurones are not replaced. That is why evolution put 86 billion of them in a human brain.
Yeah, Parthenogenesis is OK in many species. Though in humans, it reportedly created an individual with abnormalities.

"Scientists believe that an unfertilised egg began to self-divide but then had some (but not all) of its cells fertilised by a sperm cell; this must have happened early in development, as self-activated eggs quickly lose their ability to be fertilised. The unfertilised cells eventually duplicated their DNA, boosting their chromosomes to 46. When the unfertilised cells hit a developmental block, the fertilised cells took over and developed that tissue. The boy had asymmetrical facial features and learning difficulties but was otherwise healthy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis#Humans

Last edited:
What matters to evolution is only that the species survive. How it comes about is of no concern.
That is correct and OK. What helps is that the neurones are not replaced. That is why evolution put in 86 billion of them in a human body.
Yeah, Parthenogenesis is OK in many species. Though in humans, it reportedly created an individual with abnormalities.

"Scientists believe that an unfertilised egg began to self-divide but then had some (but not all) of its cells fertilised by a sperm cell; this must have happened early in development, as self-activated eggs quickly lose their ability to be fertilised. The unfertilised cells eventually duplicated their DNA, boosting their chromosomes to 46. When the unfertilised cells hit a developmental block, the fertilised cells took over and developed that tissue. The boy had asymmetrical facial features and learning difficulties but was otherwise healthy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis#Humans
Yes, but the quote continues:
This would make him a parthenogenetic chimera (a child with two cell lineages in his body).[110] While over a dozen similar cases have been reported since then (usually discovered after the patient demonstrated clinical abnormalities), there have been no scientifically confirmed reports of a non-chimeric, clinically healthy human parthenote (i.e. produced from a single, parthenogenetic-activated oocyte).[109]
emphasis mine, -jt3

Yeah, apart from one, no other case has yet been scientifically confirmed. Parthenogenesis in humans seems to be a extremely rare occurrence but even amont them none may be without abnormalities (non-Chimeric).