supertramp

see... no clue at all! that's embarrassing; You've got the machine running backwards. Mutation is the random part. Selection is the part whose entire definition is non-random, it keeps what survives and discards what doesn't. That's not ad hoc; it's the thing Darwin's whole theory is built on, and it's been the answer to this exact objection since 1859. A sieve isn't random because the gravel was. Your probability argument only works if every step has to happen at once by chance, and selection is precisely the mechanism that means it doesn't, each gain is locked in before the next is tried. You didn't find randomness hiding in selection. You just don't know which half does which job!!

@supertramp_hp Selection is still random. It necessitates 100% random mutation FIRST and the existence of Natural Selection would also be 100% random. You can’t Ad Hoc remove the randomness

“Evolution is gradually and takes place over millions of years” Yeah, that makes it much less likely to have occured.

It is not an infinite regress. It terminates at simple chemistry. "How did this come from something simpler" is how every historical science works. Ask a geologist how a canyon formed and you will get the same shape of answer, all the way back to the rock. That chain ends. The one that does not terminate is "who designed the designer." So if regress scares you, it eats your side, not mine. You also quoted me wrong on purpose. The claim was never "feeding explains feeding." It is that a simpler secretion became a more complex one. Ancestral trait to derived trait, two different things. You made it sound circular by erasing the difference between the start and the end. Same move as your very first comment. And there it is again. Right on cue. Dilemma, regress, circular. Still no piece on the square, still no forced step, just the announcement. I have in front of me right now the Reina-Valera, the KJV, the NIV, the ESV, right next to On the Origin of Species, The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, Wonderful Life, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, and the standard university evolution textbook. All read. All annotated. All marked up in red. That is the difference between us. It is not that you ignore the material. It is that you are pure surface. You have never actually read any of it front to back, pen in hand. You are arguing with something you have only ever seen on X or the free version of ChatGPT. But your syntax shows the frantic overcompensation, the desperate need to sound clever while hiding how empty and unoriginal your thoughts are, and the little cracks where your insecurity leaks out every time you type. Never a dash of novelty, never a new line caught from a fresh essay or article. Always the only move you know: move the post to the unsolved dilemma and pretend it lands anywhere.

@supertramp_hp @BillHilliard12 You never get passed true Dilemmas in the evolutionary process

The suckling instinct and lactation disprove Evolution.

That's not an argument, it's the same error once and again... taking the final, fully optimised mammalian mother-infant system and pretending it had to appear all at once, in finished form. Lactation didn't start as "milk for babies," and suckling didn't appear from nowhere. Nature is full of simpler modes of parental nourishment that still exist today: skin secretions, mucus feeding, glandular secretions fed to young. The earliest "milk" was likely a moisture- or antimicrobial-rich skin secretion that protected eggs and incidentally nourished hatchlings. From there, each small improvement, slightly richer secretions, young that lapped or nuzzled more effectively, carried a real survival advantage. No single generation needed the complete modern system to benefit. So you don't need a baby surviving "tens of thousands of years without milk," and you don't need milk and suckling to spring into existence simultaneously by chance. You need a long chain of intermediate forms, each one functional, each one selected for. The two traits co-evolved in tandem precisely because they reinforced each other at every step. This is the same mistake every time: you take the polished end result, declare it could never have a beginning, and call your own lack of imagination a law of nature

@BillHilliard12 Babies would have to survive for tens of thousands of years without suckling milk or the mother producing milk. Both of these would have had to randomly evolve in tandem. Without both of these already in place the propagation of the species isn’t possible.

@SqSehrish 005

Can you make this number smaller by moving just 2 sticks... 99% will fail 😭

And there it is again. You keep describing pure randomness because you still do not understand that evolution is not random mutation alone. Selection is the non-random filter. Mutations are random. Retention is not. That distinction is so basic... It is embarrassing watching someone this confident be this fundamentally lost

My grammar will get better over millions of years as autocorrect randomly mutates with no intelligent design until it finally make no mistake

You keep talking with certainty while showing you do not even understand the basic claim you are arguing against. “Much less likely to have occurred” already gives away the problem. Evolution is not a single event to “occur.” That framing alone shows you are arguing against something you have not even taken the time to understand. You are not exposing a flaw in evolution. You are exposing your ignorance of its most basic premise.

@ArkEncounter Other catastrophic disasters way more cruel and gore will happen… but not that one! Right?

The rainbow stands as a permanent guarantee that the catastrophic global flood of Genesis will never happen again.

@ArkEncounter 1 door only Noah’s relatives.. or where do we cherry pick this nonsense

The one door in Noah’s ark reminds us of Jesus Christ, the only way to salvation.

"Life comes from life" is true today; but it says nothing about how life began. It describes the finished system and treats that as proof things were always this way. Between chemistry and life there was no magical instant, just a long continuum of stages growing in complexity. Every product comes from a process, and every process is itself the product of an earlier, simpler one; neither existed forever. A primitive process doesn't yield the finished product; it yields only the next crude step, which yields the next. and on and on. The first and last links can look nothing alike, so anyone fixated on the extremes will miss the connection; not because it isn't there, but because it's spread across the whole chain. And we may never recover every link. Much is lost to deep time, to planetary and cosmic conditions we might not even know to look for. But a gap in the record isn't a gap in reality. The continuum remains the most coherent account of what we observe; the missing pieces are a limit on our knowledge, not evidence the chain was never there. Your question is malformed. You're treating a continuous process as if it had a discrete answer: asking "what" when the evidence is a "how".

Here is a scientific fact: Life only comes from Life. Does anyone have any evidence to the contrary show it here.

@30MinMinistries I can quote you book of silly folklore back and forth, plus a few other traditions… My monolingual friend… see you in hell

@supertramp_hp Ok now you’re reading!! Keep gong pal

🚨 BREAKING: Shut down the porn. Open your Bible. Your soul is begging for truth

I believe you’re aware of the metaphysical trap in your own framing, since you smuggled in Aristotelian essentialism from the start and then asked for a transition that framework itself struggles to explain. The question is never how does inanimate substance become living substance. That already assumes discrete substances and a clean boundary you have not established. A more honest question is: at what level of organization does matter instantiate the processes we call life? And even further, are you really expecting a discrete answer to what was almost certainly a dynamic continuum unfolding across immense spans of time? If we ever understand that transition, the answer will likely look closer to a field than a value. Not a single threshold, but a continuum of increasing organization, information retention, and autonomous self maintenance, where the distinction “alive” only becomes meaningful gradually

Can an actualised object that is inanimate substance become living substance? That is, if an object's whatness does not include living, then what is the motion of change from inanimate to living? I would welcome any suggestions.

@30MinMinistries Oh boy, monolingual, single threaded.. I see why religion feels like a blanket.. here; I received prophecy for you. ..you are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean.

@supertramp_hp Why are you blabbing about oil now? You are truly deranged 🤣

@30MinMinistries Let me google that for you… I will pray for you ;) but hypocrisy is almost always incurable! Drop X and grab your bible… or don’t you have to be stealing some nation oil?

@supertramp_hp No idea who those people are partner 🤷‍♂️

@30MinMinistries One question please, because I want to complete the profile. So the Christian position in regard to Epstein is: only Jesus was perfect?

@supertramp_hp Man trump and Epstein really have your complete personality & mind totally consumed day and night! I’ll pray for God to show you your true purpose in this 1 life we have, he made you for SO MUCH MORE 🙏

So there is content against? Will love to see it! Guess is part your fault on not making it so prominent… I scanned all of your text messages (advantages of pro pro account) and there is nothing?! Maybe videos, please share. But Worse… not a single mention to the plague of this time… Epstein? Not one mention, not one position against

@supertramp_hp You haven’t even seen all of my content your just making assumptions and throwing out accusations randomly about pedophilia and child abuse 🤷‍♂️

I don’t care about “sin.” That’s your framework, not mine. To me, your god is a Bronze Age myth, modernized into a travesty willing to dance with whoever shares even a glimmer of power. My point is simple: if you claim moral authority, but stay silent when children are abused by powerful people in your own circles, your outrage means nothing. In all your preaching and 30-minute moral rants, there isn’t a single one aimed at the powerful networks that enable and protect child abusers. If you want to preach sanctity, here’s an idea: start by exposing those who pretend to be saints but are wolves dressed as sheep. Before looking into anyone else’s eyes, look at the beam in your own.

@supertramp_hp God hates all sin, nobody is perfect including you and I, the only perfect person who ever lived was Jesus Christ, the spotless lamb who sacrificed himself for our sins. What is your point?

Well, Christians seem awfully comfortable standing beside people tied to some of the worst child-abuse scandals ever exposed. You preach endlessly about porn and morality, yet when powerful people are implicated in the abuse of minors, the silence is deafening. Where have you been... in a coma? Or do you only care when it suits your narrative? Shouldn’t every Christian be tearing their robes and demanding justice?

@supertramp_hp I’m sure he does, he hates all sin. What’s your point?

@30MinMinistries Who? What are you, a seal? You go on endlessly about porn, but when it comes to the abuse of minors by powerful people, you’re suddenly silent.

@supertramp_hp Who?

@30MinMinistries Hey Darrell; Christian husband and father. I have one question for you: how come you never mention that God hates pedophiles in your 30-minute rants?

@supertramp_hp The good ole Spanish educational system is SHINING!