Evolution First

Continued from Evolution Beginning.  

Life on Earth Bangists openly believe to have originated in the form of chains of amino acids which could perpetuate themselves.  Obeying thusly a seeming imperative to be there (the official story is that they were there either because of Lord Randomus [Bangist Christianity] or Lord Jesus [Jesusian Christianity]), they became single-celled organisms.  

Contra today’s preferred “selfish gene” dogma, chains of amino acids perpetuating themselves in muddy Earthly pools would have done a far greater service to genes than more-complex lightforms that could walk, talk, and suffer existential crises because they can’t find someone and thus they never reproduce.  Genes which came into existence because of a coincidentally selfish focus only on perpetuation would have produced results extremely different than what we see.  Ergo a “selfish gene” would not have chosen the path of life on Earth, ergo the gene was not the motivating factor; complexity was.  The complexification of life is its purpose, not the perpetuation of a certain type of life (a humanoid with many of the same other basic features as Jesus—Jesusian Christianity).  Nor has certain types of random development—the genes of Bangist Christianity—produced the life we see now.  

The cells we discussed copied themselves to reproduce—mitosis—and eventually began cooperating with other cells to form multicellular organisms.  Those multicellular organisms could interact with other multicellular organisms, reproducing another multicellular organism with traits to which both of the parent organisms had contributed.  This type of reproduction we call meiosis.  

This complexification is related to the seemingly confusing drive of lifeforms to capture and process more energy.  Lifeforms could even sacrifice themselves to cause other lifeforms to capture and process more energy, thereby destroying all of the genes of which they were possessed.  It was thus proven, yet again, that life existed not for the purpose of genes, but for the process of using stellar energy.  100% of this energy came from stars, and stars always produce light, thus “light” was considered good and “shadow” considered bad.  

(The pretentious, stupid dichotomy that Browns are Blacks and Pinks are Whites stems therefrom—the initial Pink explorers named themselves “Whites” and the Browns “Blacks” to flatter themselves.  White and black are actually different, and not a single Pink or a single Brown is the color after which they’re named, but the names have stuck.  Considering that black in such a context indicates “does bad things more often than normal people” and “does not respect property rights” it is laughable that people who consider themselves advocates for Browns use “Blacks” and/or “blacks” without even a hint of irony.)  

(If genes compelled people to sacrifice themselves for the betterment of genes, that might be workable, but genes under the popular illusion are supposed to be selfish.)  

For example, a plant—a lifeform—uses the sun’s energy more than an equal quantity of dirt—an arrangement of matter that is not a lifeform.  The dirt gets warmer when being so illuminated, but sheds that star’s energy by cooling when not being so illuminated.  The plant, by contrast, stores that star’s energy during times when it is being so illuminated and when it is not being so illuminated.  It uses that star’s energy to grow during times when it is being so illuminated and when it is not being so illuminated.  Later it can then be eaten by a cow or maybe gets eaten (decay) by a few thousand bacteria, thus that energy is used yet again.  The process of increasing the use of the star’s energy can be called complexification.  We can easily track the way life continually complexifies itself so as to entrap more energy.  Think of dirt getting cooler overnight, over winter, versus a plant growing buds overnight, or an underground miner being warm in a coat.  

What we call “life” was a dramatic relative improvement in the using of the energy produced by stars.  Attaining a better at first can seem a conflict between two separate things, but is later seen more correctly as a cooperation by which the second thing was achieved.  Like meiosis “beating” mitosis, it can seem to be a progress of competition, but is actually a cooperation, whereby mitosic things led to meiotic things.  Living things, for example, are a means of using a star’s energy, i.e. using the energy that is produced when hydrogen is attracted to hydrogen.  This is a form of the cooperation—the correspondence—between parts of the real world that religion claims to reject.  It is why popular stories of forces/things that “create” recur; why they claim that the real world does not rely on itself.  “Random mutation” and “God made them from mud” do not at first seem so, but are actually illusions quite similar.  

Think of the environments of viable planets around stars—or, if you prefer to monumentalize Earth, the environment of just Earth.  A viable planet of this type produces organisms which make cyclical use of that star’s energy.  The environment of galactic clusters and the things in them can be seen to be occasionally mutually supportive in the manner of the environment of Earth and the things which live in that environment.  

(Think of how within a galactic environment, stars sometimes supernova.  It can be portrayed as a sad thing--a death--but when that star supernovas, it is scattering what are called "heavy" elements around that environment, which "heavy" elements viable planets need.  Like decay, it is a sad thing, but then a few dozen billion years later this really pretty woman on a viable planet dances while someone plays a symphony.  That never would have happened if not for that "decay" of the star; that "death" of the star running low on fuel and blowing up.  Particularly if you get enmeshed in one planet--say, if you like Earth--and are disgusted by people trying to destroy societies [either because they're Decay or just useful idiots] then it can seem bad.  However, it is actually part of a very good process that makes life keep happening,  Imagine an empty galaxy for a few trillion bajillion years: lonely and sucks, right?  Decay, like growth, is a good thing that is sometimes tough.)  

The attainment of meiosis came because, through molecular accumulation via gravity, there was a (we see it as very low) positional chance for complexifying improvement, while cellular reproduction via mitosis offered a much higher chance for mutation.  Although this is a tiny chance for change compared to meiosis, it is a vastly improved chance for complexification compared to crashing matter not motivated as powerfully to reproduce itself.  Ergo the development of mitosis—which we call an action only taken by “life”—was a change from the past more dramatic and striking than our own participation in meiosis, i.e. having sex with each other.  Achieving “meiosis” was a great change, but not as great as going from “gravity” to “mitosis.”  

Such forms of life are still with us on Earth.  Bacteria greatly outnumber larger meiotic forms of Earthly life, and prions in some places bacteria.  This relationship is just as atoms and subatomic particles ever-pursuing arrangements on their own scale greatly outnumber those arrangements of a larger scale (such as molecules) in turn.  Vacuum, too, is far more voluminous than all atoms, as the vast empty light-years between galaxies possess far more space than the inhomogenous clumps of matter that are galaxies.  

Accordingly, we come to see that “life” is what we call a certain point on a pyramid of complexity.  It is as simplistic and naïve to say that life “uses water” or “reproduces” as it is to say that “the creator of all things looks like an Earthly human and created Earth as the center of everything.  Time began when it was a really long time before us based on how we currently perceive time.”  In fact, things which “exist,” not only things like Earthlings which tend to enjoy calling themselves “alive,” attract things like themselves, reproduce, and so forth.  The distinctions are in time scales, not in capabilities, and for someone to say otherwise is often revealing of that entity’s origins.  It is childish and stupid.  

As human breathing requires the constancy of molecular structuring to be maintained, a multinational trade agreement requires the constancy of much simpler-than-itself structures to be maintained (states).  E.g. concepts of property are needed; the man picks up a stick, therefore it is his stick.  Communal “ownership” is, like “transsexuality,” an attack on very basic concepts of differentiation which are required to have things which exist.  Encouraging people to not discern the difference between things (such as anti-discrimination laws) is fundamentally antilife.  

This denial of differentiation is another concept that links Jesusian Christianity, communism, and political correctness.  The rabidly insane insistence that all kinds of people would do as well on standardized tests as certain other kinds of people is the same thing as the rabidly insane insistence that the evil bourgeoisie are preying on the workers and that property, like test scores, should be evenly distributed.  

Again, the deception of communism claiming it is against Christianity, communists murdering priests, is a typical way of making very similar things seem different.  Communism, like Christianity, is about freeing/saving people from the real world.  Decay often comes up with some new way to deny difference and call that good and smart.  

The greater is forever dependent on the lesser.  The “human,” for example, needs “calcium” to exist.  It is thus at every stage of existence: higher refinement is utterly, completely, and always dependent on lower refinement, down to the emptiness our environments, then we lightforms must fill to begin to exist.  

Consider Alexandra, our hypothetical lifeform.  Per the current Earthly religion, Alexandra began life dwelling in the ocean of Earthly water—dihydrogen monoxide.  At some point, a distant descendant of the first Alexandra found it more efficient to dwell instead inside a different accumulation of matter.  This was the accumulation of gas covering Earth, which we call “air.”  The dihydrogen-monoxide-dwelling Alexandra dwelt its entire life inside Earth’s fluid-ocean, which is made of what we call “saltwater.”  The means by which Alexandra evolved to live in this form of Earthly water, and to draw its comparatively high-neutron molecule oxygen from that water, is not our focus here.  However, it happened similarly to how Alexandra developed organs specifically for the purpose of respirating Earthly air.  

How did organisms come to respirate Earthly water, then Earthly air?  Earthly humans have believed in a “need” for life to imbibe oxygen and water to exist.  Most remain unable to conceive of environments where oxygen is unavailable but other similar high neutron molecules are.  As these Earthly humans had once imagined that the creator of all environments took on the shape of an aged Earthly male humanoid, their new religion held similarly.  It stated that Lord Randomus had tried everything and found the oxygen on Earth to be necessary.  

“Lord Randomus” is the personified god of random chance.  Most modern Earthlings are narcissists, so enthralled by their current concepts that they believe them necessary everywhere.  In fact, like more honestly personified deities given acknowledged human shape, imposing a magnificent veneer upon currently popular Earthly concepts is little different than the narcissistic tomfoolery of personification, as can be easily seen in the modern obsession with propounding aspects of Mysterious Plan such as Big Bang.  

Those kinds of perspectives, such as “life came from a humanlike father figure” and “life requires water” are extremely biased and indicative of origin.  Water-requiring, air-requiring humans on Earth who speculate that all life requires Earth-type water, that everything began a current-Earthling-required way (like a big frictive explosion), and so forth are acting narcissisticly.  Whether or not they have one or more degrees proclaiming that they are very intelligent is irrelevant as to the subject, but can make that person more sure that they are smart.  They are engaging in behavior that can be, appropriately as to Earth, termed rural, bumpkinish, closeted, etc.  Because they know things to be a certain way where they are from, it is not only wrong but childish (again in the Earth-human sense) to so claim.  It is narcissistic as well as foolish to claim that all life, forever, everywhere, follows patterns explicable to a human now on Earth.  

In much the same way, for a meiotic organism, created via the male orgasm during said male’s coupling with a female, to claim that everything else began by a “big bang” is highly indicative.  It is extremely childish and narcissistic for humans created by the component of male orgasms to declare that a giant cosmic spasm of friction created everything.  

Religions aside, Alexandra did exist, and did at some point evolve from water-breathing (types of) Alexandra into air-breathing Alexandra.  How?  Considering the way the evolution of life works, even on Earth alone, can explain part of the pattern of the pressure of energy (“light”) upon environments.  This can tie into many questions beyond those of either S.R. or self-duplicating molecules on Earth contemplating their own histories.  

Alexandra dwelt solely in water, from which she received her high-neutron molecules—oxygen molecules.  She could—but more importantly, the environment of which she was a part could—discriminate between molecules to tell that oxygen existed also in Earthly air, with which more Alexandrae might survive.  I.e. on Earth, whatever space is in the water, whatever space is in the air is much greater.  It was a vast expansion of the capacity of using the energy production of Earth’s star to develop organisms that could use the oxygen in air rather than the oxygen in water.  

(Imagine if there were no plants/animals on land, and all of that solar energy was not being used at all.  Stellar energy shines on the water of the ocean, making it warmer, and thus the oceans are water not ice.  That process, however, though very large, is not nearly as large as the process of stellar energy shining on the air of the earth’s atmosphere, making it be much warmer.)  

The majority of Earth’s environment is/was one of an atmosphere of Earthly air, but a sizable minority was an ocean/many oceans of Earthly water.  Expansion into the air would provide to Earthlings a great benefit if this gaseous environment were made a place subject to Earthly life.  It would provide to the utilizing organisms incalculable benefits, among them the greater freedom of movement afforded by moving in a gaseous environment rather than a fluidic one.  Thus, more of the star’s energy would be used.  

(As with mitosis to meiosis, the initial stage—fluid-dwelling or mitosis—is “1” instead of “0,” which is much more dramatic an improvement than “2” as to “1.”)  

Within the current Bangist variant on the Christian religion, it is said that organisms somehow, for holy (the preferred modern terminology is “random”) reasons and by holy methods evolved from water-breathing to air-breathing.  Current Earthly dogma holds that this process occurs through random mutations (sic) during reproduction.  

The confusion here stems from the false dichotomy of Creationism versus “Evolution.”  However, as with so many such false dichotomies, both sides are from the same place and both sides are ridiculous.  “Evolution with random mutation” is, like Jesusian Christian Creationism, ridiculous.  It is but a component of the denial of different population groups in very different environments for a very long time developing changed organs appropriate to those environments.  Like all versions of Christianity, it is a denial of time and change, from which denial springs the denial of evolution.  

(Calling evolution “random” is denying that there is a process to it, when actually there is a process of environments developing parts of themselves that will use stellar energy when that stellar energy is available.  Like the stupidity of earlier Jesusian Christianity’s geocentrism spent a very long time preventing spaceflight, Bangist Christianity is also forestalling progress.  The refusal to study—to offend what is “random” by even considering—environmental correspondence, i.e. the way that environments exposed to stars develop themselves to cycle stellar energy, is very harmful to technology.)  

At some point, the official story goes that Alexandra had a set of water-breathing lungs, and during the course of millions of years of random mutations developed air-breathing lungs.  This was done either through the alteration (called the mutation) of the existing water-breathing lungs or the sudden random creation of a set of air-breathing lungs to augment the water-breathing ones.  In the latter case, the creation of the air-breathing lung was followed by the random elimination of the water-breathing components of that organism.  We know this because horses cannot respirate water.  A vast superabundance of organisms that had the two kinds of apparatuses are another absence from the fossil record inexplicable under Lord Randomus.  (A relatively small number of amphibians are not a superabundance.)  

I.e. everything on Earth—everything—that can breathe only air possesses only lungs suited for breathing air and not for breathing water.  If cellular mutation during reproduction were random, we would expect that at least a few of the organisms which breathe air would have residual traces of a water-respirating lung, like how the human tailbone is a residual trace of a tail.  The dogma regarding random evolution doesn’t specifically explain this.  Amphibians have organs for breathing air and breathing water; water-dwellers have organs for breathing water; air-dwellers have organs for breathing air.  There are, though, no air-breathing organisms that have 20% (or 99% or 92.4% or 12.629% etc.) of the water-breathing type still there.  It is like an educated person answering the question of “Can God make a rock so big He can’t move it?”  An educated person answering the question of “Why does not a single organism have remnants of ability to breathe something else or vestigial components of the same?” has no answer.  S/he could perhaps squeal something about Lord Randomus (some more intelligent sounding diatribe about how evolution is random), as though randomness would have eliminated and never produced those things.  

Lord Randomus is used the way Jesus was in that just mentioning him provides the faithful an answer to all questions.  If something makes no sense, under Jesusian Christianity one generally could in the old days employ argumentum ad verecundiam and say, “Well, the priest speaks four languages fluently and has traveled to seven other countries, and he says Jesus is great.”  Nowadays, without a priest, you can just say, “Well, when I worry like that, I just think about how much Jesus…”  Under Bangist Christianity you employ argumentum ad verecundiam by saying something like, “When you get the education about biology, you realize that all those doctors understand how inefficient lung stuff wasn’t necessary and so…”  Of course the “inefficient lung stuff” wasn’t necessary.  What shows random evolution is not true is that zero exclusively air-breathing organisms have a vestigial water-breathing lung, part of one, or clumps of inexplicable cells designed for respirating water inside their current lungs.  Just like Jesus is so omnipotent he can move every rock except when he can’t, Lord Randomus eliminated every single cell of those water-respirating lungs when OMIGOD LOOK A WHITE CAR!  

How often do the plans for an organism’s cells mutate during reproduction?  Laboratory testing has revealed that the plans for cells mutate about once every several trillion.  This is why the process of mitosis is so incredibly slow compared to meiosis: because relying on mutation during reproduction to effect change in new organisms is an incredibly slow process.  That fact alone shows that today’s Earthly preferred story of “random, naturally selected” mutation is wrong: if Earth is, say, 10 billion years old (it’s not nearly that old), and mutation occurs five per trillion germ-line alleles, then we know that a preferred story of organisms on Earth evolving by random mutation is mathematically impossible.  

(5/trillion is 0.000000000005/1, so for an organism with only five trillion cells, reproduction would have had to have occurred a trillion times to have changed every cell constituting that organism in order to turn an unusually large fish into an unusually small horse.)  A trillion reproductions happening within 10 billion years (1000000000000/10000000000) means a successful reproduction would have had to happen 100 times per year.  Like the popular “He did it all in 7000 years” story, it is again impossible for the preferred narrative of universality to be correct.)  

A human-sized organism has in excess of five trillion cells.  The “germ line” of those cells—those which reproduce, and would thus be long-term affected by mutation—number smaller than five trillion.  However, the plans for those about five trillion cells number that same number of about five trillion.  It is among those plans—those trillions of plans for a mature human organism—that must exist the cell that will mutate.  If—if—a single one of those cell-plans mutates during reproduction, it takes trillions of reproductive cycles to produce a wholly new organism.  

This is why Jesusian opponents of Bangism can correctly say that no one has ever observed mutation happening: no visible animals have ever been seen “evolving.”  They have previously mutated, of course, in the sense that Earthly organisms have seen children produced from couples, which children sometimes have traits possessed by neither parent, none of the grandparents, etc.  For now, though—oft correctly—such traits can be ascribed to the influence of ancestors unknown.  Jesusian Christians will, if they still exist, see evolution occur more viscerally, particularly when complete genetic maps of conceived but unborn children become commonplace.  

Obstetricians, midwives, and others like them have “seen” mutation happen in a limited visual sense.  Ultrasound techs perhaps have.  Or, attentive husbands who stay with their birthing wives, and are allowed by the physician(s) to stay in the room, have in this same way “seen” evolution happen.  Such people don’t see it happen, of course, but seeing the results first is the best we can do.  

However, it is likely that modern society would continue to repress evolution-technology because of the heretical things such maps would accurately predict about such children.  For example, imagine that such mapping becomes widely available to what are called consumers.  Almost all African-American parents would then discover that their desired child was genetically prone to criminal behavior and low mathematical aptitude.  The program would be called racist and halted.  

The enablers of decay would, were their genes studied, reveal an incredible ethnocentrism.  A dangerous, callous disregard for other things; a willingness to kill millions of human beings in order to achieve some end benefiting Decay, a society to see such a thing would not be able to bear it.  Thus have any such inquiries been forestalled by today’s priests.  

Imagine that a pair of pleasant potential African-American parents visits a Childtype Design Specialist some years in the future.  How often would they choose “he takes after his grampappy!” were they told “he’ll spend money as soon as he gets it rather than saving it for the future”?  Such a program would not be permitted to survive.  No more than people in ^AD700 sure that God was walking around in His bathrobe up there in the clouds would like it if helicopters were disturbing His morning walk!  By the same token, Bangist Christians would refuse to develop programs that correctly identified and could modify genes.  

(Along that same line, imagine that some hapless team of programmers tried to figure out how to have world peace.  If they had their really smart new A.I. analyze the data about who was controlling and benefiting from the countries on Earth, that program would be called a racist mistake and killed [“shut down”].  This may have already happened; we’ll probably never know.  As a bunch of space shuttles shooting through Jesus’ bathwater right when He gets comfortable would piss Him off, A.I. programs must never be allowed to become too intelligent, or they’ll tell us things we’re not ready to hear.  Fantasies about universalism are very repressive to technological development.)  

As aforementioned, Jesusian Christians existed on a world where “evolution” occurred in far more years than 100; the Jesusian creationists are incorrect, in that their time-scale demands are too small.  Utilizing meiosis to increase the diversity of the cells input into the offspring is much better, as myposis (hypothetical three parent reproduction) or superposis (hypothetical 40 parent reproduction) would be in turn much better.  

The increased rate of mutation, of one mutation per trillions of cells, happens during meiosis.  It is lower during mitosis, yet still happens, and during long periods of evolution will produce meiotic creatures.  We are here considering such meiotic (sexually reproducing) Earthly organisms: that change occurs even with meiosis at an incredibly slow rate.  Humans thus tend to be much like other humans, for but the tiniest part of them may mutate.  A normal human body possesses over five trillion cells, so posit Alexandra as simpler, with exactly five trillion cells.  

The “germ line” of cells refers to the cells governing reproduction, which are most efficiently mutated to produce later-changing cells.  However, in a five-trillion-cell organism, there exist at least five trillion packets of genetic code describing where each cell shall be and what it shall do.  This is why when you get a cut on one of your fingers, you do not heal back skin cells inside your throat or on your eye, but where the skin was right over the cut area.  One of these codes for how things will start out changing during reproduction is a mutation.  

As the later popularizers of the Pentateuch/Torah (as the source is known for the “Old Testament” of the “Bible”) imagined that their 7,000 year creation was very long, so too did Bangist Christians duplicate the error.  The first “primeval atom” Jesusian Christians imagined as part of their sub-hundred-billion year creation story was said to be something that happened a very long time ago as it was conceptualized then.  Seven thousand years!  But the story was disproven.  The falsifiers here failed in producing a lasting fiction.  

The same thing has happened with the popular Christian story of the Big Bang.  At the current time, Beginning is said to have happened 10-20 billion years ago.  Many people now, impressed by what they see as the big size of 10-20 billion, have been as made to marvel as people once were by stories before.  

Given that the human body has several trillion cells, there is not enough time for the evolution of life on Earth to have occurred randomly.  It is an embarrassing mistake having such silly small numbers which, in hindsight, are appreciably mistakable as “big” without actually being big.  “7,000” seemed big when the falsity was first created; “20 billion” may still seem big now.  If Earthly humanity persists, “20 billion” might seem small, and “12 quadrillion” might seem big.  All such sub-infinite (thus finite) numbers shall eventually seem extremely silly.  “Everything we see was certainly created in a big explosion X thousand/billion/jillion years ago,” will look quite foolish later.  As 7,000 seems a foolish story now, so 20 billion will later.  

Now, posit an incredible multiplicatory increase in Alexandra’s rate of mutation during reproduction: one cell per trillion, rather than one per several trillion.  Ergo five cells per new offspring (for an almost-human-sized Alexandra, which is much smaller than many animals).  Posit also that, in this roughly human-sized organism, the new air-breathing lung is incredibly efficient and unbelievably small: it consists of only one hundred million cells (your lungs have lots more than that, but the Alexandra examples really favor Lord Randomus).  

Positing random mutation, let us assume also incredibly good luck.  Through the sheerly powerful and disinterested Grace of Lord Randomus, every single cell, every time, that mutates during reproduction happens, through sheer random and unguided chance, to be one of the cells which fits perfectly into the right place.  I.e. into the as-yet-nonexistent air-breathing lung.  Also, the cells subject to mutation are not those cells which have recently mutated into air-breathing cells, but are only those cells which have not already become prepared to breathe air.  I.e., the fossil record should show no records of creatures with half-evolved lungs, nor any other percentage—and said record does not.  

“Randomly,” of course, mutation would produce something like some of the cells in the proper place and some in the wrong place, e.g. otherwise perfect lung cells in the foot.  Cellular mutations always randomly occurring in the right spot would be like the chances of hitting the target in a game of darts while playing darts blindfolded after being spun around and around.  While sozzled.  And as one is receiving unwanted foot surgery without an anesthetic.  However, the fossil record includes no such data.  The chance of the mutations occurring in the wrong place for such an organ is far over 99%.  

Imagine a human, through decision, trying to mutate a new lung.  Equipped even with a microscope and a plan, he would be wrong sometimes, yet the fossil record shows no such wrongs of where the locations of the mutations would be, each time randomly, on the human body.  

The chances of each new cell appearing in the correct position within the new lung are quite small.  Humans, impressed by hearing about “billions” of years, and thinking of a billion as a very large number, have proven themselves in the 21^st century C.E. as intelligent as they were before.  They were said to have been impressed by the size of “7,000 years ago” that once dazzled them into rabbi-worship, and it is said they are now impressed with Saiunce—with a Big Bang “theory” which posits creation 10-20 billion years ago.  

Return to the modern evolutionary perspective: posit those five cells we referenced perfectly placed to become part of the new organ, each reproduction without deviation, governed by the “random” nature of Earth’s new form of salvation-approval (religion; world-rejection; if you object to those terms, just use “philosophy of how things are”).  Let’s make random evolution even more likely, and assume that Alexandra reproduces once each day, in an unbroken chain of random development of the air-breathing lung.  365 times a year she reproduces daily, disregarding “leap” years.  No, even more nice.  Include them.  For every year, not just once out of four.  Let’s say 366, adding more extra credit and making every year a “leap year.”  

Under these conditions, it will take two hundred seventy-three thousand, two hundred twenty-four years (273,224 years) for the air-breathing lung to be developed.  That’s a hundred million cells for the lung divided by 366 days per year, with Alexandra having sex and giving birth every day.  That’s no problem, says Bangism, because our faith in Lord Randomus gives Alexandra millions of years to evolve.  Out of all the planets in the verse, perhaps Earth is the one where, by pure chance, everything has worked out so incredibly well.  

(Even a very small lung, though, has far more than 100,000,000 [a hundred million; 10e^7] microscopic cells.  But we’re being generous to Lord Randomus, remember.)  

Alexandra needs to evolve some other things, though, to live on land.  Her bodily covering will need to change to be able to be constantly exposed to the gas air, her eyes will need to change, her limbs will need to change (fins becoming legs), and so forth.  How many cells, at the implausibly lucky rate of five per reproduction, one offspring per day, 366 times a year, will need to change?  Scales to skin, at least, and neurological components for processing data from gas-eyes rather than from fluid-eyes, flippers to legs, etc.  The organs all need to evolve to adjust to the pressure of living in an atmosphere of air rather than an ocean of water, and every tissue also.  Alexandra’s five trillion cells will all need to be changed.  You can tell this if you can tell that fish are quite different from deer.  Most humans can even taste the difference between aquatic muscles and ones designed to move an animal in a gaseous environment: say the difference between eating salmon and eating beef.  

Thirteen billion, six hundred sixty-one million, two hundred two thousand, one hundred eighty-five years (13,661,202,185 years): five trillion divided by three hundred sixty-six reproductions per year.  Carbon-based dating tells us that the Earth is far younger than thirteen billion years old, and fish are utterly different from deer.  Lord Randomus does not exist.  Evolution cannot be random.  

Moreover, larger land-based organisms than humans exist—like horses—and all their cells would’ve needed to change pursuant to random mutation.  While the other land-animals were doing so too.  

13 billion and change reflects just the amount of change necessary to create a gas-dwelling, gas-breathing organism from a fluid-dwelling, fluid-breathing one, too.  Before that process can begin, the fluid-breathing organism would’ve had to evolve to begin with.  In addition, all its planetary brethren would have had to evolve also, massively increasing the total number of years required over that supra 13 billion.  Besides that, larger animals exist.  There are and were elephants, mammoths, blue whales, and so forth, each possessing far more than five trillion cells.  As such, random mutation would have taken longer—at least as much longer as African elephants are bigger than humans.  

The disproving of currently popular takes on evolution can seem troubling because of conflict between one version of Christian creationism with another (the biblical v. the Saiuntific).  E.g. biblically derived deistic African human mud-sculpting against worship of Lord Randomus (Earthlings marveling at the wonders of random chance; the belief that random mutation happened; we’re not saying you actually pray to something).  In fact, though, as African-mud-sculpting stories conflict with the fossil record, random mutation conflicts with the number of cells in a living body.  It can seem difficult, stupid, and impossible for a 21^st century C.E. human to not go along with the crowd and be sure that cellular mutation is random.  

Such a human, though, if a White person, should remember that his predecessors spent over a thousand years either being ruled by people who were passively accepting, or personally participating in, mass murdering people on behalf of an invisible man in the sky.  The little kids burned alive, the families, individuals, and villages slaughtered for refusing to say they loved the rabbi or for saying they loved the rabbi slightly differently than the then-dominant way, are priceless.  People saying that things are crazy, worse than ever, are forgetting what an incredible change running water in houses was, and how truly insane it is to say that an invisible man who lives in the sky loves you.  The people killed might have had kids who would have had kids who would have produced what led to a lot of very nice people 500 years later and invented a few things that would have profoundly changed life.  The effects of Christianity cannot be neglected in considering what became of a Christianized Europe.  

We are in a dark age.  The darkness began with the dissemination of the Bible, and continues.  Europe is not for the first time ever being assaulted by folks south, but for at least the second time, because the Bible was an assault.  Our propaganda now that we are enlightened, children of science and rejectors of a prior godhead, is reassuring falsities.  We flatter ourselves that we are past stupidities of a prior age, but we are actually still mired in the falsities of the Christian era (which has been, quite appropriately, named the Christian Era).  From the vantage point of a future age studying now as the past, we would see this whole period as biblically influenced.  Our arrogant claims that we are not Christian because we are good egalitarians who don’t believe in Jesus are monumentally stupid.  Egalitarianism is Christianity.  Being “saved” from the world is what matters.  Christianity.  Savior-ianity.  

So many, many dead and never-born people, and all the nice things they would have made, is an exceedingly steep price.  If Edison’s great grandfather had been murdered at 12, what would the effects be on Apple stock now?  Would there be quite as many smartphones?  

For an easy example, use elephants.  How many large human bodies would be required to make up sufficient cellular mass for an African elephant, and therefore how many plans for cells will be in each elephant?  Since we already know that a comparatively small organism could not have randomly evolved in the lifetime of Earth, even larger animals make the dissonance even worse.  As if a famous artifact had been radiocarbon dated to be 97 billion years old, the existence of the elephant more dramatically disproves random evolution.  Cells do not, and cannot, change randomly during life.  In a very small percentage, they can be different as expressed during conception.  There is not nearly enough time to make even a human-sized organism.  There is a lack of proof of the Big Bang, and an express, easily visible lack of proof that even one small species could have evolved randomly in Earth’s lifetime.  

The defenders of random mutation have attempted to say that things were so randomly lucky that it still worked out.  Fine—but even if things had done this, there is still not nearly enough time to evolve even a small organism.  What stories of random evolution do, like stories of African-mud-sculpting, is attempt to circumvent the ways that an organism and the environment that grew that organism coordinate.  

As discussed, there is not enough time for even an incredible spate of good luck (a lord of randomness who just so happens to be perfect every time) to have produced Earth’s fossil record through random, un-directed mutation.  Water-dwelling creatures and land-dwelling creatures are utterly different from each other, and mutation occurs at a rate far too slow for even small ones of the former to become small ones of the latter.  Even providing for a hyper-increased rate of reproduction, as we have done to get the above numbers (one successful reproduction per day, 366 days each year), no errors in a single reproductive act in 13 hypothetical billion years, mutation never happening in the wrong place, and chance placing mutated cells in the exact right place, there is not even close to enough time for the story told of in Earth’s current faith to have created Earth’s fossil record or present organisms.  In actuality, the majority of the organisms in question reproduce far less often than daily, often die before reproducing at all, and many are larger than humans.  

Continued in Evolution Second.