This is the answer to an Evodelusionism believer who tries to answer my question:  "Where is your absolutely irrefutable evidence for evolution, that fish evolved into humans over some immense time (the real definition of evolution)?
You cannot use any opinions as evidence, inferences, implicatioins and there can be no other plausibility for this evidence.  It must be irrefutable by any other pure logic based on the evidence."

Here is part of the post from AlanCFA on youtube who stalks me on youtube all the time.  The other parts will be posted here in the next few days.  He is seems to be a compulsive stalker with a chip on his shoulder towards me.  He looks for all my postings then posts a lot of anger and hate.  Tries to bury the posts that I produce to question his religion.  He is welcome to come here and post questions in an open dialog, but refuses to.  Why?  Why are these people so afraid to face me?

“Ok, take a look at: Cladistics (which can be generated algorithmically via maximum parsiomny, maximum likelihood, or distance matrix methods)”

My answer in another form:

Cladistics is this idea that if any creature has any DNA, or physical similarity they are related by evolution in some way.   First of all, there is a huge problem with that in terms of logistics.  There are over 200,000,000 different creature types, whatever the designation, species, or just distinct creatures.  You really think that all of those creatures came from a very small single cell? How would that be possible?

All the Cladistics tables "tree of life" start from one point. That would be an utter logical impossibility.

If you only have a single cell of some life that started by accident, then you would need to have seen that happening today and over and over and over throughout time.  If this were true, then it would be true at all times under the same conditions.  It would be absolutely impossible for the same exact conditions to not happen twice, three times, or perhaps millions of times.  We have a constantly changing environment that is NOW far more conducive to life than it ever was “millions of years ago” when life supposedly started by accident.

There is this almost religiously believed idea that scientific events can happen only once on a planet with very similar conditions in millions of places on the earth and at different times.  If these conditions were able to bring up one cell then the same conditions would bring forth the same thing over and over.  That means there would have to be millions of starter cells from different continents at different times and even would still be happening today.

The Theory of Evolution seems to focus on only one life form as the original and only one starting point.  That doesn’t make any sense from any purely logical angle. Having millions of starting points makes far more logical sense, IF and ONLY if this actually happened even one time.   The same “experiment” done by accident in nature will repeat in nature under the same conditions.  It is impossible for those conditions to not ever repeat in “billions of years”.

We have many better suited conditions for life now than “millions” of years ago.  We can easily see the same conditions repeating on earth today.

And under the same exact conditions with the same energy applied, and the same materials in the location, then the same perfectly executed “experiment” would product “life” again and again.

I venture to think that millions of years ago the earth was not fit for mammal life and only for marine life, because the air was so bad for any form of oxygen breathing creature.  (There is a scientific hypothesis that the earth was covered in water completely and was smaller in size.)  Sense all of the life, living (non plants, vegetation) life forms, that we know are oxygen breathing dependant of some sort, then the air would have to contain oxygen and not contain toxins that harm organic tissue.

It takes plant life to build the air into oxygen, from the other gasses.

Where did the phytoplankton come from?  And if we did not have phytoplankton, how much life would be on this planet. Why has phytoplankton not evolved?   

If evolution is real, then we certainly do not want phytoplankton to evolve.  If all life came from simple cell life, then why are there still simple tiny cells of life as small as bacteria and phytoplankton?  If bacteria or phytoplankton were to evolve all life as we know it would be gone.


We, all of humanity, have never seen a fish that has gotten better in time, became a new species that lives only on land with some magically increasing in information.

Cladistics has to be based on something besides beliefs.  It is only believed that similar DNA construction can come from a lineage of evolution. It is not proven as even science.

The original “Tree of Life” was concocted by humans who believe in evolution. It was not based on anything but belief.  It is still not based on anything but belief, because if it is true then all the evidence would support it.

As a computer programmer, I know that it would be easy for me to concoct an algorithm or several algorithms to make up a Cladistics table based on this idea that all life came from one point.  With the millions of species, it would be easy to tie them together by belief.  The odds of similar genetic features in different creatures are not from Evolution, but from the obvious. The common link is the earth from which all body parts are made.

When you examine any particular part of science, all the other parts will concur with that part and there are no ambiguities left to be filled in with belief.  Anytime
something is filled in with belief and faith, it is not science.

 
Here’s why.  We only have available just a very few amino acids, to make protean with for cells.  That means that those building blocks for life have to be used in similar ways, with the same repeated “construction techniques”. Those construction techniques are contained in gene expression of the DNA RNA processes. The exact instructions for using these life forms are contained in that coding.  So, you are going to see the same or similar coding in many different life forms and you will see the same exact coding in all creatures of the same type, like mammals from the same genetic lineages.
 
This can be divided up by all the numbers of individual species we have now and in the past, now extinct.  It would be impossible, under normal logic, to see anywhere where these exact same DNA patterns used in different lineages easily could NOT have any connection at all from any genetic lineage.

The logic that utterly unrelated creatures, that have no genetic connection from any genetic lineages, would by pure logic, have similar use of the same building blocks for life. 

If there is life on another planet that looks like ours and is developed on a similar planet, and uses the same protean building blocks would destroy this Cladistics table in one second.

In other words this Cladistics is just a made up idea that has no evidence to back it. And if you find any other plausibility that voids any untested premise then it is void.

There is no way to verify that this is an absolutely irrefutable piece of “evidence” because it is only based on the belief of Evodelusionists as to what the evidence shown is and applying it to some man made chart.  It is just another form of  “belief first, then the conclusion.”  Get rid of the belief and just go with what is obvious, observable, and has no other plausibility.