Question Evolution! 15 questions evolutionists cannot adequately answer

[Arakhor]

Intellectual dishonesty in an attempt to discredit something with which they vehemently disagree? Never!

 

[civ2]

How did life originate? How did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?

Evolution implies a start of life, cause we need a first "life" to evolve from.
Unless all was created at some time.
So abiogenesis IS a point connected to evolution.
Also, the close-to-zero probability of countless reactions happening in the right consequence makes science no less fairy tale than religion.
At the very least.

How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design?

Again, mathematical probability vs effectiveness.
You prefer to BELIEVE in an event of 10^-1000000... probability - that's a MIRACLE, dude!
And you state there are countless such miracles.

How could such errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? How can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines?

Same again, I'd just skip this one.

Why is natural selection taught as ‘evolution’ as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?

THAT'S the biggy!
NS does work - and proves NOTHING!
1. Quite often, the "mutated" things go back to their previous state after a few generations, provided the old CONDITIONS.
2. "Macro evolution" implies "quantum leaps" in organs and behavior (eyes, wings, lungs etc.).
The problem here is - it MUST happen over a SINGLE generation, cause otherwise it's not an ADVANTAGE, but a DEFICIENCY!!!
(I might go deeper later, don't have time now for hour-long posts.)

How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?

Same as before, skipped.

Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?

Whatever.

How did multi-cellular life originate?

Good question.
Not how, but rather why there still are single cells, fish and dodos (they were killed by HUMANS, not evolution)?
I mean, "survival of the fittest" SHOULD end up in few "winners" roaming the Earth.
But you take a FULLY WORKING ecosystem and say it evolved...

How did sex originate?

Same.

Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?

Rather, why do you suppose they were SPECIES, not Chernobyl survivors (mutants)???

How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?

Stupid question.

How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?

Scientists deny supranatural.

Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?

Whatever.

Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?

Bad question.

Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?

Again.

Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?

Evolutionists are fanatics to the point of denying being ones.

To be continued.
I'll be back.

 

[useless]

How are evolutionists fanatics? They don't deny the evidence that exists out there, creationists do, who claim the fossils are just there to "test them", either that or they deny they exist at all!

 

[Leoreth]

Evolution implies a start of life, cause we need a first "life" to evolve from.
Unless all was created at some time.
So abiogenesis IS a point connected to evolution.

Of course evolution implies a start of life, but how life started doesn't matter to the theory of evolution.

Also, the close-to-zero probability of countless reactions happening in the right consequence makes science no less fairy tale than religion.
At the very least.

Again, mathematical probability vs effectiveness.
You prefer to BELIEVE in an event of 10^-1000000... probability - that's a MIRACLE, dude!
And you state there are countless such miracles.

You shouldn't sling math around here as an argument when you clearly don't know anything about it. I'll repeat what I posted earlier:

Even if an event has a very low probability, the probability of it happening at least once can easily be very high over a sufficiently large sample.

I mean, even the event of "winning the lottery" has a probability of LESS than your 10^-1000000, but nobody says it's a MIRACLE that someone wins the jackpot every week. Why is that? Because millions of people play the lottery.

THAT'S the biggy!
NS does work - and proves NOTHING!
1. Quite often, the "mutated" things go back to their previous state after a few generations, provided the old CONDITIONS.

Yes. "Quite often" != "always".

2. "Macro evolution" implies "quantum leaps" in organs and behavior (eyes, wings, lungs etc.).
The problem here is - it MUST happen over a SINGLE generation, cause otherwise it's not an ADVANTAGE, but a DEFICIENCY!!!
(I might go deeper later, don't have time now for hour-long posts.)

That's a common fallacy concerning evolution. You suppose an irreducible complexity for certain organs, while it has been repeatedly shown that intermediate stages of our current organs provided an evolutionary advantage, even if they couldn't carry out the function they carry out today.

Not how, but rather why there still are single cells, fish and dodos (they were killed by HUMANS, not evolution)?

What makes you think that HUMANS are outside the framework of evolution? Being able to survive predators (and humans are exactly that in the Dodo's case) is a fairly common kind of evolutionary pressure. The Dodo failed to adapt, or was unlucky to end up in a situation where it couldn't adapt quickly enough, so it went extinct. That's evolution at work.

I mean, "survival of the fittest" SHOULD end up in few "winners" roaming the Earth.

Misunderstanding of the term "survival of the fittest". The species on Earth are not locked in a fight everyone against everyone. Evolutionary adaptation occurs to suit certain ecological niches. If a species is adapted to its ecological niche so that it's able to survive and reproduce, it's under no ecological pressure. So it has already "won", in your words. Since there are multitudes of ecological niches, we have multitudes of species, who couldn't care less about "winning against the rest".

Scientists deny supranatural.

Consciousness, morals or altruism are neither supernatural, nor do scientists deny them. The discipline of evolution is just not suited to explain them (although attempts have been made, they stray into the field of sociology at least).

Evolutionists are fanatics to the point of denying being ones.

The irony makes me cringe.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

How are evolutionists fanatics?

How are there evolisionists ?
Or even worse, Darwinists ?
We don't call people relativityists, uncertainityists, ligand-fieldists. There are no Newtonists, Ensteinists or Mendeleevists. Attaching the -ism is a dirty trick to paint an accepted scientific theory which is based on observation and abstraction as a political ideology.
We shoudn't adopt these terms.

 

[timtofly]

Of course evolution implies a start of life, but how life started doesn't matter to the theory of evolution.


You shouldn't sling math around here as an argument when you clearly don't know anything about it. I'll repeat what I posted earlier:

Even if an event has a very low probability, the probability of it happening at least once can easily be very high over a sufficiently large sample.

I mean, even the event of "winning the lottery" has a probability of LESS than your 10^-1000000, but nobody says it's a MIRACLE that someone wins the jackpot every week. Why is that? Because millions of people play the lottery.



Yes. "Quite often" != "always".


That's a common fallacy concerning evolution. You suppose an irreducible complexity for certain organs, while it has been repeatedly shown that intermediate stages of our current organs provided an evolutionary advantage, even if they couldn't carry out the function they carry out today.


What makes you think that HUMANS are outside the framework of evolution? Being able to survive predators (and humans are exactly that in the Dodo's case) is a fairly common kind of evolutionary pressure. The Dodo failed to adapt, or was unlucky to end up in a situation where it couldn't adapt quickly enough, so it went extinct. That's evolution at work.


Misunderstanding of the term "survival of the fittest". The species on Earth are not locked in a fight everyone against everyone. Evolutionary adaptation occurs to suit certain ecological niches. If a species is adapted to its ecological niche so that it's able to survive and reproduce, it's under no ecological pressure. So it has already "won", in your words. Since there are multitudes of ecological niches, we have multitudes of species, who couldn't care less about "winning against the rest".


Consciousness, morals or altruism are neither supernatural, nor do scientists deny them. The discipline of evolution is just not suited to explain them (although attempts have been made, they stray into the field of sociology at least).


The irony makes me cringe.

So you are saying that the nebula or even nebuli randomnly "tried" millions of times and finally succeeded? And this is the "conclusion" from watching the same process today via the lottery or is this phenomenon actually being observed daily and a record is being kept so to be able to observe it in real time happen again?

Is waiting for it to happen obsessive, or do scientist have faith that it will happen to prove their point, or do they just take it for granted that it happened once and that is all they need to prove a theory? (even though no one has actually seen it happen). Seems to me it is taken for granted through blind faith. But faith has nothing to do with it, since the term should be prediction that it happened. How does one predict the past? Is there talk of a future event? It seems that they predict something and then go to the fossil record to prove that it happened. What if the fossil record is wrong? Keep predicting until the fossil record is able to be inclusive!

If a prediction did agree with mythology or the fossil record, it is not science, even though it was a well thought out prediction, because the one doing the predicting happened to have remembered a Bible story he heard in kindergarten. That one story was enough to discredit the whole prediction. As long as scientist keep trying billions of times to get a "spark" to happen, they are on their way to being a better predictor of the past than those who have faith in what happened in the past.

So yes, one can teach that things are evolving until the last man standing, but it will never explain how things got started and never will.

 

[Leoreth]

You're putting way to much interpretation into a simple statement. Again.

All I've said is that very low probability is not zero probability, with the lottery example as a way of illustrating that. That was a statement concerning math, not evolution. Intuition is a dangerous approach in math, stochastic in particular.

Bottom line: "the probability was low so it couldn't have possibly happened" is not a valid argument.

And further on, there's nothing about blind faith going on here. There's a reason why there's no proper theory on Abiogenesis around here, because we've yet to find conclusive data. There are many hypotheses, though, many of which are consistent with our current knowledge. Which of them you accept as "true" doesn't really matter unless you try to use them for further conclusions, from a scientific standpoint.

And the fact that we can't conclusively say which (if any) hypothesis is correct, doesn't mean we never will, nor does it mean that they're all incorrect, nor does it mean that your specific alternative is correct.

 

[warpus]

So yes, one can teach that things are evolving until the last man standing, but it will never explain how things got started and never will.

Well, yeah, because the Theory of Evolution is not designed to explain that.. it only explains the diversity of life found on this planet, not how it got here.

So yeah, you are right.

 

[El_Machinae]

I can understand the beeline for abiogenesis. It's obviously the weak point in our theorising. Not only will we never know the specific mechanism by which life started (and succeeded), but we don't really have many putative mechanisms either.

Abiogenesis theory is not necessary to explain all of the rest of evolutionary history, because we don't suspect multiple abiogenic events.

 

[Midgard Eagle]

The biggest problem for Evolution is, where did all the information come from?

Why don't you go find out?

See, this bothers me about you evolution-deniers -- whenever you don't understand something, instead of trying to find an answer you decide that the fact that the subject is over your head must mean it's false. This is not a good way to

I bolded the important part, which is very much important in the whole discussion is that he technically did not create life but just the "code" for life, to make any sense of the code he had to use already available "hardware" to get the code working. To fully synthesise life he would have also have to create a cell out of nothing, but that feat is impossible because in the DNA is the code for making the hardware.

That's the "irreducible complexity" argument. Didn't work for the eye, doesn't hold water here.

Here's a question that I cannot adequately answer - why must every mention of evolution suddenly involve abiogenesis?

For the same reason why debates on homosexuality always involve copious amounts of buttsex. Because...

umm...

.

 

[Akka]

So you are saying that the nebula or even nebuli randomnly "tried" millions of times and finally succeeded?

There is untold millions of millions of millions of... of nebula in the universe, for thousands millions of years.

Do you even realize how much infinitesimal chances to have a planet able to sustain life should be to not have had even thousands of them happens in history ? Learn about statistics before failing to make a point.

 

[civ2]

There is untold millions of millions of millions of... of nebula in the universe, for thousands millions of years.

Do you even realize how much infinitesimal chances to have a planet able to sustain life should be to not have had even thousands of them happens in history ? Learn about statistics before failing to make a point.

DINNNNNGGG!!!! ERROR!!!
We are talking about OUR SINGLE (EARTH) system, in which MULTIPLE events took place CONSEQUENTLY (to end up as the first cell; the number of events is close to being immeasurable due to the complexity of even that simple cell)!
So don't put here "multi-verses".
We talking about evolution on EARTH, and ONLY Earth.
Whereas in lottery we MUST have a winner (or at least it's not so hard compared to a single DNA chain).
Also, in lottery we have a SINGLE event (the right code, a SINGULAR event) which is SIMULTANEOUSLY being "guessed" by a GROUP of "users"; while in evolution we have a SEQUENCE of events (the multitude of chemical SUBSEQUENT reactions, if only ONE fails - it goes bye-bye) which, true, could be "multi-tried", but succeeded only ONCE.

That's a common fallacy concerning evolution. You suppose an irreducible complexity for certain organs, while it has been repeatedly shown that intermediate stages of our current organs provided an evolutionary advantage, even if they couldn't carry out the function they carry out today.

SOURCE please, otherwise it's nothing.
Also, BEHAVIOR is a thing that does NOT come "magically" through "evolving".
It MUST be either LEARNED, or FORCED to do.
Both cases apply ONLY to single generation, again a "quantum leap".
Prove me wrong with SOURCES, or it's worth nothing.

 

[Leoreth]

DINNNNNGGG!!!! ERROR!!!
We are talking about OUR SINGLE (EARTH) system, in which MULTIPLE events took place CONSEQUENTLY (to end up as the first cell; the number of events is close to being immeasurable due to the complexity of even that simple cell)!
So don't put here "multi-verses".
We talking about evolution on EARTH, and ONLY Earth.
Whereas in lottery we MUST have a winner (or at least it's not so hard compared to a single DNA chain).
Also, in lottery we have a SINGLE event (the right code, a SINGULAR event) which is SIMULTANEOUSLY being "guessed" by a GROUP of "users"; while in evolution we have a SEQUENCE of events (the multitude of chemical SUBSEQUENT reactions, if only ONE fails - it goes bye-bye) which, true, could be "multi-tried", but succeeded only ONCE.

Please try to return to a more civil manner of discussion, else you only look desperate.

For your actual argument, try to look up the weak anthropic principle. EVERYONE will wonder that they're the "lucky ones" because without that small chance coming true nobody would be there to wonder.

 

[bathsheba666]

Prove me wrong with SOURCES, or it's worth nothing.

You really don't get basic logic, do you ?

You are making a series of assertions.

Assertions are not necessarily facts, even if in random CAPITALS.

Prove your assertions.

And when you move from sentence A to sentence B, try to link them in some logical way.

Otherwise, you have said nothing worth disproving.

 

[civ2]

Speaking of fanatics.
LINKS is the ONLY thing I accept, especially about "scientific" topics.
If you can provide me a nice link, that will clearly tell me all your proof in a readable and intelligent manner...
Then we can actually TALK about it.
Until then - sorry, but YOU are the fanatics here, while I'm just looking for FACTS.
(You're the ones with the claim "it's scientific" - so just bring it. I'm sure you can find lots of links on it, if there is WHAT to talk about.)

PS. The last two posts gave zero info, except calling me desperate cause I write in CAPITALS.
(And, yeah, I just like CAPITALS. SOOO???)

 

[Leoreth]

This is just ridiculous. You make a general statement and want proof against it. How to disprove a general statement? Shall I find every possible argument for your claim and then disprove it? Sorry but first you have to do a little work on your own.

 

[Antilogic]

Evolution implies a start of life, cause we need a first "life" to evolve from.
Unless all was created at some time.
So abiogenesis IS a point connected to evolution.
Also, the close-to-zero probability of countless reactions happening in the right consequence makes science no less fairy tale than religion.
At the very least.

The theory of evolution through the mechanism of natural selection does not require addressing abiogenesis. Period. It's two separate things you are falsely trying to equate, and the suggestion that if we don't understand the exact mechanism taken for abiogenesis on Earth or anywhere else for that matter means that evolution of already-living organisms does not occur is sheer foolishness.

Again, mathematical probability vs effectiveness.
You prefer to BELIEVE in an event of 10^-1000000... probability - that's a MIRACLE, dude!
And you state there are countless such miracles.

It's called probability and statistics. If an independent event has a 1 in a 10 chance of occurring, and you have 100 independent trials, how many times would you expect this event to occur? 10 times. Even if you have a 1 in a million chance with ten million trials, you should expect to see the outcome roughly ten times.

THAT'S the biggy!
NS does work - and proves NOTHING!
1. Quite often, the "mutated" things go back to their previous state after a few generations, provided the old CONDITIONS.
2. "Macro evolution" implies "quantum leaps" in organs and behavior (eyes, wings, lungs etc.).
The problem here is - it MUST happen over a SINGLE generation, cause otherwise it's not an ADVANTAGE, but a DEFICIENCY!!!
(I might go deeper later, don't have time now for hour-long posts.)

Well, duh. If the conditions have changed, organisms more suited to the new conditions are more likely to thrive. If the old conditions prevail and the organisms were well-adapted to this environment, then why you would you expect them to change?

Also, here's a question for ya: how many copies of any particular gene do you think you have at once? This is relevant to the part of your post I bolded above.

Good question.
Not how, but rather why there still are single cells, fish and dodos (they were killed by HUMANS, not evolution)?
I mean, "survival of the fittest" SHOULD end up in few "winners" roaming the Earth.
But you take a FULLY WORKING ecosystem and say it evolved...

No. A thousand times no. Being "fit" in an environment means you are able to consume an adequate enough amount of food and reproduce. It does not imply that 100% of "lesser" (your implication, not mine) organisms will be wiped out by larger organisms.

Rather, why do you suppose they were SPECIES, not Chernobyl survivors (mutants)???

Is this a serious question? The definition of a species is a reproductively-isolated group of viable organisms. If it can still breed with the original species, then it's not an independent one. If the genetic code of one subgroup has drifted enough that it can no longer reproduce with another subgroup, then speciation has occurred.

If Chernobyl survivors could only make children with each other and not the rest of us, they would be a different species. That is not true.

Scientists deny supranatural.

And for good reason. Why would, in your attempts to explain how nature functions, would you consider explanations that are by definition not natural?

That's a common fallacy concerning evolution. You suppose an irreducible complexity for certain organs, while it has been repeatedly shown that intermediate stages of our current organs provided an evolutionary advantage, even if they couldn't carry out the function they carry out today.

Yup. The Kenneth Miller youtube link that I posted earlier has a good analysis of bacterial flagellum and other common irreducible complexity arguments (and makes the same point you do).

Misunderstanding of the term "survival of the fittest". The species on Earth are not locked in a fight everyone against everyone. Evolutionary adaptation occurs to suit certain ecological niches. If a species is adapted to its ecological niche so that it's able to survive and reproduce, it's under no ecological pressure. So it has already "won", in your words. Since there are multitudes of ecological niches, we have multitudes of species, who couldn't care less about "winning against the rest"

Some people get the idea that it's a WWE cage match.

So you are saying that the nebula or even nebuli randomnly "tried" millions of times and finally succeeded? And this is the "conclusion" from watching the same process today via the lottery or is this phenomenon actually being observed daily and a record is being kept so to be able to observe it in real time happen again?

Is waiting for it to happen obsessive, or do scientist have faith that it will happen to prove their point, or do they just take it for granted that it happened once and that is all they need to prove a theory? (even though no one has actually seen it happen). Seems to me it is taken for granted through blind faith. But faith has nothing to do with it, since the term should be prediction that it happened. How does one predict the past? Is there talk of a future event? It seems that they predict something and then go to the fossil record to prove that it happened. What if the fossil record is wrong? Keep predicting until the fossil record is able to be inclusive!

If a prediction did agree with mythology or the fossil record, it is not science, even though it was a well thought out prediction, because the one doing the predicting happened to have remembered a Bible story he heard in kindergarten. That one story was enough to discredit the whole prediction. As long as scientist keep trying billions of times to get a "spark" to happen, they are on their way to being a better predictor of the past than those who have faith in what happened in the past.

So yes, one can teach that things are evolving until the last man standing, but it will never explain how things got started and never will.

First, that last statement is just plain false. Good science and paleontology may eventually explain more about the universe than we know now. And as the anti-creation crowd has pointed out several times before, the validity of the theory of evolution is independent of abiogenesis. Period.

Second, given that intelligent life has evolved on Earth and is questioning where it came from, it is entirely expected for us to assume we are special or had supernatural origins. However, anywhere intelligent life evolves, these questions can be asked. We have to remember Earth is a sample size of 1. We cannot draw overwhelming conclusions on abiogenesis without more data, which is why it is still a field of several hypotheses and not a single theory. This is different than evolution, where we can and have observed it occurring in nature as well as in the lab.

DINNNNNGGG!!!! ERROR!!!
We are talking about OUR SINGLE (EARTH) system, in which MULTIPLE events took place CONSEQUENTLY (to end up as the first cell; the number of events is close to being immeasurable due to the complexity of even that simple cell)!
So don't put here "multi-verses".
We talking about evolution on EARTH, and ONLY Earth.
Whereas in lottery we MUST have a winner (or at least it's not so hard compared to a single DNA chain).
Also, in lottery we have a SINGLE event (the right code, a SINGULAR event) which is SIMULTANEOUSLY being "guessed" by a GROUP of "users"; while in evolution we have a SEQUENCE of events (the multitude of chemical SUBSEQUENT reactions, if only ONE fails - it goes bye-bye) which, true, could be "multi-tried", but succeeded only ONCE.

Nope, the error is on your part. The multiple events that the theory of evolution describes only take place after the first event of abiogenesis. Therefore, we are only looking at a subset of planets where abiogenesis has already occurred.

So, we have several independent proto-organisms that can mutate in different fashions and interact with their environment. Each one of those organisms is an independent trial, and if that trial succeeds, it will spawn more trials (success = reproduction). It is possible for entire chains of organisms to be wiped out due to bad mutations. Not every one is viable. We know, since more evolved creatures exist now, that at least one trial each time has succeeded. But that exposes a bias on the part of humans, not a failure in the mathematics.

Don't get too hung up on the lottery example--that was just used to illustrate a principle of statistics some people in this thread don't seem to understand.

SOURCE please, otherwise it's nothing.
Also, BEHAVIOR is a thing that does NOT come "magically" through "evolving".
It MUST be either LEARNED, or FORCED to do.
Both cases apply ONLY to single generation, again a "quantum leap".
Prove me wrong with SOURCES, or it's worth nothing.

Okay, you want sources that say irreducible complexity is BS (the lecture I posted has at least 2 examples that I can remember, probably has more), or do you want sources that support your narrow definition of behavior (which I think most people in the field would disagree with)?

 

[civ2]

Leoreth
I'll make it as simple as I can.
Provide proofs how birds learned to fly and fish started breathing air.
For a starter at least.
(Note: I won't accept general "proofs" like "they just did it over time". HOW is my question. In details!)

 

[Antilogic]

Leoreth
I'll make it as simple as I can.
Provide proofs how birds learned to fly and fish started breathing air.
For a starter at least.
(Note: I won't accept general "proofs" like "they just did it over time". HOW is my question. In details!)

It's awfully convenient neither of those actually occurred.

I assume what you are asking for is the common ancestor of modern birds or the common ancestor of land animals.

 

[Akka]

DINNNNNGGG!!!! ERROR!!!
We are talking about OUR SINGLE (EARTH) system, in which MULTIPLE events took place CONSEQUENTLY (to end up as the first cell; the number of events is close to being immeasurable due to the complexity of even that simple cell)!
So don't put here "multi-verses".
We talking about evolution on EARTH, and ONLY Earth.
Whereas in lottery we MUST have a winner (or at least it's not so hard compared to a single DNA chain).
Also, in lottery we have a SINGLE event (the right code, a SINGULAR event) which is SIMULTANEOUSLY being "guessed" by a GROUP of "users"; while in evolution we have a SEQUENCE of events (the multitude of chemical SUBSEQUENT reactions, if only ONE fails - it goes bye-bye) which, true, could be "multi-tried", but succeeded only ONCE.

/facepalm
Well, unsurprisingly, people not able to grasp simple science do so because they fail at simple logic too.

I'll try to make it very simple, considering even extremely basic statistics seems to be unreachably complex to some...

There is countless numbers of places in the universe where planets can be created, and this happens for a VERY long time.
Even if each planet have an EXTREMELY low chance of being a planet where intelligent life can develop, there is such a large number of them that statistically, there will be lots of planets where life can appear.

As such, there is no "miracle" in intelligent life developping, just very low chances. It must happens sometimes, simply because of probability. When it doesn't happens, nobody appears and is able to talk about it. When it happens, it may seems a miracle for the people who can't grasp simple mathematics (though we can wonder if it's really "intelligent life" then...), while it's just their unability to grasp that they think in reverse.

To illustrate this point : it's like firing an arrow while blindfolded and in your back in a field, and then painting a target where the arrow land.
Some will say "woah, he reached the very bullseye while blindfolded and firing in his back, it's incredible !".
People with two braincells will just say "well, if we're considering where the arrow landed as the starting point, it's pretty logical it was in the center".