Mathematician destroy Evolution in 5 Min

[Freeman]

Under normal conditions, the process of cell division should result in two identical cells. Therefore, one might expect the million-cell sphere that results to be composed of identical cells. But this is not so. During cell division, differences begin to develop. Some cells become bone; others become nerve cells or eye cells. How can two newly-divided cells, each containing the identical DNA, be so different from each other?

Let me google that for you

Darwin himself wrote, in his Origin of Species, that the evolution of the eye by natural selection at first glance seemed "absurd in the highest possible degree".

Can you idiots try to come up with some new quotemines?

poor guy!
I defy you, give me one or two fossil records with half evolved eyes, or transitional forms of eyes or ears

fossils indicate that they’ve always been just as complex as they are today,

For instance, trilobites had extremely complex eyes, and were supposedly alive long before people according to evolutionist assumptions.

 

[edthecynic]

Creation says, "No thing (God) created everything from nothing," a clear violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics. How is that not magic? It certainly is not natural, so it must be some kind of unnatural magic.

God is nothing? Talk about poor assumptions. Especially when the text you are examining says the exact opposite.

And no, it doesn't say created from nothing. Because matter has always existed. Genesis discusses the organizating of materials that existed Eternally prior.

I suppose building a boat from wood would seem like magic if you don't know how. Anything you dont understand is magic. But that's not what happened. The problem is you dont know how to read what the text actually says with what you already falsely assume.

So if God IS a THING, what THING exactly is God???

God is Spirit | Bible.org - Largest Bible Study Site
God says, “You cannot reduce me to physical things that can be experienced with your senses. I dwell in the realm of spirit and that is where I want to meet with you.”

He Is Immaterial

The major thing we learn about God as spirit is that He is immaterial. By that we do not mean He is insignificant or unimportant, but rather, incorporeal.

 

[antagon]

this thread's boiled down to a rumpus room for kooks who think science is equipped to disprove god, and those who didnt pay attention in gradeschool enough to understand the most basic constructs of biology necessary to even begin wondering about evolution.

 

[geauxtohell]

The question depends on whether we are discussing macro or micro evolution. It also depends what we are defining as evolution in those two fields.

Only Christian apologists make a distinction between macro and micro evolution. To those of us who have studied the theory, there is no difference. It's like saying you believe in a penny but not a dollar.

As for Berlinski, his concepts are nothing new under the sun. He is part of the discovery institute "brain trust" and has never been able to come up with any workable claim that he can mathematically disprove evolution.

 

[geauxtohell]

Under normal conditions, the process of cell division should result in two identical cells. Therefore, one might expect the million-cell sphere that results to be composed of identical cells. But this is not so. During cell division, differences begin to develop. Some cells become bone; others become nerve cells or eye cells. How can two newly-divided cells, each containing the identical DNA, be so different from each other?

Science has yet to explain how the cells decide to make such distinctions. We do know that if a cluster of cells "want" to be eye cells, to do so, they merely extract the necessary information from millions of lines of DNA.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Take a college level genetics class if you want answers to this.

If you are going to argue against evolution, at least don't distort the truth and act like cell potency isn't well understood by science.

 

[Gadawg73]

What the fuck does a math professor know about evolution?
Sort of like Dick Cheney telling our Generals in Iraq and Afghanistan how to conduct, (or fuck up), the war.
I would like to see JUST ONE opponent of the theory or evolution that does not base some, most or all of their opposition on religion.
Is there an atheist that believes evolution is false? MOST Christian scientists believe in it. 95% of all colleges and universities teach it as fact. Many Christians in those schools teaching it.
Their Christian faith, unlike the posters here that deny fact, is so strong and not so weak to be challenged by scientific fact.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

transitional forms of eyes

I recommend scuba diving.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I wonder whether the religious kooks in this thread have their immunizations...

 

[amagra11]

What I want to know is this:

If species evolved from completely different species, one species with a certain number of chromosomes had to give birth to another with a different number of chromosomes. Apes, for example, have 24 pairs, while humans have 23. You can't have half a chromosome, so SOMEWHERE along the line someone lost a pair of chromosomes. But such a creature couldn't breed with the other members of the old "species" (apes can't breed with humans), so in order for there to be offspring from the new species, that creature had to run into another creature with the EXACT SAME MUTATION. Now, how likely is that?

 

[Dr Gregg]

the claims of "no evidence" just shows the idiocy and denial from those that don't want to believe.THere is loads of evidence. A timeline of dated fossils showing the less complex animals in the oldest rocks, and progression. The evidence is in the DNA of all the animal genomes that have been sequences. You can see where genes duplicated, moved via transposon to other parts of the DNA, where chromosomes fused like we see in apes where humans have 46 instead of 48 like that apes due to fusion of chromosomes. It's mapped out right there in the DNA

Crime scene investigators can solve crimes without every being there. We can get insights into the past based on sound science. There are so many things we can't physically see but we know exist thanks to science. Don't believe it? Look at all the technology we have, which PROVES that science works.

Don't believe in evolution look at how viruses and bacteria mutate to become antibiotic resistant and unable to be recognized by antibodies in the host. Many viruses which integrate into the host genome will take parts of it with them when they excise from the DNA to infect another host. many viruses evade the immune system by having genes involved with the host's anti-viral immunity and having them mutate to inhibit the immune system of the host. If you had any higher education in the sciences this would make perfect sense. Ignorance of the topic you dont' want to believe does not mean it's not true, its just you don't have the education, intelligence and/or willingness to accept it

 

[Dr Gregg]

These people are a plague and a blight. They kept Man in caves for millions of years before people rebelled against them and we developed medicine and technology.

With religion, superstition, and celebrations of stupidity and ignorance, we were no different than a common monkey. With reason, intellect, and the courage to slaughter those who would keep mankind back so they could manipulate the People via religion, we have gone to the moon.

Yeah, you are a stellar example of reason and intelligent. Can't even discuss a topic without anyone who disagrees with you being an idiot. Heck, you are even calling the people who do agree with you idiots.

Seriously, that's super intelligent. But then, sadly, I'm not one to speak since I can't seem to raise my intellectual discussion level above sarcasm yet. But hey, at least I've learned that you can learn something from everyone and that discussion goes smoother when you actually consider alternative points of view intellectually.

Facts are not up to opinion. YOu want to deny evolution, one of the most extensively studied and supported theories, then you are an idiot. When you completely show you know nothing about the process and make infactual statements, idiot is totally fitting.

Why the hell do so many people think everything in the world is up for opinion and they can make up their own reality?

 

[geauxtohell]

What I want to know is this:

If species evolved from completely different species, one species with a certain number of chromosomes had to give birth to another with a different number of chromosomes. Apes, for example, have 24 pairs, while humans have 23. You can't have half a chromosome, so SOMEWHERE along the line someone lost a pair of chromosomes. But such a creature couldn't breed with the other members of the old "species" (apes can't breed with humans), so in order for there to be offspring from the new species, that creature had to run into another creature with the EXACT SAME MUTATION. Now, how likely is that?

Dr. Miller does an excellent job of covering this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_c3CkSmT3c]YouTube - Kenneth Miller on Common Ancestry with Apes[/ame]

 

[amagra11]

Huh. That's very interesting. It seems plausible that the two chromosomes fused, I'll give you that. But I'm still wondering how the people with the two fused chromosomes found each other.

 

[geauxtohell]

Huh. That's very interesting. It seems plausible that the two chromosomes fused, I'll give you that. But I'm still wondering how the people with the two fused chromosomes found each other.

More than plausible, the genetic sequencing of the two is virtually identical. As for the second part of the question, I have no idea.

At any rate, my basic point is that there is usually a legitimate scientific explanation for most of the "white noise" that the creationist groups try to use to discredit evolution.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Huh. That's very interesting. It seems plausible that the two chromosomes fused, I'll give you that. But I'm still wondering how the people with the two fused chromosomes found each other.

Evolution occurs in population, not the individuals. The gene pool has all kinds of variations, and the frequency of one characteristic over another is what changes over time.

 

[rdean]

You don't really listen do you?

Who said that man was mysteriously shimmered into being?

The Bible?

I suggest you actually read it sometime then because you clearly dont know what it actually says.

Wow, why don't you "enlighten us", contemplatore of the "eternities"? If Adam wasn't "shimmered" into being from dirt and Eve wasn't made from Adam's rib, then how did they "come into being? Make it good.

 

[rdean]

Under normal conditions, the process of cell division should result in two identical cells. Therefore, one might expect the million-cell sphere that results to be composed of identical cells. But this is not so. During cell division, differences begin to develop. Some cells become bone; others become nerve cells or eye cells. How can two newly-divided cells, each containing the identical DNA, be so different from each other?

Let me google that for you

Darwin himself wrote, in his Origin of Species, that the evolution of the eye by natural selection at first glance seemed "absurd in the highest possible degree".

Can you idiots try to come up with some new quotemines?

poor guy!
I defy you, give me one or two fossil records with half evolved eyes, or transitional forms of eyes or ears

fossils indicate that they’ve always been just as complex as they are today,

For instance, trilobites had extremely complex eyes, and were supposedly alive long before people according to evolutionist assumptions.

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

 

[antagon]

What I want to know is this:

If species evolved from completely different species, one species with a certain number of chromosomes had to give birth to another with a different number of chromosomes. Apes, for example, have 24 pairs, while humans have 23. You can't have half a chromosome, so SOMEWHERE along the line someone lost a pair of chromosomes. But such a creature couldn't breed with the other members of the old "species" (apes can't breed with humans), so in order for there to be offspring from the new species, that creature had to run into another creature with the EXACT SAME MUTATION. Now, how likely is that?

the most important factor to consider in evolution is time. fossil records which we could use to track its progress stretch it back over millions of years.

the next bit is population and community. it is essential for creatures to function together for survival and to promote these genes through reproduction. this is the factor that makes the opportunity to communicate mutations very likely. simpler creatures like bacteria work in colonies, more advanced creatures are social or abundant to affect the same.

dont presume that mutants are all infertile:

those lion and tiger hybrids have proven at least semi-fertile (they've bred back with a lion).

the prominence of a mutation in a pool over time is determined by another factor: environment. this is broadly anything external to the gene pool that might present an advantage to the mutation... an ice age, scarcity, etc.

if the environment (or perhaps a creature's ability to perceive adaptability to it) 'selects' a mutation, it could dominate the gene pool. add back in time to the tune of tens of thousands of years and two populations of the same creature which selected different genes in as much time will be considerably different, perhaps better adapted to their separate environments. these, indeed, might not be able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

the lion and tiger bred in captivity are a good example of this. their offspring are not reliably fertile.

 

[rdean]

What I want to know is this:

If species evolved from completely different species, one species with a certain number of chromosomes had to give birth to another with a different number of chromosomes. Apes, for example, have 24 pairs, while humans have 23. You can't have half a chromosome, so SOMEWHERE along the line someone lost a pair of chromosomes. But such a creature couldn't breed with the other members of the old "species" (apes can't breed with humans), so in order for there to be offspring from the new species, that creature had to run into another creature with the EXACT SAME MUTATION. Now, how likely is that?

the most important factor to consider in evolution is time. fossil records which we could use to track its progress stretch it back over millions of years.

the next bit is population and community. it is essential for creatures to function together for survival and to promote these genes through reproduction. this is the factor that makes the opportunity to communicate mutations very likely. simpler creatures like bacteria work in colonies, more advanced creatures are social or abundant to affect the same.

dont presume that mutants are all infertile:

those lion and tiger hybrids have proven at least semi-fertile (they've bred back with a lion).

the prominence of a mutation in a pool over time is determined by another factor: environment. this is broadly anything external to the gene pool that might present an advantage to the mutation... an ice age, scarcity, etc.

if the environment (or perhaps a creature's ability to perceive adaptability to it) 'selects' a mutation, it could dominate the gene pool. add back in time to the tune of tens of thousands of years and two populations of the same creature which selected different genes in as much time will be considerably different, perhaps better adapted to their separate environments. these, indeed, might not be able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

the lion and tiger bred in captivity are a good example of this. their offspring are not reliably fertile.

And many times, genetic defects cause unexpected results.

Google Image Result for http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s217/mastergoblog/liger13zi.jpg

 

[antagon]

poor guy!
I defy you, give me one or two fossil records with half evolved eyes, or transitional forms of eyes or ears

fossils indicate that they’ve always been just as complex as they are today,

For instance, trilobites had extremely complex eyes, and were supposedly alive long before people according to evolutionist assumptions.

this is sad, freeman. it is the case in point that people who flatly deny evolution and think its all malarkey, simply havent educated themselves to a basic level. the first dissection i was exposed to was the 'ol halving of a live planarian. since i was 4ft tall i knew planarians had photosensitive eyes. that is, that they could only judge light from dark because of the simplicity of their 'eyes'.

are you a grown adult? this is a problem with our education system. not that it hasnt driven home evolution, specifically, but that simple lessons like what makes simple creatures simple, and humans 'just as complex as they are today' are failing to get through to enough people.

i know its not just you, freeman; i wouldnt rail you if you weren't proud to be a dolt. i know its not just biology; simple math an literary skills are turning out kids that cant square a wall or figure how many bags of concrete to mix.