Marx, Math And Myth

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
100,038
Reaction score
33,904
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
The mathematics that indicts Marxism is found in the more than 100 million human being slaughtered in the name of Karl Marx during the century of slaughter, the 20th. But, just as Karl Marx used the myth that Darwin’s theory explained the diversity of life on earth, mathematics proves that Darwinian evolution is not possible.



1.Karl Marx came from a family that was very Jewish, rabbinic scholars on both sides. But, to prosper in Germany, his father converted the family to Protestantism when Karl was only six years old.

“Karl Marx was born on May 5, 1818, in the German city of Trier. His family was Jewish but later converted to Protestantism in 1824 in order to avoid anti-Semitic laws and persecution. For this reason, among others, Marx rejected religion early on in his youth and made it absolutely clear that he was an atheist.”
Religion as Opium of the People

His economic theories revolved around Jews, money, and how the two had corrupted the world. Nothing could have worked better for Karl Marx than a tract in science that would obviate any need to premise God as an explanation for the biodiversity of our world.
Darwin was the answer to Marx’s prayers, if Marx could figure out to whom to pray…..and among the many problems with Darwin’s theory, mathematics obviates any claim that Darwin's theory works.



2. Karl Marx was thrilled when he became aware of Darwin’s work.

The major antithesis of religion, communism and all of its iterations, has a need to banish religion… One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.





3. While the 20th century proved the fallacy that is Marxist communism, unfortunately our neo-Marxist government schools persist in propping up that love of Marx’s, the theory with more holes than Swiss cheese, Darwin’s Origin of Species thesis.
Certainly the fact that in a century and a half, with more professional scientists at work now than in all of history combined, there has never….NEVER….been even one case of one species becoming another, not in nature, nor in a laboratory, should be a clue to how poor an explanation or evolution, Darwin's thesis is.

But, some clearly false narratives survive….like socialism….and Darwinian evolution.




4. It isn’t just biologists, biochemists, paleontologists, geneticists, who have a bone to pick with Darwin. Lots of mathematicians are hostile, as well.
“Mathematicians over the years have complained that Darwinism’s numbers just do not add up. In 1966 leading mathematicians and evolutionary biologists held a symposium at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia because the organizer, Martin Kaplan, had overheard “a rather weird discussion between four mathematicians … on mathematical doubts concerning the Darwinian theory of evolution.

A mathematician who claimed that there was insufficient time for the number of mutations apparently needed to make an eye was told by the biologists that his figures must be wrong. The mathematicians, though, were not persuaded that the fault was theirs. As one said: There is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged with the current conception of biology. Schützenberger, M. P. (1967) “Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution” in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, ed. P. S. Moorhead and M. M. Kaplan, Wistar Institute Press, Philadelphia, p. 75.
[Found in Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box: The-Biochemical-Challenge-to-Evolution”]



So…when Darwin’s theory fails the test of mathematics…..who ya’ gonna call….ghost busters???
 

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
20,459
Reaction score
1,181
Points
190
The mathematics that indicts Marxism is found in the more than 100 million human being slaughtered in the name of Karl Marx during the century of slaughter, the 20th. But, just as Karl Marx used the myth that Darwin’s theory explained the diversity of life on earth, mathematics proves that Darwinian evolution is not possible.



1.Karl Marx came from a family that was very Jewish, rabbinic scholars on both sides. But, to prosper in Germany, his father converted the family to Protestantism when Karl was only six years old.

“Karl Marx was born on May 5, 1818, in the German city of Trier. His family was Jewish but later converted to Protestantism in 1824 in order to avoid anti-Semitic laws and persecution. For this reason, among others, Marx rejected religion early on in his youth and made it absolutely clear that he was an atheist.”
Religion as Opium of the People

His economic theories revolved around Jews, money, and how the two had corrupted the world. Nothing could have worked better for Karl Marx than a tract in science that would obviate any need to premise God as an explanation for the biodiversity of our world.
Darwin was the answer to Marx’s prayers, if Marx could figure out to whom to pray…..and among the many problems with Darwin’s theory, mathematics obviates any claim that Darwin's theory works.



2. Karl Marx was thrilled when he became aware of Darwin’s work.

The major antithesis of religion, communism and all of its iterations, has a need to banish religion… One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.





3. While the 20th century proved the fallacy that is Marxist communism, unfortunately our neo-Marxist government schools persist in propping up that love of Marx’s, the theory with more holes than Swiss cheese, Darwin’s Origin of Species thesis.
Certainly the fact that in a century and a half, with more professional scientists at work now than in all of history combined, there has never….NEVER….been even one case of one species becoming another, not in nature, nor in a laboratory, should be a clue to how poor an explanation or evolution, Darwin's thesis is.

But, some clearly false narratives survive….like socialism….and Darwinian evolution.




4. It isn’t just biologists, biochemists, paleontologists, geneticists, who have a bone to pick with Darwin. Lots of mathematicians are hostile, as well.
“Mathematicians over the years have complained that Darwinism’s numbers just do not add up. In 1966 leading mathematicians and evolutionary biologists held a symposium at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia because the organizer, Martin Kaplan, had overheard “a rather weird discussion between four mathematicians … on mathematical doubts concerning the Darwinian theory of evolution.

A mathematician who claimed that there was insufficient time for the number of mutations apparently needed to make an eye was told by the biologists that his figures must be wrong. The mathematicians, though, were not persuaded that the fault was theirs. As one said: There is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged with the current conception of biology. Schützenberger, M. P. (1967) “Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution” in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, ed. P. S. Moorhead and M. M. Kaplan, Wistar Institute Press, Philadelphia, p. 75.
[Found in Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box: The-Biochemical-Challenge-to-Evolution”]



So…when Darwin’s theory fails the test of mathematics…..who ya’ gonna call….ghost busters???
Your quote about Math and evolution is from 1967. :lmao:
 

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
20,459
Reaction score
1,181
Points
190
The mathematics that indicts Marxism is found in the more than 100 million human being slaughtered in the name of Karl Marx during the century of slaughter, the 20th. But, just as Karl Marx used the myth that Darwin’s theory explained the diversity of life on earth, mathematics proves that Darwinian evolution is not possible.



1.Karl Marx came from a family that was very Jewish, rabbinic scholars on both sides. But, to prosper in Germany, his father converted the family to Protestantism when Karl was only six years old.

“Karl Marx was born on May 5, 1818, in the German city of Trier. His family was Jewish but later converted to Protestantism in 1824 in order to avoid anti-Semitic laws and persecution. For this reason, among others, Marx rejected religion early on in his youth and made it absolutely clear that he was an atheist.”
Religion as Opium of the People

His economic theories revolved around Jews, money, and how the two had corrupted the world. Nothing could have worked better for Karl Marx than a tract in science that would obviate any need to premise God as an explanation for the biodiversity of our world.
Darwin was the answer to Marx’s prayers, if Marx could figure out to whom to pray…..and among the many problems with Darwin’s theory, mathematics obviates any claim that Darwin's theory works.



2. Karl Marx was thrilled when he became aware of Darwin’s work.

The major antithesis of religion, communism and all of its iterations, has a need to banish religion… One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.





3. While the 20th century proved the fallacy that is Marxist communism, unfortunately our neo-Marxist government schools persist in propping up that love of Marx’s, the theory with more holes than Swiss cheese, Darwin’s Origin of Species thesis.
Certainly the fact that in a century and a half, with more professional scientists at work now than in all of history combined, there has never….NEVER….been even one case of one species becoming another, not in nature, nor in a laboratory, should be a clue to how poor an explanation or evolution, Darwin's thesis is.

But, some clearly false narratives survive….like socialism….and Darwinian evolution.




4. It isn’t just biologists, biochemists, paleontologists, geneticists, who have a bone to pick with Darwin. Lots of mathematicians are hostile, as well.
“Mathematicians over the years have complained that Darwinism’s numbers just do not add up. In 1966 leading mathematicians and evolutionary biologists held a symposium at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia because the organizer, Martin Kaplan, had overheard “a rather weird discussion between four mathematicians … on mathematical doubts concerning the Darwinian theory of evolution.

A mathematician who claimed that there was insufficient time for the number of mutations apparently needed to make an eye was told by the biologists that his figures must be wrong. The mathematicians, though, were not persuaded that the fault was theirs. As one said: There is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged with the current conception of biology. Schützenberger, M. P. (1967) “Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution” in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, ed. P. S. Moorhead and M. M. Kaplan, Wistar Institute Press, Philadelphia, p. 75.
[Found in Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box: The-Biochemical-Challenge-to-Evolution”]



So…when Darwin’s theory fails the test of mathematics…..who ya’ gonna call….ghost busters???
Your quote about Math and evolution is from 1967. And he "claimed", lol.
:lmao:
 
Last edited:

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,170
Reaction score
3,974
Points
1,130
The mathematics that indicts Marxism is found in the more than 100 million human being slaughtered in the name of Karl Marx during the century of slaughter, the 20th. But, just as Karl Marx used the myth that Darwin’s theory explained the diversity of life on earth, mathematics proves that Darwinian evolution is not possible.



1.Karl Marx came from a family that was very Jewish, rabbinic scholars on both sides. But, to prosper in Germany, his father converted the family to Protestantism when Karl was only six years old.

“Karl Marx was born on May 5, 1818, in the German city of Trier. His family was Jewish but later converted to Protestantism in 1824 in order to avoid anti-Semitic laws and persecution. For this reason, among others, Marx rejected religion early on in his youth and made it absolutely clear that he was an atheist.”
Religion as Opium of the People

His economic theories revolved around Jews, money, and how the two had corrupted the world. Nothing could have worked better for Karl Marx than a tract in science that would obviate any need to premise God as an explanation for the biodiversity of our world.
Darwin was the answer to Marx’s prayers, if Marx could figure out to whom to pray…..and among the many problems with Darwin’s theory, mathematics obviates any claim that Darwin's theory works.



2. Karl Marx was thrilled when he became aware of Darwin’s work.

The major antithesis of religion, communism and all of its iterations, has a need to banish religion… One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.





3. While the 20th century proved the fallacy that is Marxist communism, unfortunately our neo-Marxist government schools persist in propping up that love of Marx’s, the theory with more holes than Swiss cheese, Darwin’s Origin of Species thesis.
Certainly the fact that in a century and a half, with more professional scientists at work now than in all of history combined, there has never….NEVER….been even one case of one species becoming another, not in nature, nor in a laboratory, should be a clue to how poor an explanation or evolution, Darwin's thesis is.

But, some clearly false narratives survive….like socialism….and Darwinian evolution.




4. It isn’t just biologists, biochemists, paleontologists, geneticists, who have a bone to pick with Darwin. Lots of mathematicians are hostile, as well.
“Mathematicians over the years have complained that Darwinism’s numbers just do not add up. In 1966 leading mathematicians and evolutionary biologists held a symposium at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia because the organizer, Martin Kaplan, had overheard “a rather weird discussion between four mathematicians … on mathematical doubts concerning the Darwinian theory of evolution.

A mathematician who claimed that there was insufficient time for the number of mutations apparently needed to make an eye was told by the biologists that his figures must be wrong. The mathematicians, though, were not persuaded that the fault was theirs. As one said: There is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged with the current conception of biology. Schützenberger, M. P. (1967) “Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution” in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, ed. P. S. Moorhead and M. M. Kaplan, Wistar Institute Press, Philadelphia, p. 75.
[Found in Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box: The-Biochemical-Challenge-to-Evolution”]



So…when Darwin’s theory fails the test of mathematics…..who ya’ gonna call….ghost busters???
"mathematics proves that Darwinian evolution is not possible.''

False. Your silly cut and paste ''quotes'' are a laughable joke.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,170
Reaction score
3,974
Points
1,130
The mathematics that indicts Marxism is found in the more than 100 million human being slaughtered in the name of Karl Marx during the century of slaughter, the 20th. But, just as Karl Marx used the myth that Darwin’s theory explained the diversity of life on earth, mathematics proves that Darwinian evolution is not possible.



1.Karl Marx came from a family that was very Jewish, rabbinic scholars on both sides. But, to prosper in Germany, his father converted the family to Protestantism when Karl was only six years old.

“Karl Marx was born on May 5, 1818, in the German city of Trier. His family was Jewish but later converted to Protestantism in 1824 in order to avoid anti-Semitic laws and persecution. For this reason, among others, Marx rejected religion early on in his youth and made it absolutely clear that he was an atheist.”
Religion as Opium of the People

His economic theories revolved around Jews, money, and how the two had corrupted the world. Nothing could have worked better for Karl Marx than a tract in science that would obviate any need to premise God as an explanation for the biodiversity of our world.
Darwin was the answer to Marx’s prayers, if Marx could figure out to whom to pray…..and among the many problems with Darwin’s theory, mathematics obviates any claim that Darwin's theory works.



2. Karl Marx was thrilled when he became aware of Darwin’s work.

The major antithesis of religion, communism and all of its iterations, has a need to banish religion… One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.





3. While the 20th century proved the fallacy that is Marxist communism, unfortunately our neo-Marxist government schools persist in propping up that love of Marx’s, the theory with more holes than Swiss cheese, Darwin’s Origin of Species thesis.
Certainly the fact that in a century and a half, with more professional scientists at work now than in all of history combined, there has never….NEVER….been even one case of one species becoming another, not in nature, nor in a laboratory, should be a clue to how poor an explanation or evolution, Darwin's thesis is.

But, some clearly false narratives survive….like socialism….and Darwinian evolution.




4. It isn’t just biologists, biochemists, paleontologists, geneticists, who have a bone to pick with Darwin. Lots of mathematicians are hostile, as well.
“Mathematicians over the years have complained that Darwinism’s numbers just do not add up. In 1966 leading mathematicians and evolutionary biologists held a symposium at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia because the organizer, Martin Kaplan, had overheard “a rather weird discussion between four mathematicians … on mathematical doubts concerning the Darwinian theory of evolution.

A mathematician who claimed that there was insufficient time for the number of mutations apparently needed to make an eye was told by the biologists that his figures must be wrong. The mathematicians, though, were not persuaded that the fault was theirs. As one said: There is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged with the current conception of biology. Schützenberger, M. P. (1967) “Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution” in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, ed. P. S. Moorhead and M. M. Kaplan, Wistar Institute Press, Philadelphia, p. 75.
[Found in Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box: The-Biochemical-Challenge-to-Evolution”]



So…when Darwin’s theory fails the test of mathematics…..who ya’ gonna call….ghost busters???

Our next loon, Michael Behe, is a prime example of what can happen when loonery disguises itself as real science. Behe is one of the most ardent and influential creationist out there; covered in more detail here.

Behe himself claims to accept (for instance) common descent and an old (13+ Billion years) universe. However evidence shows that he is a straightforward creationist. He consistently argues that his purported evidence that evolutionary theory does not work is automatically evidence for ID. The shifting of goalposts is obvious when he tries to argue that his opponents are inconsistent in arguing that ID is unfalisifiable (e.g. Coyne) and empirically refuted (e.g. Doolittle). In refusing to admit that Doolittle’s experiments - which falsified his specific predictions concerning blood clotting - were a falsification of the testable claims he forwarded with respect to irreducible complexity, Behe spectacularly demonstrates that Coyne is right to deem ID unfalsifiable (insofar as its supporters continuously change the goalposts).

Behe is also a religious apologist in general, serving as an “expert witness” for several religion related court cases.

Diagnosis: Strongly under the spell of confirmation bias, dishonest and a crackpot. As perhaps the leading creationist today, Behe is very influential and dangerous.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,170
Reaction score
3,974
Points
1,130

A biochemist’s crusade to overturn evolution misrepresents theory and ignores evidence.

In 1996, biochemist Michael Behe introduced the notion of “irreducible complexity,” arguing that some biomolecular structures could not have evolved because their functionality requires interacting parts, the removal of any one of which renders the entire apparatus defective. This claim excited creationists and remains a central plank of the “intelligent design” movement, despite being rightly rejected by a U.S. federal judge in 2005 in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. In Darwin Devolves, Behe continues his quixotic efforts to overturn modern evolutionary theory.
 

midcan5

liberal / progressive
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
12,370
Reaction score
3,023
Points
260
Location
Philly, PA
Hi PC, I see you are still beating that same dog. Poor thing is really dead by now. You must realize most Americans and especially readers online are not interested in old stuff. BTW Any positive comments on Trump? Are you a cult follower too? Our nation appears to be getting dumber by the minute as so much nonsense comes out of the White House. I'm glad that some republicans see him as the threat he is to America. Have a great day, soon you can beat up on Biden/Harris.

Trump has hurt enough Americans and children. If there is a God I hope he / she is in favor of caging children, breaking up families, and taking healthcare away from his people. What say ye, God?


'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'



'We've got to do something': Republican rebels come together to take on Trump'



"What is patriotism? Let us begin with what patriotism is not. It is not patriotic to dodge the draft and to mock war heroes and their families. It is not patriotic to discriminate against active-duty members of the armed forces in one's companies, or to campaign to keep disabled veterans away from one's property. It is not patriotic to compare one's search for sexual partners in New York with the military service in Vietnam that one has dodged. It is not patriotic to avoid paying taxes, especially when American working families do pay. It is not patriotic to ask those working, taxpaying American families to finance one's own presidential campaign, and then to spend their contributions in one's own companies. It is not patriotic to admire foreign dictators. It is not patriotic to cultivate a relationship with Muammar Gaddafi; or to say that Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin are superior leaders. It is not patriotic to call upon Russia to intervene in an American presidential election. It is not patriotic to cite Russian propaganda at rallies." Timothy Snyder 'On Tyranny'

Excellent piece on current America.

I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
100,038
Reaction score
33,904
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Hi PC, I see you are still beating that same dog. Poor thing is really dead by now. You must realize most Americans and especially readers online are not interested in old stuff. BTW Any positive comments on Trump? Are you a cult follower too? Our nation appears to be getting dumber by the minute as so much nonsense comes out of the White House. I'm glad that some republicans see him as the threat he is to America. Have a great day, soon you can beat up on Biden/Harris.

Trump has hurt enough Americans and children. If there is a God I hope he / she is in favor of caging children, breaking up families, and taking healthcare away from his people. What say ye, God?


'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'



'We've got to do something': Republican rebels come together to take on Trump'



"What is patriotism? Let us begin with what patriotism is not. It is not patriotic to dodge the draft and to mock war heroes and their families. It is not patriotic to discriminate against active-duty members of the armed forces in one's companies, or to campaign to keep disabled veterans away from one's property. It is not patriotic to compare one's search for sexual partners in New York with the military service in Vietnam that one has dodged. It is not patriotic to avoid paying taxes, especially when American working families do pay. It is not patriotic to ask those working, taxpaying American families to finance one's own presidential campaign, and then to spend their contributions in one's own companies. It is not patriotic to admire foreign dictators. It is not patriotic to cultivate a relationship with Muammar Gaddafi; or to say that Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin are superior leaders. It is not patriotic to call upon Russia to intervene in an American presidential election. It is not patriotic to cite Russian propaganda at rallies." Timothy Snyder 'On Tyranny'

Excellent piece on current America.

I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump


So you can't find a single thing in the OP that irked you so, you had to attempt to change the subject?


Seems I hit the mark again.


I have four or five more posts on this subject that will anger you even more.


Stay tuned.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
100,038
Reaction score
33,904
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
5. Mathematics serves as a test for biological theories, especially that of Darwin. We begin with the simplest of living systems: where did they come from?

“The Miller Urey Experiment. ... In the 1950's, biochemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey, conducted an experiment which demonstrated that several organic compounds could be formed spontaneously by simulating the conditions of Earth's early atmosphere.”
The Miller Urey Experiment - Windows to the Universe

They ran a current through gases they assumed for the primordial atmosphere: water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen. Voila! The found simple amino acids, precursors of protein!

First problem:
“This experiment, however, was proven wrong later when it was discovered that they had used the wrong gases, which was why they had received such favorable results. When it was repeated with the correct gases, it did not work.”
Why is the miller-urey experiment controversial? | Socratic





Second problem: the math.

“Knowing that no primordial soup existed on earth, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe did not limit their calculations to just this planet, but looked at the probability of life to form anywhere in the universe. Hoyle summarizes what they found concerning the likelihood of an accidental formation of the most basic DNA:

The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (1020)2000 = 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.

Even the need for only two enzymes to operate in association is sufficient to make the situation quite implausible... There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup... Sir Fred Hoyle, N.C. Wickramasinghe, "Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism", Simon and Schuster, NY, 1981
Quoted here: Bibliography




So….if the probability of the random interaction of molecules needed to form organic molecules is faulty….how can science begin by assuming life, much less evolution?


There is a value to Darwin's theory.....but it isn't in science.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,170
Reaction score
3,974
Points
1,130


The notion of “intelligent design” arose after opponents of evolution repeatedly failed on First Amendment grounds to get Bible-based creationism taught in the public schools. Their solution: Take God out of the mix and replace him with an unspecified “intelligent designer.” They added some irrelevant mathematics and fancy biochemical jargon, and lo: intelligent design, which scientists have dubbed “creationism in a cheap tuxedo.”

But the tuxedo is fraying, for intelligent design has been rejected not just by biologists but also by judges who recognize it as poorly disguised religion. Nevertheless, its advocates persist. Among the most vocal is Michael J. Behe, a biology professor at Lehigh University whose previous books, despite withering criticism from scientists, have sold well in a country where 76 percent of us think God had some role in human evolution.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,170
Reaction score
3,974
Points
1,130
Intelligent design is not science, [but is] grounded in theology [and] cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. —District Judge John E. Jones III in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005).
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,170
Reaction score
3,974
Points
1,130


Intelligent Design Creationism:
Fraudulent Science, Bad Philosophy.



The creation-evolution controversy.
© Sidney Harris, ScienceCartoonsPlus.com


Introduction.
There are various forms of fake science, bad science, and perverted science. History has seen many come, and decline, but none ever seem to die. The ideas of flat earth, hollow earth, astrology, alchemy and perpetual motion have supporters even today. These are interesting examples of the human ability to hold to an idea even without supportive evidence, and even in the face of contrary evidence. They, however, pose little threat to science, which simply ignores them and goes about its work.

A newer pseudoscience arose, first called "creationism" or "creation science", which tried to impose the literal interpretation of Biblical accounts into science, and into the schools. This movement had considerable public support amongst fundamentalist Christians. Scientists generally ignored it as irrelevant to their work. In recent years a movement called "intelligent design" (ID) has been promoted by a handful of people who write books aimed at non-scientists. These authors claim that intelligent design is not a religious idea, but the public speeches of some of them reveal that their goal is to get "God back into science and into school classrooms". Creationists, having largely failed in their efforts, lend their support to intelligent design, as perhaps the best they can get—for now.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,170
Reaction score
3,974
Points
1,130

It's been twenty years since Michael Behe published Darwin's Black Box and Intelligent Design Creationists are flagellating themselves over the fact that it had so little impact on creationism. The USA is becoming more secular with each passing year. Religion is on the decline.

In their attempt to deal with their defeat, the main ID blog has been publishing "Behe's Greatest Hits," which is a euphemistic way of saying "Behe's Greatest Failures." The latest one caught my eye. It's Best of Behe: An Open Letter to Professors Kenneth Miller and PZ Myers.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,170
Reaction score
3,974
Points
1,130
"People cited violation of the First Amendment when a New Jersey schoolteacher asserted that evolution and the Big Bang are not scientific and that Noah's ark carried dinosaurs. This case is not about the need to separate church and state; it's about the need to separate ignorant, scientifically illiterate people from the ranks of teachers.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,170
Reaction score
3,974
Points
1,130

IDC proponents usually avoid explicit references to God, attempting to present a veneer of secular scientific inquiry. IDC proponents introduced some new phrases into anti-evolution rhetoric, such as "irreducible complexity" (Michael Behe: Darwin's Black Box, 1996) and "specified complexity" (William Dembski: The Design Inference, 1998), but the basic principles behind these phrases have long histories in creationist attacks on evolution. Underlying both of these concepts, and foundational to IDC itself, is an early 19th century British theological view, the "argument from design."
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
100,038
Reaction score
33,904
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
The math skewers Darwinian theory.

6. Stephen C. Meyer has more recently broken down the probability along slightly different lines, for a small protein molecule, a precursor to living systems, but to the same conclusion:

"The probability of building a chain of 100 amino acids in which all linkages involve peptide bonds is roughly 1 chance in 1030."

"The probability of attaining at random only L-amino acids in a hypothetical peptide chain 100 amino acids long is (1/2)100 or again roughly 1 chance in 1030." [only left-handed amino acid arrangements can be tolerated by functioning proteins]

"…we find that the probability of achieving a functional sequence of amino acids in several functioning proteins at random is still "vanishingly small," roughly 1 chance in 1065 - an astronomically large number - for a protein only one hundred amino acids in length."

"If one also factors in the probability of attaining proper bonding and optical isomers, the probability of constructing a rather short, functional protein at random becomes so small as to be effectively zero (no more than 1 chance in 10125)…" [emphasis mine] 82

Meyer, Stephen C., "Word Games: DNA, Design, & Intelligence", Touchstone, July/August 1999, p. 47

Quoted here: Bibliography



Soooo….is the mathematics wrong, or is Darwin’s theory?
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
100,038
Reaction score
33,904
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
7. The DNA molecule is far, far larger than that simple 100-amino acid molecule calculated above.

What mathematics does is obviate the view that Darwin could be correct if the DNA of every type of organism could occur by random, by accident, by luck.

"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10 to the 50th power has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the ‘benefit of the doubt’). Any species known to us, including ‘the smallest single-cell bacteria,’ have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations (to use the evolutionist’s favorite expression)."
I.L. Cohen, "Darwin was Wrong," p. 205.





8. This means that it is impossible for an organism to be built by natural selection working on small changes, i.e., Darwin's theory. The sudden production of an new and unique organism would fit the bill for evolution, except that

a. there is no mathematical probability for such an event.

b. if the religious view were implied, Leftists would have a fit.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,170
Reaction score
3,974
Points
1,130
8. IDiot book by Stephen Meyer can't be refuted by scientists

The IDiots at the Discovery Institute have evolved something that they think is a winning strategy. They publish a book that has lots of scientific-sounding words then they embark on a massive publicity campaign to promote it as the latest scientific breakthroughs showing that evolution is wrong (and, therefore, God did it). Then they wait for the bad reviews to come in and concentrate on rebutting the reviewers. They get as much publicity by pretending that the reviewers are biased as they do from selling the books in the first place.

They use four main tactics to avoid admitting that they are wrong [see What Do You Do When All the Reviews Are Bad?]. One of them is to claim that all the reviewers are ignoring the main arguments in the book. That's what Stephen Meyer does in the video below. It's titled, "The Biggest Failure of Critics." (Warning, this has been tested with the Mark X Irony Meter and it passes. I can't guarantee that earlier models will survive.)
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
58,457
Reaction score
1,949
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
The mathematics that indicts Marxism is found in the more than 100 million human being slaughtered in the name of Karl Marx during the century of slaughter, the 20th. But, just as Karl Marx used the myth that Darwin’s theory explained the diversity of life on earth, mathematics proves that Darwinian evolution is not possible.



1.Karl Marx came from a family that was very Jewish, rabbinic scholars on both sides. But, to prosper in Germany, his father converted the family to Protestantism when Karl was only six years old.

“Karl Marx was born on May 5, 1818, in the German city of Trier. His family was Jewish but later converted to Protestantism in 1824 in order to avoid anti-Semitic laws and persecution. For this reason, among others, Marx rejected religion early on in his youth and made it absolutely clear that he was an atheist.”
Religion as Opium of the People

His economic theories revolved around Jews, money, and how the two had corrupted the world. Nothing could have worked better for Karl Marx than a tract in science that would obviate any need to premise God as an explanation for the biodiversity of our world.
Darwin was the answer to Marx’s prayers, if Marx could figure out to whom to pray…..and among the many problems with Darwin’s theory, mathematics obviates any claim that Darwin's theory works.



2. Karl Marx was thrilled when he became aware of Darwin’s work.

The major antithesis of religion, communism and all of its iterations, has a need to banish religion… One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.





3. While the 20th century proved the fallacy that is Marxist communism, unfortunately our neo-Marxist government schools persist in propping up that love of Marx’s, the theory with more holes than Swiss cheese, Darwin’s Origin of Species thesis.
Certainly the fact that in a century and a half, with more professional scientists at work now than in all of history combined, there has never….NEVER….been even one case of one species becoming another, not in nature, nor in a laboratory, should be a clue to how poor an explanation or evolution, Darwin's thesis is.

But, some clearly false narratives survive….like socialism….and Darwinian evolution.




4. It isn’t just biologists, biochemists, paleontologists, geneticists, who have a bone to pick with Darwin. Lots of mathematicians are hostile, as well.
“Mathematicians over the years have complained that Darwinism’s numbers just do not add up. In 1966 leading mathematicians and evolutionary biologists held a symposium at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia because the organizer, Martin Kaplan, had overheard “a rather weird discussion between four mathematicians … on mathematical doubts concerning the Darwinian theory of evolution.

A mathematician who claimed that there was insufficient time for the number of mutations apparently needed to make an eye was told by the biologists that his figures must be wrong. The mathematicians, though, were not persuaded that the fault was theirs. As one said: There is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged with the current conception of biology. Schützenberger, M. P. (1967) “Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution” in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, ed. P. S. Moorhead and M. M. Kaplan, Wistar Institute Press, Philadelphia, p. 75.
[Found in Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box: The-Biochemical-Challenge-to-Evolution”]



So…when Darwin’s theory fails the test of mathematics…..who ya’ gonna call….ghost busters???
Definitely not the Right Wing.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top