Marx, Math And Myth

[PoliticalChic]

"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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

While breeders have always known that they could encourage better more desirable organisms, plants and animals, unlike Darwin they also knew that the range of changes was severely limited, and after a point the organism was harmed or died.

“A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order …
The authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues … The scientists are working on formulating a new general theory based on this finding they are calling “evolutionary control.””
Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective

 

[justinacolmena]

his father converted the family to Protestantism when Karl was only six years old.

You can't be Jewish among the Jews and Protestant among the Protestants.
Jesus was Jewish, of the tribe of Judah.

Mary and Joseph were devout Jews.

Jesus Christ had no intention of rejecting the right Jewish doctrine or altering the way it was practiced. His ministry of faith was to the Gentiles, mainly Greeks and Romans at that time and place.

Christians of faith cannot deny the faith of Jews or persecute Jewish people.

 

[PoliticalChic]

his father converted the family to Protestantism when Karl was only six years old.

You can't be Jewish among the Jews and Protestant among the Protestants.
Jesus was Jewish, of the tribe of Judah.

Mary and Joseph were devout Jews.

Jesus Christ had no intention of rejecting the right Jewish doctrine or altering the way it was practiced. His ministry of faith was to the Gentiles, mainly Greeks and Romans at that time and place.

Christians of faith cannot deny the faith of Jews or persecute Jewish people.

What does this have to do with the item to which you linked?

 

[Hollie]

Intelligent Design: The Glass is Empty

Intelligent Design. The Glass is Empty.

Why intelligent design is not a science, The seriously flawed argument from design.

lockhaven.edu

A frustrating basic pitfall:
The philosophers' final downfall.
They try and they try
But they can't reason why
The real world should make sense at all.

The latest ploy of "evolution deniers" is the notion of "Intelligent Design", being promoted as a "scientific theory" worthy of (a) replacing the theory of evolution, and (b) sitting alongside Newton's mechanics as one of the great ideas of science.

It has a few problems.

The Intelligent Design (ID) argument doesn't qualify as a proper scientific theory.
The ID argument has the trappings of a logical argument, but it is full of logical gaps and holes. It is "pseudo-logic".
No scientific evidence specifically supports the assumptions of the theory. Any evidence seemingly supportive of it could equally support countless other fantastic theories, even contradictory ones.
The argument uses words in deceptive ways, without carefully defining them.

As an argument purportedly about "intelligence", ID is pretty "dumb". Upon careful examination it is revealed as a "con", so cleverly constructed that it's hard to see it as anything but a deliberate fraud. It is something like the magician's illusion, distracting and misdirecting the attention of the audience, while hiding the nature of the deception and the hanky-panky skillfully executed where the audience doesn't notice. And the result is—a miracle! Like all magicians' tricks, the result is, as perceived by the audience, an apparently impossible event. That's the definition of a miracle.

 

[Hollie]

Intelligent Design Isn't Even
a Valid Scientific Hypothesis.

Intelligent Design. The Glass is Empty.

Why intelligent design is not a science, The seriously flawed argument from design.

lockhaven.edu

In science an hypothesis is a proposition about nature that one can put to the test to determine its validity. It could be a wild guess, but usually it is is more than that, a question that arises naturally from experimental investigation or from theoretical considerations. In either case, it must be a question that is capable of being answered by experimental tests. If the tests confirm the hypothesis, we are encouraged to try more and different tests, preferably independent tests by independent researchers. When it becomes clear that the hypothesis is supported in all cases, without exception, it may be promoted to the status of a recognized law of nature, and may even become a part of an accepted scientific theory. A scientific theory is the highest level of scientific knowledge. It must be supported by extensive experimental testing and consistently and logically integrated with other established theories.

 

[Hollie]

The dangers of creationism in education

The dangers of creationism in education

www.assembly.coe.int

Report
Committee on Culture, Science and Education
Rapporteur: Mrs Anne BRASSEUR, Luxembourg, ALDE

Summary

Creationism in any of its forms, such as “intelligent design”, is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are definitely inappropriate for science classes.

However, some people call for creationist theories to be taught in European schools alongside or even in place of the theory of evolution. From a scientific view point, there is absolutely no doubt that evolution is a central theory for our understanding of life on Earth.

The Assembly calls on education authorities in member states to promote scientific knowledge and the teaching of evolution and to oppose firmly any attempts at teaching creationism as a scientific discipline.

 

[Indeependent]

While breeders have always known that they could encourage better more desirable organisms, plants and animals, unlike Darwin they also knew that the range of changes was severely limited, and after a point the organism was harmed or died.

“A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order …
The authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues … The scientists are working on formulating a new general theory based on this finding they are calling “evolutionary control.””
Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective

The same posters here who ridicule you that "you're the old, ring in the new", have nothing to say about a world where Dancing With The Stars is ranked among the top shows that the world watches.
It seems humanity has dumbed down considerably in the last couple of thousand years.

 

[james bond]

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.

We already saw your fake looney blogsite, so no need to repeat.

You have no evidence using mathematics or else show us something.

Why not look up Ronald Fisher in your looney website?

Ronald Fisher, a mathematician and one of the founding fathers of the Modern Theory of Evolution, proposed a Natural Law of Evolution that stated that given random chance induced changes (mutations), the fitness of an organism will always INCREASE over time due to natural selection. He derived that this evolutionary law assumes an equal number of beneficial mutations = number of harmful mutations and symmetrical distribution of beneficial vs harmful mutations.

However, extensive research has shown that the distribution of beneficial-vs-harmful mutations is NOT equal and symmetrical. Instead the distribution is very heavily biased towards HARMFUL mutations. (No surprise there as this is what creation scientists have been saying from the beginning.) Anyway, experimental measurements shows that 1) There are NO observed beneficial mutations at all, or 2) Beneficial mutations IF present are below detection limits of the experiments, or 3) Beneficial mutations IF present are less than one in a million mutations. The rest are majority HARMFUL along with some fraction that are neutral.

When we add in this experimentally determined distribution, the MATH shows that in biologically realistic situations (with asymmetric mutational distributions), the fitness of the species DECLINES over time in general. It means that mutations and natural selection do NOT work in reality.

You might as well add your name to your fake looney website haha.

 

[initforme]

So if we get rid of evolution what other THEORY(which cannot be proven) should replace it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

While breeders have always known that they could encourage better more desirable organisms, plants and animals, unlike Darwin they also knew that the range of changes was severely limited, and after a point the organism was harmed or died.

“A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order …
The authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues … The scientists are working on formulating a new general theory based on this finding they are calling “evolutionary control.””
Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective

The same posters here who ridicule you that "you're the old, ring in the new", have nothing to say about a world where Dancing With The Stars is ranked among the top shows that the world watches.
It seems humanity has dumbed down considerably in the last couple of thousand years.

Well....I must admit that I don't read the several posters to whom you refer....and I've never seen 'Dancing With The Stars.'

But I do so appreciate the educated and introspective, you, and always look forward to your posts.


From what I have seen, none of the Darwin supporters has been able to dispute the math I have applied and provided in this thread.
My aim is for those who simply accepted the false theory of evolution provided by the neo-Marxist government schools to see another perspective.....one with actual proof.


See ya' soon!

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

We already saw your fake looney blogsite, so no need to repeat.

You have no evidence using mathematics or else show us something.

Why not look up Ronald Fisher in your looney website?

Ronald Fisher, a mathematician and one of the founding fathers of the Modern Theory of Evolution, proposed a Natural Law of Evolution that stated that given random chance induced changes (mutations), the fitness of an organism will always INCREASE over time due to natural selection. He derived that this evolutionary law assumes an equal number of beneficial mutations = number of harmful mutations and symmetrical distribution of beneficial vs harmful mutations.

However, extensive research has shown that the distribution of beneficial-vs-harmful mutations is NOT equal and symmetrical. Instead the distribution is very heavily biased towards HARMFUL mutations. (No surprise there as this is what creation scientists have been saying from the beginning.) Anyway, experimental measurements shows that 1) There are NO observed beneficial mutations at all, or 2) Beneficial mutations IF present are below detection limits of the experiments, or 3) Beneficial mutations IF present are less than one in a million mutations. The rest are majority HARMFUL along with some fraction that are neutral.

When we add in this experimentally determined distribution, the MATH shows that in biologically realistic situations (with asymmetric mutational distributions), the fitness of the species DECLINES over time in general. It means that mutations and natural selection do NOT work in reality.

You might as well add your name to your fake looney website haha.

That poster is simply proof that the indoctrination of government schooling is indelible......in the needy and weak-minded.

 

[Hollie]

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.

We already saw your fake looney blogsite, so no need to repeat.

You have no evidence using mathematics or else show us something.

Why not look up Ronald Fisher in your looney website?

Ronald Fisher, a mathematician and one of the founding fathers of the Modern Theory of Evolution, proposed a Natural Law of Evolution that stated that given random chance induced changes (mutations), the fitness of an organism will always INCREASE over time due to natural selection. He derived that this evolutionary law assumes an equal number of beneficial mutations = number of harmful mutations and symmetrical distribution of beneficial vs harmful mutations.

However, extensive research has shown that the distribution of beneficial-vs-harmful mutations is NOT equal and symmetrical. Instead the distribution is very heavily biased towards HARMFUL mutations. (No surprise there as this is what creation scientists have been saying from the beginning.) Anyway, experimental measurements shows that 1) There are NO observed beneficial mutations at all, or 2) Beneficial mutations IF present are below detection limits of the experiments, or 3) Beneficial mutations IF present are less than one in a million mutations. The rest are majority HARMFUL along with some fraction that are neutral.

When we add in this experimentally determined distribution, the MATH shows that in biologically realistic situations (with asymmetric mutational distributions), the fitness of the species DECLINES over time in general. It means that mutations and natural selection do NOT work in reality.

You might as well add your name to your fake looney website haha.

That poster is simply proof that the indoctrination of government schooling is indelible......in the needy and weak-minded.

Not surprisingly, absent your usual practice of dumping a phony ''quote'', you're really at a loss to offer a coherent comment.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So if we get rid of evolution what other THEORY(which cannot be proven) should replace it?

Not 'evolution'....Darwin's version of an explanation.

Read more carefully.



If you ever get around to reading, you will find that there are a number of other explanations for the diversity of life.


See if you understand this:

“Irving Kristol is a prominent social theorist with a talent for recognizing ideological obfuscation, and he applied that talent to Darwinism in an essay in The New York Times. Kristol observed that Darwinian theory, which explains complex life as the product of small genetic mutations and “survival of the fittest,” is known to be valid only for variations within the biological species.

That Darwinian evolution can gradually transform one kind of creature into another is merely a biological hypothesis, not a fact. He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning.

Kristol conceded that creation-science is a matter of faith and not science, and should not be taught in the schools, but he thought that its defenders still had a point: It is reasonable to suppose that if evolution were taught more cautiously, as a conglomerate idea consisting of conflicting hypotheses rather than as an unchallengeable certainty, it would be far less controversial. As things now stand, the religious fundamentalists are not far off the mark when they assert that evolution, as generally taught, has an unwarranted anti-religious edge to it.”
Johnson, “Darwin On Trial”

 

[Hollie]

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.

We already saw your fake looney blogsite, so no need to repeat.

You have no evidence using mathematics or else show us something.

Why not look up Ronald Fisher in your looney website?

Ronald Fisher, a mathematician and one of the founding fathers of the Modern Theory of Evolution, proposed a Natural Law of Evolution that stated that given random chance induced changes (mutations), the fitness of an organism will always INCREASE over time due to natural selection. He derived that this evolutionary law assumes an equal number of beneficial mutations = number of harmful mutations and symmetrical distribution of beneficial vs harmful mutations.

However, extensive research has shown that the distribution of beneficial-vs-harmful mutations is NOT equal and symmetrical. Instead the distribution is very heavily biased towards HARMFUL mutations. (No surprise there as this is what creation scientists have been saying from the beginning.) Anyway, experimental measurements shows that 1) There are NO observed beneficial mutations at all, or 2) Beneficial mutations IF present are below detection limits of the experiments, or 3) Beneficial mutations IF present are less than one in a million mutations. The rest are majority HARMFUL along with some fraction that are neutral.

When we add in this experimentally determined distribution, the MATH shows that in biologically realistic situations (with asymmetric mutational distributions), the fitness of the species DECLINES over time in general. It means that mutations and natural selection do NOT work in reality.

You might as well add your name to your fake looney website haha.

As usual, you supply no source for your specious comments as your source is fundamentalist xtian websites. You really should learn the facts about biology rather than default to ICR nonsense.

CB101: Most mutations harmful?

Claim CB101:

Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.
Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.
Response:

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).

High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).

Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).



What else can I help you with?

 

[Hollie]

While breeders have always known that they could encourage better more desirable organisms, plants and animals, unlike Darwin they also knew that the range of changes was severely limited, and after a point the organism was harmed or died.

“A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order …
The authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues … The scientists are working on formulating a new general theory based on this finding they are calling “evolutionary control.””
Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective

The same posters here who ridicule you that "you're the old, ring in the new", have nothing to say about a world where Dancing With The Stars is ranked among the top shows that the world watches.
It seems humanity has dumbed down considerably in the last couple of thousand years.

Well....I must admit that I don't read the several posters to whom you refer....and I've never seen 'Dancing With The Stars.'

But I do so appreciate the educated and introspective, you, and always look forward to your posts.


From what I have seen, none of the Darwin supporters has been able to dispute the math I have applied and provided in this thread.
My aim is for those who simply accepted the false theory of evolution provided by the neo-Marxist government schools to see another perspective.....one with actual proof.


See ya' soon!

Let’s be honest. The “math” you presented is simply standard fundie ID’iot creationist “math” that doesn’t apply to biological systems.

It’s predictable that ID’iot creationers will use “what are the odds” arguments they copy and paste from xtian ministries to "support" their claims. It's always comical to see that, since ID’iot creationers can always find fundamentalist hacks who will agree with their viewpoint, and “quote” it mercilessly. Aren't selective “quoting” and argumentum ad verecundiam fun?

How strange that the odds of winning the lottery are astronomical, yet, there are winners. What are the odds? It's like rolling a die ten times and getting 1928373645 and saying "wow, the odds on that were 60 million to one, what a coincidence!!". (And note that rolling 8888888888 is no less likely; the probability of getting 1928373645 is exactly the same as the probability of getting 8888888888.) If you post facto single out some particular sequence as "special" (such as "8888888888" or "life arising") then of course that individual sequence is improbable, but that doesn't mean that the dice were rigged (i.e., there were various gods behind that sequence). It's exactly as probable or improbable as anything else.

 

[Hollie]

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.

We already saw your fake looney blogsite, so no need to repeat.

You have no evidence using mathematics or else show us something.

Why not look up Ronald Fisher in your looney website?

Ronald Fisher, a mathematician and one of the founding fathers of the Modern Theory of Evolution, proposed a Natural Law of Evolution that stated that given random chance induced changes (mutations), the fitness of an organism will always INCREASE over time due to natural selection. He derived that this evolutionary law assumes an equal number of beneficial mutations = number of harmful mutations and symmetrical distribution of beneficial vs harmful mutations.

However, extensive research has shown that the distribution of beneficial-vs-harmful mutations is NOT equal and symmetrical. Instead the distribution is very heavily biased towards HARMFUL mutations. (No surprise there as this is what creation scientists have been saying from the beginning.) Anyway, experimental measurements shows that 1) There are NO observed beneficial mutations at all, or 2) Beneficial mutations IF present are below detection limits of the experiments, or 3) Beneficial mutations IF present are less than one in a million mutations. The rest are majority HARMFUL along with some fraction that are neutral.

When we add in this experimentally determined distribution, the MATH shows that in biologically realistic situations (with asymmetric mutational distributions), the fitness of the species DECLINES over time in general. It means that mutations and natural selection do NOT work in reality.

You might as well add your name to your fake looney website haha.

Don’t you find it curious that virtually all of the ID’iot creationer loons you folks prey to seem to congregate at fundamentalist ministries?

 

[Indeependent]

While breeders have always known that they could encourage better more desirable organisms, plants and animals, unlike Darwin they also knew that the range of changes was severely limited, and after a point the organism was harmed or died.

“A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order …
The authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues … The scientists are working on formulating a new general theory based on this finding they are calling “evolutionary control.””
Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective

The same posters here who ridicule you that "you're the old, ring in the new", have nothing to say about a world where Dancing With The Stars is ranked among the top shows that the world watches.
It seems humanity has dumbed down considerably in the last couple of thousand years.

Well....I must admit that I don't read the several posters to whom you refer....and I've never seen 'Dancing With The Stars.'

But I do so appreciate the educated and introspective, you, and always look forward to your posts.


From what I have seen, none of the Darwin supporters has been able to dispute the math I have applied and provided in this thread.
My aim is for those who simply accepted the false theory of evolution provided by the neo-Marxist government schools to see another perspective.....one with actual proof.


See ya' soon!

Let’s be honest. The “math” you presented is simply standard fundie ID’iot creationist “math” that doesn’t apply to biological systems.

It’s predictable that ID’iot creationers will use “what are the odds” arguments they copy and paste from xtian ministries to "support" their claims. It's always comical to see that, since ID’iot creationers can always find fundamentalist hacks who will agree with their viewpoint, and “quote” it mercilessly. Aren't selective “quoting” and argumentum ad verecundiam fun?

How strange that the odds of winning the lottery are astronomical, yet, there are winners. What are the odds? It's like rolling a die ten times and getting 1928373645 and saying "wow, the odds on that were 60 million to one, what a coincidence!!". (And note that rolling 8888888888 is no less likely; the probability of getting 1928373645 is exactly the same as the probability of getting 8888888888.) If you post facto single out some particular sequence as "special" (such as "8888888888" or "life arising") then of course that individual sequence is improbable, but that doesn't mean that the dice were rigged (i.e., there were various gods behind that sequence). It's exactly as probable or improbable as anything else.

There is a difference between improbable and impossible.
Evolution is impossible.

 

[james bond]

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.

We already saw your fake looney blogsite, so no need to repeat.

You have no evidence using mathematics or else show us something.

Why not look up Ronald Fisher in your looney website?

Ronald Fisher, a mathematician and one of the founding fathers of the Modern Theory of Evolution, proposed a Natural Law of Evolution that stated that given random chance induced changes (mutations), the fitness of an organism will always INCREASE over time due to natural selection. He derived that this evolutionary law assumes an equal number of beneficial mutations = number of harmful mutations and symmetrical distribution of beneficial vs harmful mutations.

However, extensive research has shown that the distribution of beneficial-vs-harmful mutations is NOT equal and symmetrical. Instead the distribution is very heavily biased towards HARMFUL mutations. (No surprise there as this is what creation scientists have been saying from the beginning.) Anyway, experimental measurements shows that 1) There are NO observed beneficial mutations at all, or 2) Beneficial mutations IF present are below detection limits of the experiments, or 3) Beneficial mutations IF present are less than one in a million mutations. The rest are majority HARMFUL along with some fraction that are neutral.

When we add in this experimentally determined distribution, the MATH shows that in biologically realistic situations (with asymmetric mutational distributions), the fitness of the species DECLINES over time in general. It means that mutations and natural selection do NOT work in reality.

You might as well add your name to your fake looney website haha.

As usual, you supply no source for your specious comments as your source is fundamentalist xtian websites. You really should learn the facts about biology rather than default to ICR nonsense.

CB101: Most mutations harmful?

Claim CB101:

Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.
Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.
Response:

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).

High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).

Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).



What else can I help you with?

Haha. Still stuck in the 1980s. Fisher's theorem was disproved in 2018.

"January 2018: Fisher’s Famous Theorem Has Been “Flipped”

The 2014 edition of Genetic Entropy stated that a publication was in preparation that would disprove the historically pivotal “Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection”, developed by Ronald Fisher. This key new paper has finally been published.

Ronald Fisher was one the great scientists of the last century, and his theorem, published in 1930, and was the foundational work that gave rise to neo-Darwinian theory and the field of population genetics. This new paper shows that Fisher’s mathematical formulation and his conclusion were wrong. Furthermore, the new paper corrects Fisher’s work — thus reversing Fisher’s thesis and establishing a new theorem. Fisher had claimed that his theorem was a mathematical proof of evolution — making the continuous increase in fitness a universal and mathematically certain natural law. The corrected theorem shows that just the opposite is true — fitness must very consistently degenerate — making macroevolution impossible. The new paper by Basener and Sanford, is in the Journal of Mathematical Biology (available here).

Fisher described his theorem as “fundamental”, because he believed he had discovered a mathematical proof for Darwinian evolution. He described his theorem as equivalent to a universal natural law — on the same level as the second law of thermodynamics. Fisher’s self-proclaimed new law of nature was that populations will always increase in fitness — without limit, as long as there is any genetic variation in the population. Therefore evolution is like gravity — a simple mathematical certainly. Over the years, a vast number of students of biology have been taught this mantra — that Fisher’s Theorem proves that evolution is a mathematical certainty.

The authors of the new paper describe the fundamental problems with Fisher’s theorem. They then use Fisher’s first principles, and reformulate and correct the theorem. They have named the corrected theorem The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations. The correction of the theorem is not a trivial change — it literally flips the theorem on its head. The resulting conclusions are clearly in direct opposition to what Fisher had originally intended to prove.

In the early 1900s, Darwinian theory was in trouble scientifically. Darwin’s writings were primarily conceptual in nature, containing a great deal of philosophy and a great deal of speculation. Beyond simple observations of nature, Darwin’s books generally lacked genuine science (experimentation, data analysis, the formulation of testable hypotheses). Darwin had no understanding of genetics, and so he had no conception of how traits might be passed from one generation to the next. He only had a very vague notion of what natural selection might actually be acting upon. He simply pictured life as being inherently plastic and malleable, so evolution was inherently fluid and continuous (think Claymation). When Mendel’s genetic discoveries were eventually brought out of the closet, it could be seen that inheritance was largely based upon discrete and stable packets of information. That indicated that life and inheritance were not like Claymation, and that biological change over time was not based upon unlimited plasticity or fluidity. Mendel’s discrete units of information (later called genes), were clearly specific and finite, and so they only enabled specific and limited changes. At that time it was being said: “Mendelism has killed Darwinism”.

Fisher was the first to reconcile the apparent conflict between the ideas of Darwin and the experimental observations of Mendel. Fisher accomplished this by showing mathematically how natural selection could improve fitness by selecting for desirable genetic units (beneficial alleles), and simultaneously selecting against undesirable genetic units (deleterious alleles). He showed that given zero mutations, the more there are good/bad alleles in the population, the more natural selection can improve the fitness of the population. This is the essence of Fisher’s Theorem. This was foundational for neo-Darwinian theory — which now reigns supreme in modern academia.

Remarkably, Fisher’s theorem by itself illustrates a self-limiting process — once all the bad alleles are eliminated, and once all the individuals carry only good alleles, then there is nothing left to select, and so selective progress must stop. The end result is that the population improves slightly and then becomes locked in stasis (no further change). It is astounding that Fisher’s Theorem does not explicitly address this profound problem! Newly arising mutations are not even part of Fisher’s mathematical formulation. Instead, Fisher simply added an informal corollary (which was never proven), which involved extrapolation from his simple proof. He assumed that a continuous flow of new mutations would continuously replenish the population’s genetic variability, thereby allowing continuous and unlimited fitness increase."

NEW DEVELOPMENTS | -genetic-entropy

www.geneticentropy.org

 

[Hollie]

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.

We already saw your fake looney blogsite, so no need to repeat.

You have no evidence using mathematics or else show us something.

Why not look up Ronald Fisher in your looney website?

Ronald Fisher, a mathematician and one of the founding fathers of the Modern Theory of Evolution, proposed a Natural Law of Evolution that stated that given random chance induced changes (mutations), the fitness of an organism will always INCREASE over time due to natural selection. He derived that this evolutionary law assumes an equal number of beneficial mutations = number of harmful mutations and symmetrical distribution of beneficial vs harmful mutations.

However, extensive research has shown that the distribution of beneficial-vs-harmful mutations is NOT equal and symmetrical. Instead the distribution is very heavily biased towards HARMFUL mutations. (No surprise there as this is what creation scientists have been saying from the beginning.) Anyway, experimental measurements shows that 1) There are NO observed beneficial mutations at all, or 2) Beneficial mutations IF present are below detection limits of the experiments, or 3) Beneficial mutations IF present are less than one in a million mutations. The rest are majority HARMFUL along with some fraction that are neutral.

When we add in this experimentally determined distribution, the MATH shows that in biologically realistic situations (with asymmetric mutational distributions), the fitness of the species DECLINES over time in general. It means that mutations and natural selection do NOT work in reality.

You might as well add your name to your fake looney website haha.

As usual, you supply no source for your specious comments as your source is fundamentalist xtian websites. You really should learn the facts about biology rather than default to ICR nonsense.

CB101: Most mutations harmful?

Claim CB101:

Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.
Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.
Response:

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).

High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).

Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).



What else can I help you with?

Haha. Still stuck in the 1980s. Fisher's theorem was disproved in 2018.

"January 2018: Fisher’s Famous Theorem Has Been “Flipped”

The 2014 edition of Genetic Entropy stated that a publication was in preparation that would disprove the historically pivotal “Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection”, developed by Ronald Fisher. This key new paper has finally been published.

Ronald Fisher was one the great scientists of the last century, and his theorem, published in 1930, and was the foundational work that gave rise to neo-Darwinian theory and the field of population genetics. This new paper shows that Fisher’s mathematical formulation and his conclusion were wrong. Furthermore, the new paper corrects Fisher’s work — thus reversing Fisher’s thesis and establishing a new theorem. Fisher had claimed that his theorem was a mathematical proof of evolution — making the continuous increase in fitness a universal and mathematically certain natural law. The corrected theorem shows that just the opposite is true — fitness must very consistently degenerate — making macroevolution impossible. The new paper by Basener and Sanford, is in the Journal of Mathematical Biology (available here).

Fisher described his theorem as “fundamental”, because he believed he had discovered a mathematical proof for Darwinian evolution. He described his theorem as equivalent to a universal natural law — on the same level as the second law of thermodynamics. Fisher’s self-proclaimed new law of nature was that populations will always increase in fitness — without limit, as long as there is any genetic variation in the population. Therefore evolution is like gravity — a simple mathematical certainly. Over the years, a vast number of students of biology have been taught this mantra — that Fisher’s Theorem proves that evolution is a mathematical certainty.

The authors of the new paper describe the fundamental problems with Fisher’s theorem. They then use Fisher’s first principles, and reformulate and correct the theorem. They have named the corrected theorem The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations. The correction of the theorem is not a trivial change — it literally flips the theorem on its head. The resulting conclusions are clearly in direct opposition to what Fisher had originally intended to prove.

In the early 1900s, Darwinian theory was in trouble scientifically. Darwin’s writings were primarily conceptual in nature, containing a great deal of philosophy and a great deal of speculation. Beyond simple observations of nature, Darwin’s books generally lacked genuine science (experimentation, data analysis, the formulation of testable hypotheses). Darwin had no understanding of genetics, and so he had no conception of how traits might be passed from one generation to the next. He only had a very vague notion of what natural selection might actually be acting upon. He simply pictured life as being inherently plastic and malleable, so evolution was inherently fluid and continuous (think Claymation). When Mendel’s genetic discoveries were eventually brought out of the closet, it could be seen that inheritance was largely based upon discrete and stable packets of information. That indicated that life and inheritance were not like Claymation, and that biological change over time was not based upon unlimited plasticity or fluidity. Mendel’s discrete units of information (later called genes), were clearly specific and finite, and so they only enabled specific and limited changes. At that time it was being said: “Mendelism has killed Darwinism”.

Fisher was the first to reconcile the apparent conflict between the ideas of Darwin and the experimental observations of Mendel. Fisher accomplished this by showing mathematically how natural selection could improve fitness by selecting for desirable genetic units (beneficial alleles), and simultaneously selecting against undesirable genetic units (deleterious alleles). He showed that given zero mutations, the more there are good/bad alleles in the population, the more natural selection can improve the fitness of the population. This is the essence of Fisher’s Theorem. This was foundational for neo-Darwinian theory — which now reigns supreme in modern academia.

Remarkably, Fisher’s theorem by itself illustrates a self-limiting process — once all the bad alleles are eliminated, and once all the individuals carry only good alleles, then there is nothing left to select, and so selective progress must stop. The end result is that the population improves slightly and then becomes locked in stasis (no further change). It is astounding that Fisher’s Theorem does not explicitly address this profound problem! Newly arising mutations are not even part of Fisher’s mathematical formulation. Instead, Fisher simply added an informal corollary (which was never proven), which involved extrapolation from his simple proof. He assumed that a continuous flow of new mutations would continuously replenish the population’s genetic variability, thereby allowing continuous and unlimited fitness increase."

NEW DEVELOPMENTS | -genetic-entropy

www.geneticentropy.org

Now that’s pretty darn funny.

There was a reference to something called “contested bones” in your long cut and paste.

What a surprise. Your cut and paste includes links to charlatans at the most dishonest and crank fundie ministries.