Marx, Math And Myth

[james bond]

11. Now, a quick lesson on the irreducible complexity of DNA, and you will understand that any alteration, mutation, would destroy its usefulness.

DNA is what causes the production of every compound and structure in a cell, and this is why it need be soooooo huge! Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’7—humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See ‘The programs of life’, for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.’) DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess? - creation.com



Quick example of what changing a single one of those 580,000 ‘letters,’ nucleotides, will do the genetic message:

The nucleotides are 'read' in groups of three...Let's say that this short sentence is the information needed for the cell to build a protein, and we’ll use a sentence with three letter words as though the letters were that nucleotide triplet:

"The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."


Simple, easily understood.....

This sentence represents a gene....I know, much too short...but it's just an example!

Let's assume that each letter corresponds to a nucleotide base, and each word represents a codon, a triplet. The definition of 'codon:' a unit that consists of three adjacent bases on a DNA molecule and that determines the position of a specific amino acid in a protein molecule during protein synthesis.

Basic Genetics

learn.genetics.utah.edu

So.... via a Darwinian random change, what we would call a mutation, would leave out, or add, any one letter in the message, watch how it changes the ‘meaning’ of that sentence:

Drop the first letter, and watch what this sentence, "The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."…..It becomes: "hes unw ash otb utt heo ldm and idn otg eth ish at."

Then it is not the same message at all...the 'mutation' makes the DNA meaningless at best....or lethal at worst! And that is why nearly every single mutation is harmful at best, deadly at worst.



Now apply the idea to the huge DNA molecule....and one can see that Darwin's premise, alterations in the DNA would not produce a new species.....it would destroy the organism.

Do you actually understand what you're posting or you just bow to authority?

In my Item #11 I explained why mutations nearly always result in non-functioning and/or lethal DNA or gene alteration.


I explained it in a way that would be clear to a child able to read simple three-letter words.


Clearly you have not yet reached that level.....

Regardless. The right wing is not moral enough for God to exist or we would only need Ten simple Commandments not the Expense of Government and the Taxes required to run it, for Right Wingers to immorally complain about.

Now, you have to resort to weak and wrong religious opinion to argue when Mathematical Biology has disproved how evolution can happen. It shows your explanations behind microevolution are wrong and that macroevolution cannot possibly happen. What should come out of this is different ideas about natural selection.

You, sir, are relegated to the doo doo pit along with the terms microevolution and macroevolution.

 

[Hollie]

Darwin's theory, pushed on unsuspecting students, is false.

Or.....see if you can provide any proof, you dunce.

There will never be proof, would you settle for overwhelming evidence?

I can short-circuit this easily enough.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

I can dispose of creationer loons with facts.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

CB910: New species

CA520: "Origin of Species" on speciation.

 

[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.

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

Evolution is a fundamental fact of nature, that is why almost everything evolves. It is true of biology, religion, science, art, warfare, politics, etc.

Darwin's theory, pushed on unsuspecting students, is false.

Or.....see if you can provide any proof, you dunce.

Gee whiz. We seem to be on the horns of a dilemma, here. Do we accept the work of relevant science and biology departments of all the teaching and research universities

Or

do we accept the silly rants of creationer loons?

Decisions, decisions.

Evolutionary Biology // Department of Biological Sciences // University of Notre Dame

Advancing human and environmental health through teaching, research and outreach.

biology.nd.edu

Organisms are evolving and changing every day, creating, molding, and even deleting genetic diversity. Meanwhile, next-generation sequencing is reinventing evolutionary biology and our ability to track and probe evolutionary processes. Our researchers use cutting-edge tools to understand evolutionary processes within whole genomes that lead to differences in organismal function. We also use evolutionary differences to detect species in nature and predict their responses to environmental change. We study the evolution in many organisms, mostly in wild populations, including human diseases and their hosts.

 

[james bond]

Evolution is a fundamental fact of nature, that is why almost everything evolves. It is true of biology, religion, science, art, warfare, politics, etc.

Not anymore when microevolution has been destroyed. We may as well get rid of evolutionary biology. Thus, natural selection is a fundamental fact of nature. If modern scientists discard the neo-Darwinian theory nonsense, then we may finally make progress in using natural selection biology to help us understand nature and help humankind.

 

[james bond]

I don't think I've ever seen her do anything but cut and paste walls of text on this forum. She'll never have a debate where she can't inundate her opponent with so much BS that they don't even bother.

Surely, you meant Hollie . She's the one wearing...

 

[Hollie]

Evolution is a fundamental fact of nature, that is why almost everything evolves. It is true of biology, religion, science, art, warfare, politics, etc.

Not anymore when microevolution has been destroyed. We may as well get rid of evolutionary biology. Thus, natural selection is a fundamental fact of nature. If modern scientists discard the neo-Darwinian theory nonsense, then we may finally make progress in using natural selection biology to help us understand nature and help humankind.

How predictable that it is the ID’iot creationers who are the ones who feel most threatened by science and knowledge. It is they who have an interest in reviling science and knowledge because science and knowledge leaves little room for ancient fears and superstitions.

 

[Hollie]

I don't think I've ever seen her do anything but cut and paste walls of text on this forum. She'll never have a debate where she can't inundate her opponent with so much BS that they don't even bother.

Surely, you meant Hollie . She's the one wearing...

Your emotional / juvenile outbursts diminish you, not me.

 

[alang1216]

Darwin's theory, pushed on unsuspecting students, is false.

Or.....see if you can provide any proof, you dunce.

There will never be proof, would you settle for overwhelming evidence?

I can short-circuit this easily enough.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

You mean you can take off on a tangent? Logic 101: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I completely understand that you want to avoid speaking of the overwhelming evidence for evolution and instead insist on focusing on your friendly neighborhood straw man.

 

[alang1216]

11. Now, a quick lesson on the irreducible complexity of DNA, and you will understand that any alteration, mutation, would destroy its usefulness.

DNA is what causes the production of every compound and structure in a cell, and this is why it need be soooooo huge! Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’7—humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See ‘The programs of life’, for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.’) DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess? - creation.com



Quick example of what changing a single one of those 580,000 ‘letters,’ nucleotides, will do the genetic message:

The nucleotides are 'read' in groups of three...Let's say that this short sentence is the information needed for the cell to build a protein, and we’ll use a sentence with three letter words as though the letters were that nucleotide triplet:

"The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."


Simple, easily understood.....

This sentence represents a gene....I know, much too short...but it's just an example!

Let's assume that each letter corresponds to a nucleotide base, and each word represents a codon, a triplet. The definition of 'codon:' a unit that consists of three adjacent bases on a DNA molecule and that determines the position of a specific amino acid in a protein molecule during protein synthesis.

Basic Genetics

learn.genetics.utah.edu

So.... via a Darwinian random change, what we would call a mutation, would leave out, or add, any one letter in the message, watch how it changes the ‘meaning’ of that sentence:

Drop the first letter, and watch what this sentence, "The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."…..It becomes: "hes unw ash otb utt heo ldm and idn otg eth ish at."

Then it is not the same message at all...the 'mutation' makes the DNA meaningless at best....or lethal at worst! And that is why nearly every single mutation is harmful at best, deadly at worst.



Now apply the idea to the huge DNA molecule....and one can see that Darwin's premise, alterations in the DNA would not produce a new species.....it would destroy the organism.

Do you actually understand what you're posting or you just bow to authority?

She may just be a paid shill.

That is not in doubt, the only thing in question is Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, or GOP? (I doubt it's the Russians, Chinese, or GOP, they would do a much better job of disinformation.)

 

[PoliticalChic]

Darwin's theory, pushed on unsuspecting students, is false.

Or.....see if you can provide any proof, you dunce.

There will never be proof, would you settle for overwhelming evidence?

I can short-circuit this easily enough.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

You mean you can take off on a tangent? Logic 101: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I completely understand that you want to avoid speaking of the overwhelming evidence for evolution and instead insist on focusing on your friendly neighborhood straw man.

A century and a half after Darwin published, with more scientists working today than in all of history combined.....

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


Add this to the fact that I showed how mutations do not lead to evolution, but lead to death.


But....you prove a valuable point: the weak-minded can never cast off the indoctrination of government schooling.

As most of your teachers wrote on your report cards: "Works to ability."


Just be happy that you don’t still have that job that required you to wear that white paper hat.

 

[alang1216]

Evolution is a fundamental fact of nature, that is why almost everything evolves. It is true of biology, religion, science, art, warfare, politics, etc.

Not anymore when microevolution has been destroyed. We may as well get rid of evolutionary biology. Thus, natural selection is a fundamental fact of nature. If modern scientists discard the neo-Darwinian theory nonsense, then we may finally make progress in using natural selection biology to help us understand nature and help humankind.

So how does "natural selection biology" operate? I always thought it was somehow connected to microevolution?

 

[alang1216]

Darwin's theory, pushed on unsuspecting students, is false.

Or.....see if you can provide any proof, you dunce.

There will never be proof, would you settle for overwhelming evidence?

I can short-circuit this easily enough.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

You mean you can take off on a tangent? Logic 101: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I completely understand that you want to avoid speaking of the overwhelming evidence for evolution and instead insist on focusing on your friendly neighborhood straw man.

A century and a half after Darwin published, with more scientists working today than in all of history combined.....

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


Add this to the fact that I showed how mutations do not lead to evolution, but lead to death.


But....you prove a valuable point: the weak-minded can never cast off the indoctrination of government schooling.

A tangent is tangent but I guess you don't have anything else.

I guess the parable of the bacteria went over your ivy-covered, elitist head. Let me summarize. 99.99% of mutations may be be bad but, if there are changes in the environment, they may be good. It is how bacteria acquire drug resistance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Evolution is a fundamental fact of nature, that is why almost everything evolves. It is true of biology, religion, science, art, warfare, politics, etc.

Not anymore when microevolution has been destroyed. We may as well get rid of evolutionary biology. Thus, natural selection is a fundamental fact of nature. If modern scientists discard the neo-Darwinian theory nonsense, then we may finally make progress in using natural selection biology to help us understand nature and help humankind.

So how does "natural selection biology" operate? I always thought it was somehow connected to microevolution?

It is based on characteristics already existing in DNA.

I realize books are anathema to you, (better look that up) but there is the novel The Big Sky. I read it long ago, but I believe a red-headed child is born and the father cannot accept that his wife was faithful because neither of them had red hair.

Diversity is due to traits already in existence but hidden by other traits.

When genes, or DNA is altered, the results are almost never an improvement.

As of this moment, no one is able to prove the origin of the diversity on earth.....and Darwin's theory doesn't fill the bill.
But it is eminently valuable for atheists.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Darwin's theory, pushed on unsuspecting students, is false.

Or.....see if you can provide any proof, you dunce.

There will never be proof, would you settle for overwhelming evidence?

I can short-circuit this easily enough.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

You mean you can take off on a tangent? Logic 101: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I completely understand that you want to avoid speaking of the overwhelming evidence for evolution and instead insist on focusing on your friendly neighborhood straw man.

A century and a half after Darwin published, with more scientists working today than in all of history combined.....

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


Add this to the fact that I showed how mutations do not lead to evolution, but lead to death.


But....you prove a valuable point: the weak-minded can never cast off the indoctrination of government schooling.

A tangent is tangent but I guess you don't have anything else.

I guess the parable of the bacteria went over your ivy-covered, elitist head. Let me summarize. 99.99% of mutations may be be bad but, if there are changes in the environment, they may be good. It is how bacteria acquire drug resistance.

" 99.99% of mutations may be be bad but, if there are changes in the environment, they may be good."

Mathematics proves that the remaining number cannot account for 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”]


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



"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.

 

[james bond]

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.

Evolution is a fundamental fact of nature, that is why almost everything evolves. It is true of biology, religion, science, art, warfare, politics, etc.

Darwin's theory, pushed on unsuspecting students, is false.

Or.....see if you can provide any proof, you dunce.

Gee whiz. We seem to be on the horns of a dilemma, here. Do we accept the work of relevant science and biology departments of all the teaching and research universities

Or

do we accept the silly rants of creationer loons?

Decisions, decisions.

Evolutionary Biology // Department of Biological Sciences // University of Notre Dame

Advancing human and environmental health through teaching, research and outreach.

biology.nd.edu

Organisms are evolving and changing every day, creating, molding, and even deleting genetic diversity. Meanwhile, next-generation sequencing is reinventing evolutionary biology and our ability to track and probe evolutionary processes. Our researchers use cutting-edge tools to understand evolutionary processes within whole genomes that lead to differences in organismal function. We also use evolutionary differences to detect species in nature and predict their responses to environmental change. We study the evolution in many organisms, mostly in wild populations, including human diseases and their hosts.

Stop with the 80s postings. Your source is an extremist and looney tunes website if there ever was one.

You just do not understand the ramifications of disproving Ronald Fisher's theorem -- evolutionary biology was disproved. There's a whole series on it on your other looney tunes and biased encyclopedia (cough, cough) source wikipedia.

" At the heart of Fisher’s conception was his famous fundamental theorem of natural selection (Fisher’s Theorem). Fisher’s Theorem, published in his text The Genetical Theory of Evolution (Fisher 1930), showed that given a population with pre-existing genetic variants (i.e., Mendelian alleles) the population’s mean fitness will increase. Not only will mean fitness increase, the rate of increase will be proportional to the genetic variance for fitness within the population at any given time. This constitutes a proof that natural selection leads to increasing fitness in idealized Mendelian genetics, although it is often overlooked that Fisher’s theorem does not consider mutations and without newly arising variants natural selection can only lead to stasis.

By itself, Fisher’s Theorem seems obvious and of little significance. The impact of the theorem came from the following two points.

1. (A)
   Fisher conceptually linked natural selection with Mendelian genetics, which had not been done up to that time.
2. (B)
   Fisher assumed that, when combined with a constant inflow of new mutations, his theorem guaranteed unbounded increase of any population’s fitness. Therefore in his mind his theorem constituted a mathematical proof of Darwinian evolution.

At the time of Fisher’s work, there were two competing schools of thought about genetics and evolution (Plutynski 2006). The Biometric school viewed genetics as quantitative and continuous, fully understandable solely by statistical metrics and a vague notion of Darwinian gradualism. The Mendelian school of thought viewed inheritance as the transmission of discrete Mendelian units, hence evolution was thought to progress by discrete steps. In describing Fisher’s goal in his text, Plutynski writes, “His aim was to vindicate Darwinism and demonstrate its compatibility with Mendelism—indeed, its necessity given a Mendelian system of inheritance” (Plutynski 2006). Fisher wanted to show that the established reality of the discrete units of Mendelian inheritance did not undermine Darwinian evolution (as some were arguing), but actually supported it. "

However, Basener and Sanford turned it on its head and destroyed it with their fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations. Fisher never included mutations in his theorem, but just assumed it.

The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations - Journal of Mathematical Biology

The mutation–selection process is the most fundamental mechanism of evolution. In 1935, R. A. Fisher proved his fundamental theorem of natural selection, providing a model in which the rate of change of mean fitness is equal to the genetic variance of a species. Fisher did not include mutations...

link.springer.com

 

[james bond]

There will never be proof, would you settle for overwhelming evidence?

We just had proof that the theorem of natural selection was false when mutations were factored in. You are one looney tunes bird and have been smoking too much of the wacky tobacky.

 

[Hollie]

Darwin's theory, pushed on unsuspecting students, is false.

Or.....see if you can provide any proof, you dunce.

There will never be proof, would you settle for overwhelming evidence?

I can short-circuit this easily enough.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

You mean you can take off on a tangent? Logic 101: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I completely understand that you want to avoid speaking of the overwhelming evidence for evolution and instead insist on focusing on your friendly neighborhood straw man.

A century and a half after Darwin published, with more scientists working today than in all of history combined.....

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


Add this to the fact that I showed how mutations do not lead to evolution, but lead to death.


But....you prove a valuable point: the weak-minded can never cast off the indoctrination of government schooling.

A tangent is tangent but I guess you don't have anything else.

I guess the parable of the bacteria went over your ivy-covered, elitist head. Let me summarize. 99.99% of mutations may be be bad but, if there are changes in the environment, they may be good. It is how bacteria acquire drug resistance.

" 99.99% of mutations may be be bad but, if there are changes in the environment, they may be good."

Mathematics proves that the remaining number cannot account for 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”]


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



"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.

Not surprising you pray at the altar of Disco’tute loons.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Stephen C. Meyer is a philosopher and one of the hotshots of the Discovery Institute. And like some philosophers and all Discovery Institute people, he likes to make grand claims about scientific fields about which he must be counted as an illiterate. Meyer helped found the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute (DI), which is the major hive for the ID creationist movement. Meyer is currently vice president and a senior fellow at CSC, and a director of the Access Research Network. He has been described as “the person who brought ID (intelligent design) to DI (Discovery Institute)”, he contributed to the second edition of Dean Kenyon’s “Of Pandas and People”, wrote (with Ralph Seelke) the ID textbook “Explore Evolution”, was appointed by the Texas Board of Education to be on the committee reviewing Texas’s science curriculum standards, is the primary link to DI sponsor and Taliban theocrat loon Howard Ahmanson, and was partly responsible for the Wedge Strategy, as well as an active speaker and debate panelist.

In 1999, Meyer (with David DeWolf and Mark DeForrest) designed a legal strategy for introducing intelligent design into public schools in the book “Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curriculum.” (I mean, the point of ID is to get creationism and religion into the schools, not to do science). He is perhaps most famous for trying to realize the strategy through helping to introduce ID to the Dover Area School District (more extensively here), and for his ridiculous 2009 book “Signature in the Cell” (which a probably drunk/dementia suffering Thomas Nagel actually praised, flaunting his own ignorance of science). PZ Myers was offered a review copy by Meyer’s assistant Janet Oberembt, but never received it. The book actually makes twelve “predictions” for ID (although they are not predictions in the ordinary scientific sense because they are not derived from any concrete theory, and they all concern testing the theory of evolution, not ID). He also offers a “theory”. The theory is unrelated to the predictions. He derives no predictions from his theory. He offers nothing resembling a coherent justification either, so the book didn’t receive much positive feedback from actual scientists. He has offered some appeals to authority, however (“Thomas Jefferson wasn’t a Darwinist”).

In March 2002 he announced the “teach the controversy” strategy aimed at promoting the false idea that the theory of evolution is controversial within scientific circles, following a presentation to the Ohio State Board of Education. Since Meyer knows this is false, he was lying, but dishonesty isn’t exactly a surprising trait in ID advocates. The presentation included a bibliography of 44 peer-reviewed scientific articles that were said to raise significant challenges to key tenets of what was referred to as "”Darwinian evolution”. When NCSE contacted the authors, none of the authors who responded (the authors of thirty-four of the papers) thought that their research provided evidence against evolution. Meyer also publicly claimed that the “Santorum Amendment” was part of the Education Bill, and therefore that the State of Ohio was required to teach alternative theories to evolution as part of its biology curriculum. Which is demonstrably false, but tells you a lot about the DI creationists.

Of course, he thinks there is active persecution of the purportedly fast-growing number of scientists rejecting evolution in Academia (probably because he cannot find any). He was interviewed about those claims in Expelled.

Diagnosis: One of the staunchest, most influential, most dishonest anti-science advocates in the world. Crackpot and complete hack.

 

[Hollie]

There will never be proof, would you settle for overwhelming evidence?

We just had proof that the theorem of natural selection was false when mutations were factored in. You are one looney tunes bird and have been smoking too much of the wacky tobacky.

Not surprisingly, your “pwoofs” are mere “... because I say so” pronouncements absent any support.

 

[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.

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

Evolution is a fundamental fact of nature, that is why almost everything evolves. It is true of biology, religion, science, art, warfare, politics, etc.

Darwin's theory, pushed on unsuspecting students, is false.

Or.....see if you can provide any proof, you dunce.

Gee whiz. We seem to be on the horns of a dilemma, here. Do we accept the work of relevant science and biology departments of all the teaching and research universities

Or

do we accept the silly rants of creationer loons?

Decisions, decisions.

Evolutionary Biology // Department of Biological Sciences // University of Notre Dame

Advancing human and environmental health through teaching, research and outreach.

biology.nd.edu

Organisms are evolving and changing every day, creating, molding, and even deleting genetic diversity. Meanwhile, next-generation sequencing is reinventing evolutionary biology and our ability to track and probe evolutionary processes. Our researchers use cutting-edge tools to understand evolutionary processes within whole genomes that lead to differences in organismal function. We also use evolutionary differences to detect species in nature and predict their responses to environmental change. We study the evolution in many organisms, mostly in wild populations, including human diseases and their hosts.

Stop with the 80s postings. Your source is an extremist and looney tunes website if there ever was one.

You just do not understand the ramifications of disproving Ronald Fisher's theorem -- evolutionary biology was disproved. There's a whole series on it on your other looney tunes and biased encyclopedia (cough, cough) source wikipedia.

" At the heart of Fisher’s conception was his famous fundamental theorem of natural selection (Fisher’s Theorem). Fisher’s Theorem, published in his text The Genetical Theory of Evolution (Fisher 1930), showed that given a population with pre-existing genetic variants (i.e., Mendelian alleles) the population’s mean fitness will increase. Not only will mean fitness increase, the rate of increase will be proportional to the genetic variance for fitness within the population at any given time. This constitutes a proof that natural selection leads to increasing fitness in idealized Mendelian genetics, although it is often overlooked that Fisher’s theorem does not consider mutations and without newly arising variants natural selection can only lead to stasis.

By itself, Fisher’s Theorem seems obvious and of little significance. The impact of the theorem came from the following two points.

1. (A)
   Fisher conceptually linked natural selection with Mendelian genetics, which had not been done up to that time.
2. (B)
   Fisher assumed that, when combined with a constant inflow of new mutations, his theorem guaranteed unbounded increase of any population’s fitness. Therefore in his mind his theorem constituted a mathematical proof of Darwinian evolution.

At the time of Fisher’s work, there were two competing schools of thought about genetics and evolution (Plutynski 2006). The Biometric school viewed genetics as quantitative and continuous, fully understandable solely by statistical metrics and a vague notion of Darwinian gradualism. The Mendelian school of thought viewed inheritance as the transmission of discrete Mendelian units, hence evolution was thought to progress by discrete steps. In describing Fisher’s goal in his text, Plutynski writes, “His aim was to vindicate Darwinism and demonstrate its compatibility with Mendelism—indeed, its necessity given a Mendelian system of inheritance” (Plutynski 2006). Fisher wanted to show that the established reality of the discrete units of Mendelian inheritance did not undermine Darwinian evolution (as some were arguing), but actually supported it. "

However, Basener and Sanford turned it on its head and destroyed it with their fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations. Fisher never included mutations in his theorem, but just assumed it.

The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations - Journal of Mathematical Biology

The mutation–selection process is the most fundamental mechanism of evolution. In 1935, R. A. Fisher proved his fundamental theorem of natural selection, providing a model in which the rate of change of mean fitness is equal to the genetic variance of a species. Fisher did not include mutations...

link.springer.com

Why waste bandwidth with debunked 1930’s vintage nonsense?

 

[Hollie]

Darwin's theory, pushed on unsuspecting students, is false.

Or.....see if you can provide any proof, you dunce.

There will never be proof, would you settle for overwhelming evidence?

I can short-circuit this easily enough.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

You mean you can take off on a tangent? Logic 101: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I completely understand that you want to avoid speaking of the overwhelming evidence for evolution and instead insist on focusing on your friendly neighborhood straw man.

A century and a half after Darwin published, with more scientists working today than in all of history combined.....

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


Add this to the fact that I showed how mutations do not lead to evolution, but lead to death.


But....you prove a valuable point: the weak-minded can never cast off the indoctrination of government schooling.

A tangent is tangent but I guess you don't have anything else.

I guess the parable of the bacteria went over your ivy-covered, elitist head. Let me summarize. 99.99% of mutations may be be bad but, if there are changes in the environment, they may be good. It is how bacteria acquire drug resistance.

" 99.99% of mutations may be be bad but, if there are changes in the environment, they may be good."

Mathematics proves that the remaining number cannot account for 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”]


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



"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.

The Probability of Life | Evolution FAQ

evolutionfaq.com

Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all.

For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 1040, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10390 claim creationists often cite.

Though, to be fair, 1040 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth.

In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 1024 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 1031 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 1040, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed.