Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So you are saying that there are scientific facts that can change?

No. I am saying we call it "fact" for convenience, not by any definition or criteria of scientific method.. I mean, we could say every time, "we assume it as fact due to the absurdity of it not being a fact, in light of all the evidence, though it is always up for challenge, and science never proves anything beyond all doubt", but that would take too long.

So instead of using prove how about can you show me some evidence that supports your "fact" that every species has a common origin.

Hmm, no, that burden lies on someone challenging that idea . If evolution is taken as fact, it is all but mathematical certainty that we all share a common ancestor. Go on, have a crack at it. Try to dream up a scenario in which it is not true. It is accepted as true, because any alternative leads to contradictions. Even aside from all the evidence that supports common ancestry (fossil record, DNA), the real kicker is that assuming two or more lineages creates contradictions that cannot be resolved. But new ideas are welcomed.

 

[Ringtone]

Nothing at all! Question away. But -- nothing personal -- scientists have been doing that for 160 years. You are probably not going to come up with a question they have not thought of already. So, if someone is honestly questioning the theory, their first act should be to go see what the scientists have learned about that question.

One thing we can safely say, knowing evolution is a fact: all species on Earth share a common ancestor. Not just a species, but one individual of a species was the common ancestor. This is mathematical certainty.

Nonsense.

 

[Ringtone]

Now you are misrepresenting science. Science doesn't "prove" hypotheses. All we can do is look at all the evidence and safely assume evolution is, in fact, the origin of the diversity of species. Given this assumption, it is mathematical certainty that all species share a common ancestor.

Common ancestry is a mathematical certainty?! LOL! Not even close. But in any event, how can that be true when in fact the evodelusionist's interpretation of the available evidence is circularly presupposed in his metaphysical premise of naturalism?

 

[Ringtone]

We know Darwin got transference wrong. So what's wrong with questioning the origin of species? It's pretty obvious that natural selection is a reasonable explanation for the evolution of species. But it seems a fair point to investigate the origin as that is not so obvious.

Natural selection is a mechanism of adaptive radiation alright, but macroevolution is wholly based on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism.

 

[ding]

So you are saying that there are scientific facts that can change?

No. I am saying we call it "fact" for convenience, not by any definition or criteria of scientific method.. I mean, we could say every time, "we assume it as fact due to the absurdity of it not being a fact, in light of all the evidence, though it is always up for challenge, and science never proves anything beyond all doubt", but that would take too long.

So instead of using prove how about can you show me some evidence that supports your "fact" that every species has a common origin.

Hmm, no, that burden lies on someone challenging that idea . If evolution is taken as fact, it is all but mathematical certainty that we all share a common ancestor. Go on, have a crack at it. Try to dream up a scenario in which it is not true. It is accepted as true, because any alternative leads to contradictions. Even aside from all the evidence that supports common ancestry (fossil record, DNA), the real kicker is that assuming two or more lineages creates contradictions that cannot be resolved. But new ideas are welcomed.

It is just as convenient to say the theory of evolution instead of the fact of evolution and it is entirely more accurate to say the theory of evolution.

Then it should not be hard for you to produce evidence of a common ancestor instead of waving your arms like a chicken that can't fly.

The reality is the common ancestor idea is a myth that makes no sense unless that common ancestor can procreate on his own. I would have thought this would have been self evident.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Common ancestry is a mathematical certainty

Yep!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is just as convenient to say the theory of evolution instead of the fact of evolution and it is entirely more accurate to say the theory of evolution.

That is always accurate. Also perfectly fine to say it is true. True things are facts.

Then it should not be hard for you to produce evidence of such

Again, the evidence is: all the evidence of common ancestry that shows evolution to be true, coupled with the method used in proof by contradiction. Try it yourself. Try to dream up a way where we have at least two lineages extant with no single common ancestor. It cannot be done. If this doesn't convince you, that's your problem and puts you on the fringe. I am fine with it.

 

[ding]

We know Darwin got transference wrong. So what's wrong with questioning the origin of species? It's pretty obvious that natural selection is a reasonable explanation for the evolution of species. But it seems a fair point to investigate the origin as that is not so obvious.

Natural selection is a mechanism of adaptive radiation alright, but macroevolution is wholly based on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism.

Natural selection has two components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation.

I have heard some silly things about natural selection. Such as natural selection was responsible for inanimate matter making the leap to life. That's not possible.

 

[ding]

It is just as convenient to say the theory of evolution instead of the fact of evolution and it is entirely more accurate to say the theory of evolution.

That is always accurate. Also perfectly fine to say it is true. True things are facts.

Then it should not be hard for you to produce evidence of such

Again, the evidence is: all the evidence of common ancestry that shows evolution to be true, coupled with the method used in proof by contradiction. Try it yourself. Try to dream up a way where we have at least two lineages extant with no single common ancestor. It cannot be done. If this doesn't convince you, that's your problem and puts you on the fringe. I am fine with it.

True things are facts IF they can be proven. But I am glad that you finally accept that evolution is a theory. Hence the name the theory of evolution.

And that's not evidence. Show me the evidence. Show me the proof.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We know Darwin got transference wrong. So what's wrong with questioning the origin of species? It's pretty obvious that natural selection is a reasonable explanation for the evolution of species. But it seems a fair point to investigate the origin as that is not so obvious.

Natural selection is a mechanism of adaptive radiation alright, but macroevolution is wholly based on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism.

Natural selection has two components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation.

I have heard some silly things about natural selection. Such as natural selection was responsible for inanimate matter making the leap to life. That's not possible.

That would just be "selection". "Natural selection" is a type of selection for which we have coined a colloquial term.

 

[ding]

We know Darwin got transference wrong. So what's wrong with questioning the origin of species? It's pretty obvious that natural selection is a reasonable explanation for the evolution of species. But it seems a fair point to investigate the origin as that is not so obvious.

Natural selection is a mechanism of adaptive radiation alright, but macroevolution is wholly based on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism.

Natural selection has two components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation.

I have heard some silly things about natural selection. Such as natural selection was responsible for inanimate matter making the leap to life. That's not possible.

That would just be "selection". "Natural selection" is a type of selection for which we have coined a colloquial term.

No. That would not be selection. That would be random. And entirely unlikely to occur.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

True things are facts IF they can be proven

Evolution is as well "shown to be true" as any theory can or will be. Scientists are perfectly fine with calling it "true", as am I. If that bothers you, again, that's your problem. I feel no compulsion to change your mind.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No. That would not be selection.

False. That is precisely what acted on molecules to form life. It is also what causes the formation of any molecule in nature. It is a general term for how the universe acts on things. For example, the universe "selects for" the spheroid shape of massive objects. So yes, abiogenesis was a process of selection.

 

[ding]

True things are facts IF they can be proven

Evolution is as well "shown to be true" as any theory can or will be. Scientists are perfectly fine with calling it "true", as am I. If that bothers you, again, that's your problem. I feel no compulsion to change your mind.

Nope. Theories that can be tested through experiment with the results repeated over and over again would be shown as true as any theory can or will be. The theory of evolution does not fit that bill.

 

[ding]

No. That would not be selection.

False. That is precisely what acted on molecules to form life. It is also what causes the formation of any molecule in nature. It is a general term for how the universe acts on things. For example, the universe "selects for" the spheroid shape of massive objects. So yes, abiogenesis was a process of selection.

If that were the case we would be able to repeat it over and over again. Which no one seems to be able to do. Not even once.

 

[noonereal]

The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that the entirety of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation entailing a common ancestry over geological time. The hypothesis is actually predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is not subject to scientific falsification.

The evolutionist begs the question; that is to say, he assumes his conclusion—his interpretation of the available evidence—in his metaphysical premise. His conclusion does not axiomatically follow from the empirical evidence; it axiomatically follows from his premise. While some scientists of the evolutionary hypothesis grasp this reality, the typical laymen does not. The apriority of his belief flies right over his head.

Hocus Pocus

We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry. All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time. This in no way, shape or form precludes the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.

Oh my fuckin God

seriously, just give it up

worship your invisable man in the sky but keep that shit in the closet where it belongs

Thanks

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If that were the case we would be able to repeat it over and over again.

Oh really?

So we should have to create stars ourselves to know the universe selects for spheroidal shapes of stars?

Uh...no. We know this because we observe the shapes. We know that DNA was "selected for" by the physical forces, because it is here.

 

[ding]

If that were the case we would be able to repeat it over and over again.

Oh really?

So we should have to create stars ourselves to know the universe selects for spheroidal shapes of stars?

Uh...no. We know this because we observe the shapes. We know that DNA was "selected for" by the physical forces, because it is here.

Don't be silly. We can observe the death of stars and we can observe stars being born.

Can you observe a new species being created?

Do you have any idea at all what is actually involved in creating life from inanimate matter? Walk me through the steps.

 

[ding]

The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that the entirety of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation entailing a common ancestry over geological time. The hypothesis is actually predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is not subject to scientific falsification.

The evolutionist begs the question; that is to say, he assumes his conclusion—his interpretation of the available evidence—in his metaphysical premise. His conclusion does not axiomatically follow from the empirical evidence; it axiomatically follows from his premise. While some scientists of the evolutionary hypothesis grasp this reality, the typical laymen does not. The apriority of his belief flies right over his head.

Hocus Pocus

We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry. All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time. This in no way, shape or form precludes the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.

Oh my fuckin God

seriously, just give it up

worship your invisable man in the sky but keep that shit in the closet where it belongs

Thanks

1st amendment anyone?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Theories that can be tested through experiment with the results repeated over and over again would be shown as true as any theory can or will be.

Yep, exactly why we know all extant species had a common ancestor. It has passed every test, over and over and over. You arent offering any real insight. The global scientific community -- that considers evolution to be true and which views abiogenesis as a foregone conclusion -- understands how to perform science.