Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

[ding]

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.

I am not arguing against natural selection within a species. I am not even arguing against natural selection as the origin of species or abiogenesis as the basis for the creation of life. What I am telling you is that you are taking natural selection as the origin of species and abiogenesis on faith because there is not real evidence to support it.

You cannot tell me why there are no transitional fossils (I can). You can not tell me the steps required for inanimate matter to make the leap to life (I can). So while I have a healthy dose of I don't have all the information needed to believe these are fact like you, you take these things on faith because you sure as hell don't know much about them.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Can you observe a new species being created?

Yes, and we have. Ding, try as you might, neither you nor any religious charlatan in this thread are offering any serious challenges to the facts that are the theory of evolution and abiogenesis. You are free to mount an actual challenge, using evidence or theory, any time you lke. Good luck!

 

[ding]

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.

You are like a religious fundamentalist when it comes to science. You will fight to the death defending a dogma you don't understand. It's your religion.

 

[ding]

Can you observe a new species being created?

Yes, and we have. Ding, try as you might, neither you nor any religious charlatan in this thread are offering any serious challenges to the facts that are the theory of evolution and abiogenesis. You are free to mount an actual challenge, using evidence or theory, any time you lke. Good luck!

Do you have a link to this new species that was created? Not just some variation of a previous species, right?

 

[ding]

the theory of evolution

This is progress.

 

[Ringtone]

Do you understand the coefficient of selection and how it is used in equation 1.0? ... I'm not going to waste my time on you explaining simple high school math ...

Just like Hollie, you're not going to demonstrate that you actually have first-hand knowledge and understanding of your copy-and-paste, you're not going explain just how your copy-and-paste falsifies my observations?

I didn't think you would, just like none of you have addressed the observation that the evodelusionist circularly presupposes naturalism is true in his interpretation of the available evidence.

Hocus Pocus

The mathematics do not falsify a speciation of common design over geological time in any way, shape or form! The evodelusionist just arbitrarily denies the alternative potentiality. Biological history's mathematical chronology of speciation is perfectly compatible with a biological history of common design.

You just can't grasp why that's so because your just fronting with your copy-and-paste. I see right through you.

Still winning!

 

[ding]

religious charlatan

Moi? I'm a degreed engineer. What's YOUR background. Because as near as I can tell you are a scientific charlatan who has elevated science to a religion and have no real understanding beyond the superficial.

 

[Hollie]

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.

ID’iot creationers often get confused with terms of science due to their lack of training in the subject matter. Using terms you don't understand does nothing to support ID'iot / creationism.

There is the FACT that species change. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. ID’iot creationers admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can change into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They give no reason for this fabricated limitation. They just can't accept "macroevolution", because it contradicts the "truth" of the bible. But there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species. The process (simply stated) involves the potential of many different types of individuals within a species, the birth of a great many individual organisms, and the deaths of those individuals whose characteristics are not as well suited to the total environment as other individuals of the same species. The deaths of these less well suited individuals allows for the increased reproduction of the better suited ones, and initiates a shift in the appearance and function of the species. Without limitation.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You cannot why there are no transitional fossils

Not only is this ridiculously false, every fossil is a transitional fossil. Make your claim to a biologist. Report back, when the laughter subsides.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm a degreed engineer.

So not a scientist. But we knew that already. I am not a scientist, either.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Re: abiogensis

We don't know exactly how it happened. We just know that it did. Once there was no life, then there was. What connects the two states is abiogenesis. It's a foregone conclusion.

 

[james bond]

Why would you accept the Genesis fable as truth when there are such glaring contradictions? Gods who lie while serpents tell the truth is an obvious contradiction.

It's you, the atheist scientists, and the guy in the red union suit with horns and pitchfork who contradict God's word. God said it all first. Satan came afterward. Again, God said,

"God's Wrath against Sin
…Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity for the dishonoring of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is forever worthy of praise! Amen." Romans 1:24-25

You're the one freely giving in to Satan and believing in the lie of evolution. I think this will be your greatest regret and woe as the truth was right before your eyes and you still chose to accept the lie.

Otherwise, your side would've won already. Look how much of an advantage you have in education, museums, encyclopedias, etc. vs. the Bible.

 

[Hollie]

Do you understand the coefficient of selection and how it is used in equation 1.0? ... I'm not going to waste my time on you explaining simple high school math ...

Just like Hollie, you're not going to demonstrate that you actually have first-hand knowledge and understanding of your copy-and-paste, you're not going explain just how your copy-and-paste falsifies my observations?

I didn't think you would, just like none of you have addressed the observation that the evodelusionist circularly presupposes naturalism is true in his interpretation of the available evidence.

Hocus Pocus

The mathematics do not falsify a speciation of common design over geological time in any way, shape or form! The evodelusionist just arbitrarily denies the alternative potentiality. Biological history's mathematical chronology of speciation is perfectly compatible with a biological history of common design.

You just can't grasp why that's so because your just fronting with your copy-and-paste. I see right through you.

Still winning!

Your “observations” being silly YouTube videos are not your observations at all. They are the rattling of non-biologists attempting to justify ID’iot creationism within the scientific realm of biological evolution.

The observations of Disco’tute charlatans presuppose an agenda, just as yours do. Why does it fall to anyone in this thread to refute a YouTube video?

Winning!

 

[Hollie]

Why would you accept the Genesis fable as truth when there are such glaring contradictions? Gods who lie while serpents tell the truth is an obvious contradiction.

It's you, the atheist scientists, and the guy in the red union suit with horns and pitchfork who contradict God's word. God said it all first. Satan came afterward. Again, God said,

"God's Wrath against Sin
…Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity for the dishonoring of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is forever worthy of praise! Amen." Romans 1:24-25

You're the one freely giving in to Satan and believing in the lie of evolution. I think this will be your greatest regret and woe as the truth was right before your eyes and you still chose to accept the lie.

Otherwise, your side would've won already. Look how much of an advantage you have in education, museums, encyclopedias, etc. vs. the Bible.

Your fantasies of guys in red union suits with horns and pitchforks, well, I believe should stay away from those.

 

[Ringtone]

I have it right. It is the atheists and their scientists who believe in potential infinities as actual infinities in the natural world. They do not understand potential infinities and actual infinities. Actual infinities exist ONLY in the supernatural world. It is potential infinities that exist in the natural world. For example, we can have a set of counting numbers. Cosmologists may disagree, but the universe has to be bounded or else we can have an infinite past and other crazy things. Scientists believed in an infinite universe before the big bang theory and it was disproven.

No, James, you don't have it right, and I don't need you to explain to me what potential and actual infinities are, and, subsequently, what the distinction between potential and actual infinities. is. I grasp these thing. What you don't grasp is what an actual infinite is.

You keep saying that "[a]ctual infinities exist ONLY in the supernatural world."

False! The supernatural world has nothing to do with the price of beans in China.

They exist in both the natural and supernatural world, albeit, as mathematical concepts in minds ONLY. They conceptually exist in the minds of man, angels and God. An actual infinite is the concept of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things or a a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something. The place where actual infinities do not have existentiality is outside of minds. Period.

You're on your own and getting beaten up in this thread.

Even Aristotle agrees with me -- Potential Infinite v. Actual Infinite | Aristotle.

So did you lose?

Don't even try to throw shade on me, James. Of course I'm winning. No one on this thread has or can refute the potentiality of the following:

The essence of evodelusion is that all of biological history is a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry by natural means. That notion is scientifically unobservable and is predicated on the metaphysical apriority of naturalism. Further, the observable evidence does not falsify the potentiality that all of biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a cyclically 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 and transcribed genetic motif of common design over geological time.​

​

While adaptive radiation and the mechanisms thereof are observable, we do and cannot observe a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry, and the apriority on which this notion is predicated is scientifically unfalsifiable. I hold that the mechanisms of adaptive radiation cannot affect the transformation of a species into an entirely different species beyond the taxonomic level of family, and no such thing above that level has ever been observed, let alone accounted for in terms of information.​

The mutations required to affect the kind of change and variation among species we see today from a unicellular organism would involve incalculably extraordinary additions of new information, and that information would have to be present at the very beginning of any significant transmorphic development. Not only does natural selection select from already existing information, it causes a loss of information since unfavorable genes are eventually removed from environmentally separated populations, and the differences in groups of similar organisms that are isolated from one another may eventually become great enough so that the populations no longer interbreed in the wild. Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.​

​

​

 

[james bond]

Heresy ... there is no pre-Bible time line ... is this your own private religion or something? ...

Genesis (first three chapters -- Genesis 1 Parallel Chapters) includes pre-time. It wasn't in the Bible Timeline I shared. It can be presented as such before 4000 BC.

What about the evolution timeline? It's changed so often. The Earth and universe gets older with each change. Remember, you used to believe in an infinite universe. That sounds like a fake timeline to me if you keep changing it at a drop of a hat. Furthermore, when creationists date fossils using carbon dating (because they can), it isn't accepted because it doesn't fit your timeline. Moreover, there is soft tissue still remaining.

 

[james bond]

Re: abiogensis

We don't know exactly how it happened. We just know that it did. Once there was no life, then there was. What connects the two states is abiogenesis. It's a foregone conclusion.

What a fairy tale. You believe in impossible things that no one has ever seen. Abiogenesis has been proven to be impossible via the swan neck experiment.

 

[Hollie]

I have it right. It is the atheists and their scientists who believe in potential infinities as actual infinities in the natural world. They do not understand potential infinities and actual infinities. Actual infinities exist ONLY in the supernatural world. It is potential infinities that exist in the natural world. For example, we can have a set of counting numbers. Cosmologists may disagree, but the universe has to be bounded or else we can have an infinite past and other crazy things. Scientists believed in an infinite universe before the big bang theory and it was disproven.

No, James, you don't have it right, and I don't need you to explain to me what potential and actual infinities are, and, subsequently, what the distinction between potential and actual infinities. is. I grasp these thing. What you don't grasp is what an actual infinite is.

You keep saying that "[a]ctual infinities exist ONLY in the supernatural world."

False! The supernatural world has nothing to do with the price of beans in China.

They exist in both the natural and supernatural world, albeit, as mathematical concepts in minds ONLY. They conceptually exist in the minds of man, angels and God. An actual infinite is the concept of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things or a a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something. The place where actual infinities do not have existentiality is outside of minds. Period.

You're on your own and getting beaten up in this thread.

Even Aristotle agrees with me -- Potential Infinite v. Actual Infinite | Aristotle.

So did you lose?

Don't even try to throw shade on me, James. Of course I'm winning. No one on this thread has or can refute the potentiality of the following:

The essence of evodelusion is that all of biological history is a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry by natural means. That notion is scientifically unobservable and is predicated on the metaphysical apriority of naturalism. Further, the observable evidence does not falsify the potentiality that all of biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a cyclically 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 and transcribed genetic motif of common design over geological time.​

​

While adaptive radiation and the mechanisms thereof are observable, we do and cannot observe a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry, and the apriority on which this notion is predicated is scientifically unfalsifiable. I hold that the mechanisms of adaptive radiation cannot affect the transformation of a species into an entirely different species beyond the taxonomic level of family, and no such thing above that level has ever been observed, let alone accounted for in terms of information.​

​

The mutations required to affect the kind of change and variation among species we see today from a unicellular organism would involve incalculably extraordinary additions of new information, and that information would have to be present at the very beginning of any significant transmorphic development. Not only does natural selection select from already existing information, it causes a loss of information since unfavorable genes are eventually removed from environmentally separated populations, and the differences in groups of similar organisms that are isolated from one another may eventually become great enough so that the populations no longer interbreed in the wild. Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.​

​

​

Already refuted. Nothing in your tedious cutting and pasting refutes the fact that organisms evolve over time (a fact in spite of ID’iot creationer objections), or that there is any limit as to the amount of change that biological evolution can have over species.

Still winning at the expense of the religious extremists!

 

[james bond]

Your fantasies of guys in red union suits with horns and pitchforks, well, I believe should stay away from those.

I think it is God's revelation for you. The truth was right in front of your eyes, but you chose the other. I can't explain how everything in the Bible is contradicted. I tried to point it out here, but soon realized it wasn't a winning argument. The main man in the red union suit is too powerful and wants to remain hidden. He has my respect.

 

[james bond]

Don't even try to throw shade on me, James. Of course I'm winning. No one on this thread has or can refute the potentiality of the following:

No, Michael, you aren't winning. Just ask others in this thread. You are on you own.