Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The point I am making is that the fossil record does not support the commonly held belief that evolution is a gradual process.

Sure it does. It supports the idea that evolution happens at all speeds.

 

[ding]

That doesn't seem to be what the fossil record suggests. Gradual evolution is seldom seen in the fossil record.

I'm sure you can find a fossil bed that shows fast change over a "short" period of geologic time ... it can happen "quickly" ... but how many generations? ... if we have a diatom dividing every three hours, we can have a billion generations withoin the "short" period of time of a million years ... even among most mega-fauna, we see individuals reaching breeding age after a single year, very few are like humans with exceptionally long juvenile stages ... plus we need to remember the fossil record is horrifically incomplete, most organisms don't form fossils at all; the few that do, do so quite rarely ... and fossil beds are dated ± 100,000 years at best ...

Look up whale evolution ... one of the few types where we do have a fairly complete fossil record ...

Gradual evolution is seldom seen in the fossil record. Stasis is the norm. There's something else at work.

 

[ding]

The point I am making is that the fossil record does not support the commonly held belief that evolution is a gradual process.

Sure it does. It supports the idea that evolution happens at all speeds.

That down plays what the fossil record is showing. The fossil record shows fits and starts.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The point I am making is that the fossil record does not support the commonly held belief that evolution is a gradual process.

Sure it does. It supports the idea that evolution happens at all speeds.

That down plays what the fossil record is showing. The fossil record shows fits and starts.

And gradual evolution. What puzzled Gould was the punctuated nature, bit even Gould never would have claimed there was sweeping change after one generation. He was comparing 10s of millions of years of stasis to changes that occured over "only" a few million years. He wanted to know why a species would stay the same for 10s of millions of years, then disappear from the fossil record, with new, related forms then appearing.

 

[james bond]

It happens fairly rapidly from the filtering of the genetic information that already exists and we can observe it.

Obviously. What was filtered out to create nylonase?

Oh, welcome back. Have you evolved in S&T haha?

In this case, it wasn't what was filtered out but in the design with plasmids. It is further evidence for God.

In this case, it wasn't what was filtered

So you were wrong, or you were lying?

but in the design with plasmids.

Design with plasmids created nylonase? Please tell me more.

I don't think you evolved in S&T. Evolution is a lie; You're still looking for answers.

 

[ReinyDays]

The point I am making is that the fossil record does not support the commonly held belief that evolution is a gradual process.

Why do you say this? ... did you look up whale evolution and see how these changes occurred over geological time scales? ... do you have an example of the fossil record showing a "quick" change to a species? ...

I'm not saying "commonly held beliefs" should be held with any kind of reverence ... you should know me better than that ... but it is upon you to discredit these views, not the other way around ...

 

[ding]

The point I am making is that the fossil record does not support the commonly held belief that evolution is a gradual process.

Sure it does. It supports the idea that evolution happens at all speeds.

That down plays what the fossil record is showing. The fossil record shows fits and starts.

And gradual evolution. What puzzled Gould was the punctuated nature, bit even Gould never would have claimed there was sweeping change after one generation. He was comparing 10s of millions of years of stasis to changes that occured over "only" a few million years. He wanted to know why a species would stay the same for 10s of millions of years, then disappear from the fossil record, with new, related forms then appearing.

Stasis isn't gradual evolution. The lack of transitions coupled with stasis leads me to believe speciation is driven by genetic mutations and not natural selection.

 

[ding]

The point I am making is that the fossil record does not support the commonly held belief that evolution is a gradual process.

Why do you say this? ... did you look up whale evolution and see how these changes occurred over geological time scales? ... do you have an example of the fossil record showing a "quick" change to a species? ...

I'm not saying "commonly held beliefs" should be held with any kind of reverence ... you should know me better than that ... but it is upon you to discredit these views, not the other way around ...

I say this because I believe speciation is driven by genetic mutations and not natural selection.

Instead of looking at one species or another, I am taking a broader view. I am trying to explain why stasis and lack of transitional fossils are the norm. The best explanation I can come up with that fits the data is there are no transitions because speciation happens fast. And for that to be the case, it must be wide spread genetic mutations driving the process. Given that recent studies suggest that the food we eat can modify our genes and potentially our children’s, I don't think the possibility that widespread genetic mutations driving speciation should necessarily be discarded just because it goes against what Darwin believed.

 

[ReinyDays]

I say this because I believe speciation is driven by genetic mutations and not natural selection.

I believe you are categorically wrong here ... we're only concerned with genetic mutations that effect an individual's ability to fulfill its reproductive capacity ... more babies surviving to adulthood ... nothing else seems to matter ... consider a mutation that allows an individual to grow 50% larger, such that it is not preyed upon but kills any and all potential mates during the mating process, that mutation is dead-in-the-water as it will not be passed on to future generations ...

Charles Darwin made some mistakes ... the Modern Synthesis very strictly defines "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" in terms of reproduction ... the more adult offspring, the more a positive inherited trait is passed on ... k > 0.5 ...

Instead of looking at one species or another, I am taking a broader view. I am trying to explain why stasis and lack of transitional fossils are the norm. The best explanation I can come up with that fits the data is there are no transitions because speciation happens fast. And for that to be the case, it must be wide spread genetic mutations driving the process. Given that recent studies suggest that the food we eat can modify our genes and potentially our children’s, I don't think the possibility that widespread genetic mutations driving speciation should necessarily be discarded just because it goes against what Darwin believed.

Do you have an example of the fossil record showing a "quick" change to a species (which species "fits the data")? ... I'm not discarding widespread mutations driving speciation in all cases, but we need to be very careful how we're defining speciation ... not all outward physical changes are associated with the genetic material, human skin color is a good example where all of us have all the genetics needed to be Congolese Black all the way to Laplander White ...

But let's use the less controversial example of the English Birch Moth ... in the year 1800, these moths were almost all white with a few black spots, perfect to blend into Birch bark, and this is considered the dominate genetic form, very few moths were the recessive jet black, and these moths tended to be eaten by birds before they could reproduce ... the filthy English started burning coal and vented the soot to the atmosphere, covering all the Birch trees making them jet black ... by 1900, the spotted white moths were all but gone, having been eaten by birds, only the jet black types remained as they were the ones to blend in with the Birch bark ... these are the same species in every way, just one shows dominate colors and the other shows recessive colors ... both types freely interbreed and thus form a single taxon ... England has cleaned up their act and the moths are reverting back to the spotted white forms again ...

Just a note, Charles Darwin self-published his Origin of Species, thus the tome does NOT qualify as scientific literature ... no peer review, no refereed publisher, and there are a few mistakes ... in 1859, one needed the Church of England's permission to read a paper into the minutes of the Royal Society, something evolution didn't have back then ... one of the more important reasons we created the United States of America with our freedom of religion ...

 

[Ringtone]

The point I am making is that the fossil record does not support the commonly held belief that evolution is a gradual process.

I agree. While I do not for a moment believe that the mechanisms of adaptive radiation can produce anything even remotely close to the ubiquitous gain-of-function mutations required by evolutionary theory, gradualism is a no-go. The paleontological record overwhelmingly depicts a biological history of continuity interspersed by abrupt spurts of speciation—that which would be expected if speciation via the underlying mechanism of punctuated equilibrium were true . . . or if speciation via a systematically altered and transcribed genetic motif of common design were true.

 

[Sunsettommy]

... in no way, shape or form preclude the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events

Why is this a necessary factor? ... in many cases, the fossil record shows this isn't a step, the evolutionary change is smooth and without sudden jumps in adaptive change ...

In college I pulled down virtually all straight A's in advanced courses on evolutionary biology ...

So what? ... what grades did you carry in abstract mathematics ... or did you even take courses in such ... explain in mathematical terms why you disagree with the paper I posted? ... frankly, the way you focus on the obsolete ideas of Darwinism, I seriously doubt you've taken any upper division biology ...

By now you should realize you are dealing with a religious fanatic who is incapable of being honest and rational in replies, you should see how hard this man avoided answering my snotty questions to prove god exist,

The Argument for God's Existence from Contingency

His replies in his religion threads follow the same pattern, a bunch of quoted babbling replies and the refusal to make honset replies to questions posed.

He is brain dead religious fanatic, he is too far gone.

 

[Ringtone]

By now you should realize you are dealing with a religious fanatic who is incapable of being honest and rational in replies, you should see how hard this man avoided answering my snotty questions to prove god exist,

The Argument for God's Existence from Contingency

His replies in his religion threads follow the same pattern, a bunch of quoted babbling replies and the refusal to make honset replies to questions posed.

He is brain dead religious fanatic, he is too far gone.

By now at least one of you should have directly addressed the following, but haven't. . . . The silence . . . except for the chirping of crickets is deafening.

The burden of proof is on the religious fanatics of scientism to prove that naturalism/materialism is true against the observable evidence 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.

A chorus of crickets roll their eyes
And beneath dance the cloudy skies.

 

[ding]

I say this because I believe speciation is driven by genetic mutations and not natural selection.

I believe you are categorically wrong here ... we're only concerned with genetic mutations that effect an individual's ability to fulfill its reproductive capacity ... more babies surviving to adulthood ... nothing else seems to matter ... consider a mutation that allows an individual to grow 50% larger, such that it is not preyed upon but kills any and all potential mates during the mating process, that mutation is dead-in-the-water as it will not be passed on to future generations ...

Charles Darwin made some mistakes ... the Modern Synthesis very strictly defines "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" in terms of reproduction ... the more adult offspring, the more a positive inherited trait is passed on ... k > 0.5 ...

Instead of looking at one species or another, I am taking a broader view. I am trying to explain why stasis and lack of transitional fossils are the norm. The best explanation I can come up with that fits the data is there are no transitions because speciation happens fast. And for that to be the case, it must be wide spread genetic mutations driving the process. Given that recent studies suggest that the food we eat can modify our genes and potentially our children’s, I don't think the possibility that widespread genetic mutations driving speciation should necessarily be discarded just because it goes against what Darwin believed.

Do you have an example of the fossil record showing a "quick" change to a species (which species "fits the data")? ... I'm not discarding widespread mutations driving speciation in all cases, but we need to be very careful how we're defining speciation ... not all outward physical changes are associated with the genetic material, human skin color is a good example where all of us have all the genetics needed to be Congolese Black all the way to Laplander White ...

But let's use the less controversial example of the English Birch Moth ... in the year 1800, these moths were almost all white with a few black spots, perfect to blend into Birch bark, and this is considered the dominate genetic form, very few moths were the recessive jet black, and these moths tended to be eaten by birds before they could reproduce ... the filthy English started burning coal and vented the soot to the atmosphere, covering all the Birch trees making them jet black ... by 1900, the spotted white moths were all but gone, having been eaten by birds, only the jet black types remained as they were the ones to blend in with the Birch bark ... these are the same species in every way, just one shows dominate colors and the other shows recessive colors ... both types freely interbreed and thus form a single taxon ... England has cleaned up their act and the moths are reverting back to the spotted white forms again ...

Just a note, Charles Darwin self-published his Origin of Species, thus the tome does NOT qualify as scientific literature ... no peer review, no refereed publisher, and there are a few mistakes ... in 1859, one needed the Church of England's permission to read a paper into the minutes of the Royal Society, something evolution didn't have back then ... one of the more important reasons we created the United States of America with our freedom of religion ...

I think I'd rather be categorically wrong and challenge the status quo then to not try to find the reason natural selection doesn't fit the data. I'm not talking about individual mutations. I am talking about mass mutations (all at or about the same time) within the species that led to a successful speciation. Like I said before the stasis and the lack of transition is what I am trying to explain. So those fossil records where there was no transition would be the examples of speciation from mass mutations. Do I have a specific example? No. I didn't think I needed one. Stasis is proof that natural selection did not lead to speciation. Lack of transition can only be negated by finding transitions. What examples should I use to confirm or refute this?

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.

The "pre-time" is undefined thus useless......

ARCHBISHOP Ussher says,

The Ussher Chronology: The World Was Created in 4004 BCE

That is the bible timeline you never learned....., and it last only 4,100 years.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

By now at least one of you should have directly addressed the following, but haven't

Why should we? Check the scoreboard ya dummy.

Evolution: eleventy zillion
Young Earth Creationist goobers: 0.

Overwhelming scientific consensus, accepted fact, taught at every reputable school and university on the planet.

We can literally sit here and do nothing and watch you flail. Nobody needs to feel any compulsion to explain to you the contents of a 7th grade science text.

 

[ding]

... in no way, shape or form preclude the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events

Why is this a necessary factor? ... in many cases, the fossil record shows this isn't a step, the evolutionary change is smooth and without sudden jumps in adaptive change ...

In college I pulled down virtually all straight A's in advanced courses on evolutionary biology ...

So what? ... what grades did you carry in abstract mathematics ... or did you even take courses in such ... explain in mathematical terms why you disagree with the paper I posted? ... frankly, the way you focus on the obsolete ideas of Darwinism, I seriously doubt you've taken any upper division biology ...

By now you should realize you are dealing with a religious fanatic who is incapable of being honest and rational in replies, you should see how hard this man avoided answering my snotty questions to prove god exist,

The Argument for God's Existence from Contingency

His replies in his religion threads follow the same pattern, a bunch of quoted babbling replies and the refusal to make honset replies to questions posed.

He is brain dead religious fanatic, he is too far gone.

Which snotty questions did you ask?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on

No, we don't have all the answers, but we're still looking. We'll never have all the answers as they just generate new questions. Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on Earth Mike McRae - 4 Mar 2018 - sciencealert.com Scientists...

www.usmessageboard.com

Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

Abiogenesis is NOT biochemical engineering! Not even close.

Where did the preexisting strands of amyloid protein structures come from? Where did the preexisting and even more complex organic molecules, which produced them in the first place, come from? Also, please name the preexisting and even more complex organic molecules that produced them.

Answer the question, then drop and give me 50! Thanks.

Still winning!

Those are interesting questions, but YOU don't have the answer in either way to them, thus you can't go any further here.

Abiogenesis is a popular explanation on how life can to be, but that probability happened so long ago that I don't give a shit.

You wrote in post one:

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.

bolding mine

You have yet to show that god itself exist, thus your entire "creation" argument is a waste of time.

 

[Sunsettommy]

... in no way, shape or form preclude the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events

Why is this a necessary factor? ... in many cases, the fossil record shows this isn't a step, the evolutionary change is smooth and without sudden jumps in adaptive change ...

In college I pulled down virtually all straight A's in advanced courses on evolutionary biology ...

So what? ... what grades did you carry in abstract mathematics ... or did you even take courses in such ... explain in mathematical terms why you disagree with the paper I posted? ... frankly, the way you focus on the obsolete ideas of Darwinism, I seriously doubt you've taken any upper division biology ...

By now you should realize you are dealing with a religious fanatic who is incapable of being honest and rational in replies, you should see how hard this man avoided answering my snotty questions to prove god exist,

The Argument for God's Existence from Contingency

His replies in his religion threads follow the same pattern, a bunch of quoted babbling replies and the refusal to make honset replies to questions posed.

He is brain dead religious fanatic, he is too far gone.

Which snotty questions did you ask?

It is IN the link at post 3

 

[Sunsettommy]

If it's OK with you, I'll manage the various gods on an as-needed basis.

One doesn't manage God. You are terribly ignorant on the subject despite all the discussions we had. For example, you think there are multiple gods. Thus, I ask you questions about evolution and get very little answers.

One actually does manage the gods.

All the gods ever invented have been invented by humans. I would agree that Christians, like other inventors of gods, managed to create their gods and slather those gods with human attributes and then cower in fear before those gods. Christians have even invented their gods with competitors, of a fashion in characters as you have described as men in red onion skin outfits.

When nations goes extinct (that dirty word!) their made up gods suddenly vanish too. This happens over and over too......

 

[Sunsettommy]

By now at least one of you should have directly addressed the following, but haven't

Why should we? Check the scoreboard ya dummy.

Evolution: eleventy zillion
Young Earth Creationist goobers: 0.

Overwhelming scientific consensus, accepted fact, taught at every reputable school and university on the planet.

We can literally sit here and do nothing and watch you flail. Nobody needs to feel any compulsion to explain to you the contents of a 7th grade science text.

Evolution hypothesis is well established but horribly incomplete since it is largely based on fossilized evidence and DNA material which degrades over time. Thus we get an incomplete picture of many Fauna and flora going back in time.

Corn is a great example of evolution through selective breeding.