Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

[Ringtone]

Nothing, as usual, from the Harun Yahya groupie.

I can’t help but notice your inability to refute a single argument against your claims to magic and supernaturalism.

This is where you want to deflect, as usual, while announcing how bankrupt your attempt at argument is. Time for more of your spam poetry.

When the Soma oozes from our waxy ears
And mingles with the silvery tears

of those ancient Fellows loitering behind the clouds;​

When it’s time to shoo the Riffraff,
When it’s time to chase my feet,
When the relentless siege of the daze of days
And the fog of sleepless nights has razed
And burned and trampled and buried my hapless brain:
Shall I walk or ride the bus?
Ride the bus or take a walk?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

First of all, your science is dated by nearly 20 years.

Dated? You mean in the last 20 years DNA sequencing stopped working?
Stopped showing relatedness? What do you mean exactly?

As for the rest, once again, you're failing to grasp the fact that evolutionists are begging the question, presupposing naturalism is true!

God can't use evolution? Why not?

I was talking about your dated science regarding so-called pseudogenes.

Moving on. . . .

In what sense does DNA sequencing prove evolution sans the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism?

In what sense does DNA sequencing prove evolution

Prove? Who said prove?

DNA sequencing supports the claim of common ancestry.

 

[Ringtone]

First of all, your science is dated by nearly 20 years.

Dated? You mean in the last 20 years DNA sequencing stopped working?
Stopped showing relatedness? What do you mean exactly?

As for the rest, once again, you're failing to grasp the fact that evolutionists are begging the question, presupposing naturalism is true!

God can't use evolution? Why not?

I was talking about your dated science regarding so-called pseudogenes.

Moving on. . . .

In what sense does DNA sequencing prove evolution sans the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism?

In what sense does DNA sequencing prove evolution

Prove? Who said prove?

DNA sequencing supports the claim of common ancestry.

Oh, okay, fair enough. I misread you. I didn't mean to misrepresent your position. My bad.

Perhaps you would explain in greater detail precisely how DNA sequencing supports a common ancestry.

 

[alang1216]

biological history is actually a series of creative events

What is the evidence for such creation? Is it natural or supernatural?

Natural.

And the mechanism?

Mechanism for what? Stop talking like Breezewood.

I'm ignoring Breezewood so I have no idea how he talks but this seems like a simple question. No gotchas. You say that biological history is actually a series of creative events that are entirely natural. What is the mechanism for these events?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

First of all, your science is dated by nearly 20 years.

Dated? You mean in the last 20 years DNA sequencing stopped working?
Stopped showing relatedness? What do you mean exactly?

As for the rest, once again, you're failing to grasp the fact that evolutionists are begging the question, presupposing naturalism is true!

God can't use evolution? Why not?

I was talking about your dated science regarding so-called pseudogenes.

Moving on. . . .

In what sense does DNA sequencing prove evolution sans the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism?

In what sense does DNA sequencing prove evolution

Prove? Who said prove?

DNA sequencing supports the claim of common ancestry.

Oh, okay, fair enough. I misread you. I didn't mean to misrepresent your position. My bad.

Perhaps you would explain in greater detail precisely how DNA sequencing supports a common ancestry.

Same link......


As the ability to sequence the nucleotides making up DNA has improved, it also has become possible to use genes to reconstruct the evolutionary history of organisms. Because of mutations, the sequence of nucleotides in a gene gradually changes over time. The more closely related two organisms are, the less different their DNA will be. Because there are tens of thousands of genes in humans and other organisms, DNA contains a tremendous amount of information about the evolutionary history of each organism.

Genes evolve at different rates because, although mutation is a random event, some proteins are much more tolerant of changes in their amino acid sequence than are other proteins. For this reason, the genes that encode these more tolerant, less constrained proteins evolve faster The average rate at which a particular kind of gene or protein evolves gives rise to the concept of a "molecular clock." Molecular clocks run rapidly for less constrained proteins and slowly for more constrained proteins, though they all time the same evolutionary events.

The figure on this page compares three molecular clocks: for cytochrome c proteins, which interact intimately with other macromolecules and are quite constrained in their amino acid sequences; for the less rigidly constrained hemoglobins, which interact mainly with oxygen and other small molecules; and for fibrinopeptides, which are protein fragments that are cut from larger proteins (fibrinogens) when blood clots. The clock for fibrinopeptides runs rapidly; 1 percent of the amino acids change in a little longer than 1 million years. At the other extreme, the molecular clock runs slowly for cytochrome c; a 1 percent change in amino acid sequence requires 20 million years. The hemoglobin clock is intermediate.

The concept of a molecular clock is useful for two purposes. It determines evolutionary relationships among organisms, and it indicates the time in the past when species started to diverge from one another. Once the clock for a particular gene or protein has been calibrated by reference to some event whose time is known, the actual chronological time when all other events occurred can be determined by examining the protein or gene tree.

 

[Ringtone]

I'm ignoring Breezewood so I have no idea how he talks but this seems like a simple question. No gotchas. You say that biological history is actually a series of creative events that are entirely natural. What is the mechanism for these events?

Well, I can't say as I blame you. His posts are so incoherent, I don't even know what the hell he's talking about most of the time.

To answer your question, let's review:

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.​

Hence, the mechanisms of adaptive radiation naturally occur, albeit, within a cyclically limited range of speciation predetermined by God. Additionally, in the past and over geological time, God has varyingly and directly altered the generally shared genetic motif of terrestrial creatures and brought new species into being.

 

[ReinyDays]

... Haldane, JBS; A Mathematical Theory of Natural and Artificial Selection; Trinity College ...

LOL! Naturalism is true because naturalism is true. Once again, people:

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.​

Behold what has not occurred to any of you in your entire unexamined lives: the empirical evidence would look much the same!

What is your "mathematical challenge" in your OP if you won't address the mathematics behind evolution? ... here's a paper, please point out the flaw in the logic ...

 

[Bush92]

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.

Only the Lord Thy God knows the answer.

 

[Ringtone]

What is your "mathematical challenge" in your OP if you won't address the mathematics behind evolution? ... here's a paper, please point out the flaw in the logic ...

Sans the presupposition of naturalism and the hypothesis of evolution, what the mathematics actually track is the biological progression of the appearance of species in history. Once again, the mathematics in no way, shape or form preclude 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.

What you do don't grasp is the latter. In college I pulled down virtually all straight A's in advanced courses on evolutionary biology, and my professors never had the slightest clue that I utterly rejected their metaphysical apriority and, thusly, the hypothesis of evolution.

 

[abu afak]

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

That's right ... you have no mechanism ... each species was created magically ... something no one can see ...

On the other hand ... 2 CH4 --> C2H6 + H2 is routinely observed in the lab ... not axiomic ...

Where has SARS been hiding all these centuries ...

Ringtone is just the same as any Creationist Yokel, but has a better vocabulary.
He hates/cloaks admitting it is so. Saying 'god created it.'
So instead they attack evolution rather than the embarrassing positive alternative: the NO EVIDENCE God position.

He/they don't actually believe in scientific 'species,' they believe in "Kinds"/Look alikes, that were all put here roughly as is, and can never change over time from that basic 'look'.
There are tweeners that stump em tho... and that pesky DNA too.

`

 

[Hollie]

Where has SARS been hiding all these centuries ...

Well, since you don't even grasp the realities of adaptive radiation and the mechanisms thereof, there's no reason to take you seriously at all. Behold how the typical true believer doesn't really know dick about the pertinent biology, but, then, this is the same mathematically illiterate rube who thinks actual infinities have existentiality in nature.

Here's the math behind evolution ... please read through this and tell us where you think it's wrong ... Haldane, JBS; A Mathematical Theory of Natural and Artificial Selection; Trinity College ...

This paper covers what we call the Modern Synthesis of Evolution, something you should read up on because the Modern Synthesis addresses some of the failings in Darwin's approach far far better that you do ...

LOL! Naturalism is true because naturalism is true. Once again, people:

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.​

Behold what has not occurred to any of you in your entire unexamined lives: the empirical evidence would look much the same!

Behold naturalism is true because we have no evidence for supernaturalism.

Not a single event in human history, ever, has been shown to have supernatural causes.

Behold while the religious extremists make appeals to their partisan gods, nowhere do they provide any evidence that a) their gods existed or are extant, and b) that supernatural events at the hands of their gods have ever occurred.

 

[Hollie]

Nothing, as usual, from the Harun Yahya groupie.

I can’t help but notice your inability to refute a single argument against your claims to magic and supernaturalism.

This is where you want to deflect, as usual, while announcing how bankrupt your attempt at argument is. Time for more of your spam poetry.

When the Soma oozes from our waxy ears
And mingles with the silvery tears

of those ancient Fellows loitering behind the clouds;​

When it’s time to shoo the Riffraff,
When it’s time to chase my feet,
When the relentless siege of the daze of days
And the fog of sleepless nights has razed
And burned and trampled and buried my hapless brain:
Shall I walk or ride the bus?
Ride the bus or take a walk?

You're hoping to impress the other Harun Yahya groupies with your poetry?

 

[Hollie]

What is your "mathematical challenge" in your OP if you won't address the mathematics behind evolution? ... here's a paper, please point out the flaw in the logic ...

Sans the presupposition of naturalism and the hypothesis of evolution, what the mathematics actually track is the biological progression of the appearance of species in history. Once again, the mathematics in no way, shape or form preclude 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.

What you do don't grasp is the latter. In college I pulled down virtually all straight A's in advanced courses on evolutionary biology, and my professors never had the slightest clue that I utterly rejected their metaphysical apriority and, thusly, the hypothesis of evolution.

Sans your understanding of the distinction between a hypothesis and a theory, I thought I would lend an assist. Not having any study in the biological and physical sciences, your lack of a science vocabulary is a hinderance.

The theory of evolution has undergone rigorous review in the scientific community and remains the best, most coherent explanation of the observed development of life on Earth. The term ''theory'', in the context of science discussions, means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. Supporting the fact of evolution are the complimentary sciences of biology, paleontology, earth science, chemistry, etc. The theory of evolution explains the facts. The theory of evolution is no less valid than theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). On the fundamental, most basic issues of the theory of evolution, such as the demonstrated facts of common descent and natural selection, there is no controversy within the scientific community. With near exclusivity, the only controversy emerges from fundamentalist Christianity.

 

[Ringtone]

Ringtone is just the same as any Creationist Yokel, but has a better vocabulary.
He hates/cloaks admitting it is so. Saying 'god created it.'
So instead they attack evolution rather than the embarrassing positive alternative: the NO EVIDENCE God position.

He/they don't actually believe in scientific 'species,' they believe in "Kinds"/Look alikes, that were all put here roughly as is, and can never change over time from that basic 'look'.
There are tweeners that stump em tho... and that pesky DNA too.

abu afak is just another new atheist blowhard with the vocabulary of a child who can't write coherent sentences. He believes in magic, namely, that the Universe just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness or caused itself to exist before it existed. He's not bright enough to formulate a coherent counterargument in the face of the logical, mathematical and scientific imperatives regarding the origin of the physical world, so he just spouts ad hominem and slogans.

He really doesn't know dick about the pertinent sciences of origins and incessantly "straw mans" the observations that stump his hapless brain and leave him drooling.

For example, he actually believes that the DNA evidence necessarily supports evodelusion because he cannot grasp the fact that a branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry is scientifically indemonstrable and is predicated on the metaphysical apriority of naturalism, let alone grasp the fact that 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 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 and transcribed genetic motif of common design over geological time.

abu afak's mind is a slammed-shut door.

In fact, I suspect that Toddsterpatriot is the only person on this thread who grasps what I'm getting at.

 

[alang1216]

cyclically limited range of speciation predetermined by God. Additionally, in the past and over geological time, God has varyingly and directly altered the generally shared genetic motif of terrestrial creatures and brought new species into being.

I can't tell if you believe in evolution or not. You seem to mix natural and supernatural causes of speciation, where is the line?

 

[Ringtone]

Sans your understanding of the distinction between a hypothesis and a theory, I thought I would lend an assist. Not having any study in the biological and physical sciences, your lack of a science vocabulary is a hinderance.

The theory of evolution has undergone rigorous review in the scientific community and remains the best, most coherent explanation of the observed development of life on Earth. The term ''theory'', in the context of science discussions, means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. Supporting the fact of evolution are the complimentary sciences of biology, paleontology, earth science, chemistry, etc. The theory of evolution explains the facts. The theory of evolution is no less valid than theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). On the fundamental, most basic issues of the theory of evolution, such as the demonstrated facts of common descent and natural selection, there is no controversy within the scientific community. With near exclusivity, the only controversy emerges from fundamentalist Christianity.

The evodelusionist's interpretation of the available evidence is predicated on the metaphysical apriority of naturalism.

Since you refuse to address the substance of speciation via common design, answer my question:

Shall I walk or ride the bus?​

Ride the bus or take a walk?​

 

[abu afak]

Ringtone is just the same as any Creationist Yokel, but has a better vocabulary.
He hates/cloaks admitting it is so. Saying 'god created it.'
So instead they attack evolution rather than the embarrassing positive alternative: the NO EVIDENCE God position.

He/they don't actually believe in scientific 'species,' they believe in "Kinds"/Look alikes, that were all put here roughly as is, and can never change over time from that basic 'look'.
There are tweeners that stump em tho... and that pesky DNA too.

abu afak is just another new atheist blowhard with the vocabulary of a child who can't write coherent sentences. He believes in magic, namely, that the Universe just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness or caused itself to exist before it existed. He's not bright enough to formulate a coherent counterargument in the face of the logical, mathematical and scientific imperatives regarding the origin of the physical world, so he just spouts ad hominem and slogans.

He really doesn't know dick about the pertinent sciences of origins and incessantly "straw mans" the observations that stump his hapless brain and leave him drooling.

For example, he actually believes that the DNA evidence necessarily supports evodelusion because he cannot grasp the fact that a branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry is scientifically indemonstrable and is predicated on the metaphysical apriority of naturalism, let alone grasp the fact that 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 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 and transcribed genetic motif of common design over geological time.

abu afak's mind is a slammed-shut door.

In fact, I suspect that Toddsterpatriot is the only person on this thread who grasps what I'm getting at.

Ringworm lost early on.
They always do.
Never takes me more than Two posts.

You remember!
Your PANIC when I challenged you on your claim that abiogenesis was "manifestly impossible," and asked you why that was any less likely than God poofing from nowhere.

You had no answer, and instead PAN!CKED and replied with a question in 'response.'
You PAN!CKED and tried that DISHONEST ploy because you were Outed/LOST.
But it was over that fast.
There's always a premise error or faulty logic
You have to do both in every thread to try and Discredit the Overwhelming evidence for evolution, and ZERO for a god/gods.

`

 

[Ringtone]

You're hoping to impress the other Harun Yahya groupies with your poetry?

You're conflating your metaphysical apriority of naturalism and the actualities of the observed evidence . . . as if I wouldn't notice.

A host of insidious insinuations
Prance about my contemplations
And wrap their velvet paws around my throat.

 

[Ringtone]

I can't tell if you believe in evolution or not. You seem to mix natural and supernatural causes of speciation, where is the line?

I do not believe that naturalism is true; hence, I do not believe that evodelusion is true.

 

[Ringtone]

Ringworm lost early on.
They always do.
Never takes me more than Two posts.

You remember!
Your PANIC when I challenged you on your claim that abiogenesis was "manifestly impossible," and asked you why that was any less likely than God poofing from nowhere.

You had no answer, and instead PAN!CKED and replied with a question in 'response.'
You PAN!CKED and tried that DISHONEST ploy because you were Outed/LOST.
But it was over that fast.
There's always a premise error or faulty logic
You have to do both in every thread to try and Discredit the Overwhelming evidence for evolution, and ZERO for a god/gods.

Shall I offer my head on a platter,
A mere chit of a chat amidst the clatter,
For one last persuasive dance before his sire’s throne?

No!

I’m not a martyr!
I’ve no great calling to obey.
I’ve no olive branch to offer.
Let his conscience rot away!
I’m a pauper with high notions,
A poet with some flair.
I plot stories full of riches,
But have no coat or hope to spare.