Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
5,932
Reaction score
2,352
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
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?
S'okay ... you don't have to try and explain "stasis and the lack of transition" ... the concept you present is self-explaining ...

Do I have a specific example? No. I didn't think I needed one.

In science, observations are paramount ... if your theory doesn't explain anything we can observe, then it's not science, it's philosophy ... I've given you whales as an example of slow, incremental changes that occurred over tens of millions of years ... each individual mutation in an individual that increases reproduction will spread throughout the gene pool ... this is only a long process in human terms, a scant 200,000 years isn't enough time to notice changes, only 6,000 years to document these changes in writing ...

If you don't have a specific example, then we have nothing scientific to discuss ... a million cosmic ray particles all striking the exact same bond in a species' DNA within this "short" period of time is improbable in the extreme ...
 
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,994
Reaction score
893
Points
140
I don't think you evolved in S&T. Evolution is a lie; You're still looking for answers.
James, I'm still waiting on you to explain how the mathematical concept of an actual infinitethat of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something(1) exists outside of minds, (2) existed in the minds of Aristotle, C.K. Chesterton and Karl Popper, contrary to your contention, but not in yours, and (3) exists in the minds of everyone else (including those of angels and God himself), but not in yours.

When you read a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something does the mathematical concept of an actual infinite pop into existence inside your mind at all? Perhaps the problem here is episodic amnesia or alzheimer's disease. It pops into your mind when you read the concept's definition . . . and, then, immediately pops out of your mind. Very curious, seemingly magical. Maybe your dyslexic. No, wait. It's a concept, so that wouldn't explain the problem.

I'm also still waiting on you to explain how God, an indivisible, unembodied mind of incomparable greatness and perfection, is composed of an actually infinite, quantitatively divisible substance, which would necessarily be material.

You have been unwittingly conflating the qualitative infinity of classical theism and the quantitative infinities of mathematics all your life, haven't you, James? You have been unwittingly confounding the categorical distinction all your life, haven't you, James? You have been unwittingly contradicting the ontological imperative of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, to which you subscribe, all your life, haven't you, James?

It is due to this unwitting conflation of things that existed in your mind alongside the mathematical concept of an actual infinite (which, regarding the latter, I put there in its actuality, displacing your nonsensical apparition), that you failed to grasp the thrust of my previous questions and observations, isn't it, James?

Your understanding of things is getting better and better, isn't it, James?

You should be thanking me, James, for disabusing you of this confusion, otherwise you might repeat your error to brighter atheists/agnostics than those routinely encountered on this message board when trying to proselytize them.
 
Last edited:

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
5,932
Reaction score
2,352
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
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. :auiqs.jpg:

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.

I addressed the OP in my post # 16 ... it seems this paper is beyond your ability to understand ... no, I'm not going to explain it to you, you'll need couple years in a college math classes before I'll even try ...

What you want is some Middle School explanation ... and such doesn't exist ... must suck to be you ...
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
48,099
Reaction score
6,994
Points
1,870
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.
Sure, and we will always be missing pieces of it. Else we wouldn't need a theory in the first place! But evolution as the origin of species is so well evidenced that we can safely call it a fact. Finding as many missing pieces as we can is the ongoing science.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
39,305
Reaction score
4,871
Points
1,130
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 speciationthat 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. ;)
It matters not a whit what you believe about evolution, it's where the data leads that matters. It's to be expected that the religious extremists are the science deniers. They have an agenda to protect.

We see in the threads opened by the religious extremists that the evolution deniers don't understand the concept of "convergence of evidence. It seems that the defining characteristic of ID'iot creationers is not what they believe, but what they deny, and that is contemporary science and its supporting evidence. It's frequently claimed by the ID'iot creationers that Renaissance Era mathematicians, astronomers were "creationists" because they accepted the Biblical account of creation (under threat and intimidation from the church, of course. This is nonsense as it makes the word useless. They were unaware of the alternatives, and the evidence for alternatives to the biblical account. ID'iot creationers today, without exception, are those people who literally are aware of the evidence supporting biological evolution and the acceptance of that evidence by the relevant, related science fields but choose to ignore, deny, and retreat to ID'iot creationer ministries to calm an emotional requirement that allows them to shelter behind their various gods. Nobody shills for charlatans at the Disco'tute Institute because they've never heard of evolution.
 
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,994
Reaction score
893
Points
140
I addressed the OP in my post # 16 ... it seems this paper is beyond your ability to understand ... no, I'm not going to explain it to you, you'll need couple years in a college math classes before I'll even try ...

What you want is some Middle School explanation ... and such doesn't exist ... must suck to be you ...
I saw post #16. My previous response was sarcasm. Let me be more responsive this time.

It's a mathematical treatment on selection. You seem to be under the false impression that creationists and/or ID theorists deny selection and the speciation thereof. Wherever did you get that silly notion?

Precisely how does the treatment prove that evolution is necessarily true, let alone that naturalism is true?

It. Doesn't. Do. That. Does. It?

And don't give me any crap about my alleged lack of understanding when you can't/won't explain the thrust of the treatment or its relevance to my observation, most especially given the fact that Haldane's calculi are inconclusively mixed regarding the transmutation rate in the past.

As for math, do you mean like the college courses in mathematics you need to take, apparently, in order to grasp the real world ramifications of infinitesimals and the concept of infinity per my mathematical treatment in the other thread? That was significantly less complex than the math in your citation. Hell, I even explained it to you in detail, in the simplest terms possible, and you still didn't get the thrust of it. :auiqs.jpg:

Maybe you were ill that day. Give it another try.

The most straightforward mathematical illustration of the existential impossibility of an actually infinite regress in nature would entail a limit function of systematic division. Excerpt from my article:

But, once again, what do we do with any given integer divided by Infinity? The quotient would obviously not equal ±∞. Nor would it equal 0. If we were to divide ±1 by , for example, and say that the quotient were 0, then what happened to ±1? Calculus entails the analysis of algebraic expressions in terms of limits, so in calculus the expression n ÷ ∞ = 0 doesn't mean the quotient literally equals 0. Rather, 0 is the value to which the quotient converges (or approaches). Again, Infinity is a concept, not a number. We can approach Infinity if we count higher and higher, but we can't ever actually reach it. Though not an indeterminate form proper, n ÷ ∞, like any other calculation with Infinity, is technically undefined. Notwithstanding, we intuitively understand that ±1 ÷ ∞ equals an infinitesimally small positive or negative number. Hence, we could intuitively say that ±1 ÷ ∞ = ±0.000 . . . 1, and we would be correct.​
For the proof, let the input variable = x, and let the integer = 1:​
x
1 ÷ x
1​
1​
2​
0.5​
4​
0.25​
10​
0.1​
100​
0.01​
1,000​
0.001​
10,000​
0.0001​
100,000​
0.00001​
1,000,000 . . .​
0.000001 . . .​
Note that as x gets larger and larger, approaching Infinity, 1 ÷ x gets smaller and smaller, approaching 0. The latter is the limit, and because we can't get a final value for 1 ÷ ∞, the limit of 1 ÷ x as x approaches Infinity is as close to any definitive value as we're going to get. The limit of a function in calculus tells us what value the function approaches as the x of the function (or, in shorthand, the x of the f ) approaches a certain value:​
lim f(x)
xa
We know that we're proving the limit for 1 ÷ ∞; hence, the following reads "the limit of the function f(x) is 1 ÷ x as x approaches Infinity":​
f(x) = lim 1 ÷ x
x→∞
Additionally, the output values of function f depend on the input values for the variable x. In the expression f(x), f is the name of the function and (x) denotes that x is the variable of the function. The function itself is "the limit of 1 ÷ x as the inputs for x approach Infinity." When we solve for the limit of more than one function in an algebraic combination, we typically call the first of the functions f for "function." It really doesn't matter what we call any of them as long as we distinguish them from one another. The names given to the others typically follow f in alphabetical order merely as a matter of aesthetics: g, h, i, j and so on.​
Hence, as we can see from the table above, the function proves out that the limit of 1 ÷ x as x approaches Infinity equals 0. That is to say, as x approaches Infinity, 1 ÷ x approaches 0:​
lim 1 ÷ x = 0
x→∞
Altogether then:​
lim f(x) =
x→a
lim 1 ÷ x = 0 (i.e., 0.000 . . . 1)
x→∞
x1 ÷ x
11
20.5
40.25
100.1
1000.01
1,0000.001
10,0000.0001
100,0000.00001
1,000,000 . . .0.000001 . . .

In nature t = 0 is never reached via an infinite regress into the past. Hence, an infinite regression can never be traversed to the present.
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
48,099
Reaction score
6,994
Points
1,870
I addressed the OP in my post # 16 ... it seems this paper is beyond your ability to understand ... no, I'm not going to explain it to you, you'll need couple years in a college math classes before I'll even try ...

What you want is some Middle School explanation ... and such doesn't exist ... must suck to be you ...
I saw post #16. My previous response was sarcasm. Let me be more responsive this time.

It's a mathematical treatment on selection. You seem to be under the false impression that creationists and/or ID theorists deny selection and the speciation thereof. Wherever did you get that silly notion?

Precisely how does the treatment prove that evolution is necessarily true, let alone that naturalism is true?

It. Doesn't. Do. That. Does. It?

And don't give me any crap about my alleged lack of understanding when you can't/won't explain the thrust of the treatment or its relevance to my observation, most especially given the fact that Haldane's calculi are inconclusively mixed regarding the transmutation rate in the past.

As for math, do you mean like the college courses in mathematics you need to take, apparently, in order to grasp the real world ramifications of infinitesimals and the concept of infinity per my mathematical treatment in the other thread? That was significantly less complex than the math in your citation. Hell, I even explained it to you in detail, in the simplest terms possible, and you still didn't get the thrust of it. :auiqs.jpg:

Maybe you were ill that day. Give it another try.

The most straightforward mathematical illustration of the existential impossibility of an actually infinite regress in nature would entail a limit function of systematic division. Excerpt from my article:

But, once again, what do we do with any given integer divided by Infinity? The quotient would obviously not equal ±∞. Nor would it equal 0. If we were to divide ±1 by , for example, and say that the quotient were 0, then what happened to ±1? Calculus entails the analysis of algebraic expressions in terms of limits, so in calculus the expression n ÷ ∞ = 0 doesn't mean the quotient literally equals 0. Rather, 0 is the value to which the quotient converges (or approaches). Again, Infinity is a concept, not a number. We can approach Infinity if we count higher and higher, but we can't ever actually reach it. Though not an indeterminate form proper, n ÷ ∞, like any other calculation with Infinity, is technically undefined. Notwithstanding, we intuitively understand that ±1 ÷ ∞ equals an infinitesimally small positive or negative number. Hence, we could intuitively say that ±1 ÷ ∞ = ±0.000 . . . 1, and we would be correct.​
For the proof, let the input variable = x, and let the integer = 1:​
x
1 ÷ x
1​
1​
2​
0.5​
4​
0.25​
10​
0.1​
100​
0.01​
1,000​
0.001​
10,000​
0.0001​
100,000​
0.00001​
1,000,000 . . .​
0.000001 . . .​
Note that as x gets larger and larger, approaching Infinity, 1 ÷ x gets smaller and smaller, approaching 0. The latter is the limit, and because we can't get a final value for 1 ÷ ∞, the limit of 1 ÷ x as x approaches Infinity is as close to any definitive value as we're going to get. The limit of a function in calculus tells us what value the function approaches as the x of the function (or, in shorthand, the x of the f ) approaches a certain value:​
lim f(x)
xa
We know that we're proving the limit for 1 ÷ ∞; hence, the following reads "the limit of the function f(x) is 1 ÷ x as x approaches Infinity":​
f(x) = lim 1 ÷ x
x→∞
Additionally, the output values of function f depend on the input values for the variable x. In the expression f(x), f is the name of the function and (x) denotes that x is the variable of the function. The function itself is "the limit of 1 ÷ x as the inputs for x approach Infinity." When we solve for the limit of more than one function in an algebraic combination, we typically call the first of the functions f for "function." It really doesn't matter what we call any of them as long as we distinguish them from one another. The names given to the others typically follow f in alphabetical order merely as a matter of aesthetics: g, h, i, j and so on.​
Hence, as we can see from the table above, the function proves out that the limit of 1 ÷ x as x approaches Infinity equals 0. That is to say, as x approaches Infinity, 1 ÷ x approaches 0:​
lim 1 ÷ x = 0
x→∞
Altogether then:​
lim f(x) =
x→a
lim 1 ÷ x = 0 (i.e., 0.000 . . . 1)
x→∞
x1 ÷ x
11
20.5
40.25
100.1
1000.01
1,0000.001
10,0000.0001
100,0000.00001
1,000,000 . . .0.000001 . . .


In nature t = 0 is never reached via an infinite regress into the past. Hence, an infinite regression can never be traversed to the present.
And then we learned how to sum infinite series in 11th grade math. And the ones who did were saved from buying into this amateurish rehash of old parlor tricks.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
65,377
Reaction score
13,420
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Your ID’iot creationer nonsense about mutations is right out of the Henry Morris Academy for the Slow. It is nothing more than the silly ID’iot creationer “what are the odds”, slogans.

These nonsensical “the odds are too great” are stereotypical blathering that ooze from all of the fundamentalist creation ministries.

Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that proteins and the building blocks of life formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.

Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions occurring simultaneously.


To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School for the Silly
I see that you do not directly address the thrust of my argument again, but change the topic and do so by, once again, presupposing evodelution is true and "straw manning" my observation. I never said anything about the calculation of odds in this wise. I said:

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.​

Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome,

Did you ever post your proof?
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,919
Reaction score
1,143
Points
170
I don't think you evolved in S&T. Evolution is a lie; You're still looking for answers.
James, I'm still waiting on you to explain how the mathematical concept of an actual infinitethat of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something(1) exists outside of minds, (2) existed in the minds of Aristotle, C.K. Chesterton and Karl Popper, contrary to your contention, but not in yours, and (3) exists in the minds of everyone else (including those of angels and God himself), but not in yours.

When you read a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something does the mathematical concept of an actual infinite pop into existence inside your mind at all? Perhaps the problem here is episodic amnesia or alzheimer's disease. It pops into your mind when you read the concept's definition . . . and, then, immediately pops out of your mind. Very curious, seemingly magical. Maybe your dyslexic. No, wait. It's a concept, so that wouldn't explain the problem.

I'm also still waiting on you to explain how God, an indivisible, unembodied mind of incomparable greatness and perfection, is composed of an actually infinite, quantitatively divisible substance, which would necessarily be material.

You have been unwittingly conflating the qualitative infinity of classical theism and the quantitative infinities of mathematics all your life, haven't you, James? You have been unwittingly confounding the categorical distinction all your life, haven't you, James? You have been unwittingly contradicting the ontological imperative of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, to which you subscribe, all your life, haven't you, James?

It is due to this unwitting conflation of things that existed in your mind alongside the mathematical concept of an actual infinite (which, regarding the latter, I put there in its actuality, displacing your nonsensical apparition), that you failed to grasp the thrust of my previous questions and observations, isn't it, James?

Your understanding of things is getting better and better, isn't it, James?

You should be thanking me, James, for disabusing you of this confusion, otherwise you might repeat your error to brighter atheists/agnostics than those routinely encountered on this message board when trying to proselytize them.
LMAO :laughing0301:. I still don't think you understand actual infinity nor potential infinity. Can you answer which one the atheists here and their atheist scientists practice, but are in denial? Second, how do I use actual infinity?

>>And then we learned how to sum infinite series in 11th grade math. And the ones who did were saved from buying into this amateurish rehash of old parlor tricks.<<

Fort Fun Indiana just gave an example. Which infinity is he using?
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
5,932
Reaction score
2,352
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
I saw post #16. My previous response was sarcasm. Let me be more responsive this time.

It's a mathematical treatment on selection. You seem to be under the false impression that creationists and/or ID theorists deny selection and the speciation thereof. Wherever did you get that silly notion?

Precisely how does the treatment prove that evolution is necessarily true, let alone that naturalism is true?
It's a mathematical treatment of natural selection ... which proves your "divine selection" is unnecessary ... the cyanobacteria from 2.2 billion years ago had plenty of time to radiate into the vast diversity of life we see today ... more than enough time ... one little tiny change after little tiny change ...

It's the Bible that says all the plants and animals were created by God as we know them today ... creationism ... as stated in the Bible ... cows were made perfect to begin with, why would they change? ...

Mathematical Challenges to Darwin's Theory of Evolution is your title ... post #16 is the math you are challenging ... would you please point and say why the step is wrong ... by the way, this is college statistics, not high school calculus ...
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,919
Reaction score
1,143
Points
170
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.
Corn is terrible as GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy. It is mainly used to make high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener.

"There are large lobbies interested in whether GMOs should be in the food supply or not.

  1. The first lobby interested in GMOs is for the use of GMOs and includes major corporations like Monsanto. Monsanto is one of the largest agricultural companies that sells “seeds, traits developed through biotechnology, and crop protection chemicals.” They have been at the center of some recent US Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Bowman v. Monsanto Company).1
  2. The second lobby interested in GMOs is against the use of GMOs and includes the Non-GMO Project. “The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO choices.”2
  3. The third lobby that should be interested in GMOs is the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it."3

  1. For reference, see http://www.monsanto.com last accessed 06-18-13 and Supreme Court Supports Monsanto in Seed-Replication Case (Published 2013) last accessed 06-18-13.
  2. http://www.nongmoproject.org.
  3. FDA
 

Sunsettommy

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
8,745
Reaction score
6,214
Points
2,050
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.
Corn is terrible as GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy. It is mainly used to make high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener.

"There are large lobbies interested in whether GMOs should be in the food supply or not.

  1. The first lobby interested in GMOs is for the use of GMOs and includes major corporations like Monsanto. Monsanto is one of the largest agricultural companies that sells “seeds, traits developed through biotechnology, and crop protection chemicals.” They have been at the center of some recent US Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Bowman v. Monsanto Company).1
  2. The second lobby interested in GMOs is against the use of GMOs and includes the Non-GMO Project. “The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO choices.”2
  3. The third lobby that should be interested in GMOs is the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it."3

  1. For reference, see http://www.monsanto.com last accessed 06-18-13 and Supreme Court Supports Monsanto in Seed-Replication Case (Published 2013) last accessed 06-18-13.
  2. http://www.nongmoproject.org.
  3. FDA
This is a deflection away from the fact that Corn is an excellent example of what Evolution is about. GMO isn't the topic here and YOU know it, that is why you made an obviously desperate deflection, not going to follow it.

It interesting that a food you hate has smacked you.....
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
65,377
Reaction score
13,420
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
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.
Corn is terrible as GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy. It is mainly used to make high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener.

"There are large lobbies interested in whether GMOs should be in the food supply or not.

  1. The first lobby interested in GMOs is for the use of GMOs and includes major corporations like Monsanto. Monsanto is one of the largest agricultural companies that sells “seeds, traits developed through biotechnology, and crop protection chemicals.” They have been at the center of some recent US Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Bowman v. Monsanto Company).1
  2. The second lobby interested in GMOs is against the use of GMOs and includes the Non-GMO Project. “The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO choices.”2
  3. The third lobby that should be interested in GMOs is the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it."3

  1. For reference, see http://www.monsanto.com last accessed 06-18-13 and Supreme Court Supports Monsanto in Seed-Replication Case (Published 2013) last accessed 06-18-13.
  2. http://www.nongmoproject.org.
  3. FDA
GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy.

Why do you feel that?

the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it.

What food crops have you ever eaten that weren't modified over the last few thousand years?
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,919
Reaction score
1,143
Points
170
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.
Corn is terrible as GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy. It is mainly used to make high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener.

"There are large lobbies interested in whether GMOs should be in the food supply or not.

  1. The first lobby interested in GMOs is for the use of GMOs and includes major corporations like Monsanto. Monsanto is one of the largest agricultural companies that sells “seeds, traits developed through biotechnology, and crop protection chemicals.” They have been at the center of some recent US Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Bowman v. Monsanto Company).1
  2. The second lobby interested in GMOs is against the use of GMOs and includes the Non-GMO Project. “The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO choices.”2
  3. The third lobby that should be interested in GMOs is the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it."3

  1. For reference, see http://www.monsanto.com last accessed 06-18-13 and Supreme Court Supports Monsanto in Seed-Replication Case (Published 2013) last accessed 06-18-13.
  2. http://www.nongmoproject.org.
  3. FDA
This is a deflection away from the fact that Corn is an excellent example of what Evolution is about. GMO isn't the topic here and YOU know it, that is why you made an obviously desperate deflection, not going to follow it.

It interesting that a food you hate has smacked you.....
Corn isn't an excellent example of evolution. Otherwise, you would have explained and still haven't.

This is an example of how atheists and their scientists make general assumptions and attribute it to evolution.

Thus, I discussed how corn is a GMO and is used as bad. Isn't mutation the driver for evolution? In this case, it's gene mutation. Isn't that an example of corn as evolution haha?

Actually, it is a serious topic as evolution and GMO foods are really bad.

 
Last edited:

Sunsettommy

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
8,745
Reaction score
6,214
Points
2,050
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.
Corn is terrible as GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy. It is mainly used to make high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener.

"There are large lobbies interested in whether GMOs should be in the food supply or not.

  1. The first lobby interested in GMOs is for the use of GMOs and includes major corporations like Monsanto. Monsanto is one of the largest agricultural companies that sells “seeds, traits developed through biotechnology, and crop protection chemicals.” They have been at the center of some recent US Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Bowman v. Monsanto Company).1
  2. The second lobby interested in GMOs is against the use of GMOs and includes the Non-GMO Project. “The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO choices.”2
  3. The third lobby that should be interested in GMOs is the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it."3

  1. For reference, see http://www.monsanto.com last accessed 06-18-13 and Supreme Court Supports Monsanto in Seed-Replication Case (Published 2013) last accessed 06-18-13.
  2. http://www.nongmoproject.org.
  3. FDA
This is a deflection away from the fact that Corn is an excellent example of what Evolution is about. GMO isn't the topic here and YOU know it, that is why you made an obviously desperate deflection, not going to follow it.

It interesting that a food you hate has smacked you.....
Corn isn't an excellent example of evolution. Otherwise, you would have explained and still haven't.

This is an example of how atheists and their scientists make general assumptions and attribute it to evolution.

Thus, I discussed how corn is a GMO and is used as bad. Isn't mutation the driver for evolution? In this case, it's gene mutation. Isn't that an example of corn as evolution haha?

Actually, it is a serious topic as evolution and GMO foods are really bad.

I gave you a link showing the radical transformation of Corn over 9,000 years, too bad you didn't read it.

Here is the simple definition:
Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
Corn as shown in the link, changed radically over 9,000 years, a classic case of guided evolution of a plant. That is a fact you are trying hard to ignore with your silly deflection to GMO.

I haven't mentioned GMO for an obvious that seems to elude you, which is why it is a Red Herring fallacy.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,919
Reaction score
1,143
Points
170
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.
Corn is terrible as GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy. It is mainly used to make high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener.

"There are large lobbies interested in whether GMOs should be in the food supply or not.

  1. The first lobby interested in GMOs is for the use of GMOs and includes major corporations like Monsanto. Monsanto is one of the largest agricultural companies that sells “seeds, traits developed through biotechnology, and crop protection chemicals.” They have been at the center of some recent US Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Bowman v. Monsanto Company).1
  2. The second lobby interested in GMOs is against the use of GMOs and includes the Non-GMO Project. “The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO choices.”2
  3. The third lobby that should be interested in GMOs is the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it."3

  1. For reference, see http://www.monsanto.com last accessed 06-18-13 and Supreme Court Supports Monsanto in Seed-Replication Case (Published 2013) last accessed 06-18-13.
  2. http://www.nongmoproject.org.
  3. FDA
This is a deflection away from the fact that Corn is an excellent example of what Evolution is about. GMO isn't the topic here and YOU know it, that is why you made an obviously desperate deflection, not going to follow it.

It interesting that a food you hate has smacked you.....
Corn isn't an excellent example of evolution. Otherwise, you would have explained and still haven't.

This is an example of how atheists and their scientists make general assumptions and attribute it to evolution.

Thus, I discussed how corn is a GMO and is used as bad. Isn't mutation the driver for evolution? In this case, it's gene mutation. Isn't that an example of corn as evolution haha?

Actually, it is a serious topic as evolution and GMO foods are really bad.

I gave you a link showing the radical transformation of Corn over 9,000 years, too bad you didn't read it.

Here is the simple definition:
Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
Corn as shown in the link, changed radically over 9,000 years, a classic case of guided evolution of a plant. That is a fact you are trying hard to ignore with your silly deflection to GMO.

I haven't mentioned GMO for an obvious that seems to elude you, which is why it is a Red Herring fallacy.
You are just taking natural selection which what God gave us to help us farm and grow crops. It's not easy to farm and raise livestock today. The best foods are organic or the way we used to grow crops. This was long before evolution and is part of creation science.

Furthermore, I rather hear it from a person themselves on what they think instead of forcing me to read their link.

Thus, you are avoiding the FACT that evolution has mainly to do with GMO foods. It is based on gene mutation as I stated. You do not know enough to be able to argue against this devious method being used in our processed foods that evolution has brought to our food supply.

One of the difficult things is to find out what foods are GMO. I posted a list of the general ones.

Here's one on the brand names -- 6 GMO Loaded Brands You Should Avoid Buying.

I try to avoid them, but it's not always possible. Organic and natural foods are much better for one's health. I think GMO foods and evolution is why our life expectancies are going down. Furthermore, why don't you take credit for Covid-19? Isn't that evolution by natural selection?

 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,919
Reaction score
1,143
Points
170
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.
Corn is terrible as GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy. It is mainly used to make high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener.

"There are large lobbies interested in whether GMOs should be in the food supply or not.

  1. The first lobby interested in GMOs is for the use of GMOs and includes major corporations like Monsanto. Monsanto is one of the largest agricultural companies that sells “seeds, traits developed through biotechnology, and crop protection chemicals.” They have been at the center of some recent US Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Bowman v. Monsanto Company).1
  2. The second lobby interested in GMOs is against the use of GMOs and includes the Non-GMO Project. “The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO choices.”2
  3. The third lobby that should be interested in GMOs is the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it."3

  1. For reference, see http://www.monsanto.com last accessed 06-18-13 and Supreme Court Supports Monsanto in Seed-Replication Case (Published 2013) last accessed 06-18-13.
  2. http://www.nongmoproject.org.
  3. FDA
GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy.

Why do you feel that?

the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it.

What food crops have you ever eaten that weren't modified over the last few thousand years?
Toddsterpatriot, you haven't evolved at all. You still ask me questions, expect me to answer them, and rarely answer mine. Thus, you remain ignorant and do not evolve like a good evolutionist should do. It's really tough to get better believing in lies.

Here is my question: Are you a GMO foods eater? Do you care? Do you know? Are you okay with dying before you reach 70s or 80s?
 
Last edited:

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,919
Reaction score
1,143
Points
170
I gave you a link showing the radical transformation of Corn over 9,000 years, too bad you didn't read it.

Here is the simple definition:
Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
Corn as shown in the link, changed radically over 9,000 years, a classic case of guided evolution of a plant. That is a fact you are trying hard to ignore with your silly deflection to GMO.

I haven't mentioned GMO for an obvious that seems to elude you, which is why it is a Red Herring fallacy.
Your own source gives the definition as:

"Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation." It's reference 3.



We have discovered GMO foods are bad and will shorten you life. Are you a big eater of them? Practice what you preach.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,919
Reaction score
1,143
Points
170
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.
I read your article again and found a connection you liar and dirty rat. You need to eat GMO foods and die early. So disgusting a poster are you.

George Beadle is a genetecist.

"The term "genetic modified organisms (GMO)" has become a controversial topic as its benefits for both food producers and consumers are companied by potential biomedical risks and environmental side effects. ... George Beadle and Edward Tatum Hypothesized one gene one enzyme theory..."

Genetically modified foods: A critical review of their promise and problems

It led to genetic modification using mutation and to GMO foods.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
65,377
Reaction score
13,420
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
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.
Corn is terrible as GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy. It is mainly used to make high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener.

"There are large lobbies interested in whether GMOs should be in the food supply or not.

  1. The first lobby interested in GMOs is for the use of GMOs and includes major corporations like Monsanto. Monsanto is one of the largest agricultural companies that sells “seeds, traits developed through biotechnology, and crop protection chemicals.” They have been at the center of some recent US Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Bowman v. Monsanto Company).1
  2. The second lobby interested in GMOs is against the use of GMOs and includes the Non-GMO Project. “The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO choices.”2
  3. The third lobby that should be interested in GMOs is the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it."3

  1. For reference, see http://www.monsanto.com last accessed 06-18-13 and Supreme Court Supports Monsanto in Seed-Replication Case (Published 2013) last accessed 06-18-13.
  2. http://www.nongmoproject.org.
  3. FDA
GMO foods are terrible and unhealthy.

Why do you feel that?

the unaware majority of Americans having already consumed a GMO without knowing it.

What food crops have you ever eaten that weren't modified over the last few thousand years?
Toddsterpatriot, you haven't evolved at all. You still ask me questions, expect me to answer them, and rarely answer mine. Thus, you remain ignorant and do not evolve like a good evolutionist should do. It's really tough to get better believing in lies.

Here is my question: Are you a GMO foods eater? Do you care? Do you know? Are you okay with dying before you reach 70s or 80s?
You still ask me questions, expect me to answer them,

Nah, I expect you to run away.

Are you a GMO foods eater?

Unless someone only eats acorns, wild game and wild fish, we all eat genetically modified foods.
Does that make you sad?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top