What's new

# Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

OP

#### Ringtone

##### Gold Member
LMAO . 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?
The actually infinite does not and cannot exist in the spacetime continuum. Period!

Are you claiming—contrary to the logical, mathematical and scientific ramifications of the Kalam Cosmological Argument—that the spacetime continuum is an actual infinite?!

OP

#### Ringtone

##### Gold Member
It matters not a whit what you believe about evolution,

It matters not a whit what you think about common design. God laughs at you. I laugh at you. I open my mouth and haha comes out. I laugh and laugh and laugh at you. See Ringtone laugh. Laugh, Ringtone, laugh.

#### Fort Fun Indiana

##### Diamond Member
Now this is avoidance.
Excuse you, my little fraud. I directly asked you what you needed to be clarified. Then you respond with this dog and pony show (as I knew you would). Because, as everyone knows, you know less than nothing about any mathematics and don't even KNOW what you need clarified. You literally don't even know how to answer the question.

It's just so easy to expose frauds like you. A simple question does the trick. Back in my claims investigation days, you are what we would call "a dunker".

#### Fort Fun Indiana

##### Diamond Member
The actually infinite does not and cannot exist in the spacetime continuum. Period!
Oh yeah?

So what does it look like, when you watch your friend fall into a black hole?

If you don't know, say so. And i will teach you.

OP

#### Ringtone

##### Gold Member
Well, it depends on what you mean by new information.

What do you mean by, "Mutations entail a loss of information"?
I started answering posts in my notifications box yesterday and forgot all about our discussion. LOL! Sorry. Nothing personal. Just a brain fart. Clarification: I was thinking about the degenerative, point mutations (deletions) that produce the optimal pathways on the DDC model in that instance. That's what I'd really like to get at, as it's more interesting. and I'm eager to pick your brain. A couple of days ago, I was mostly speaking from the point of view of the evolutionist. Today, I'll get into what I think.

So let's get back to it.

Do you agree that the classical model of gene duplication and the adaptive mutations of copies give rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of the new functions thereof according to evolutionary theory? Also, generally, on this model, it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene) until the adaptive mutations arise?​

(You might notice that I revised the questions as the original were informationally inadequate and poorly expressed.)

You didn't answer them. Perhaps you missed them or for some reason thought them to be gotcha thingies. They weren't. They were intended to establish a baseline of mutual understanding. Also, for the sake of clarity and precision, the increased complexity to which I allude in the above is the increased complexity and variety of species over geological time. I'll just cut to the chase. The above is in fact the gist of the classical model of gene duplication relative to the predictions/expectations of evolutionary theory. The more interesting and, to my mind, more evolutionarily plausible duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC) model is bottomed on it.

Below I will get more precise with my language regarding genetic mutations.

On the classic model, some duplicated genes (uninherited pseudogenes) are held to be preserved long enough to mutatively acquire new, adaptively useful functions. That's the theory. In the meantime, mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information.

Do degenerative genes, altered genes or duplicated genes constitute or produce new information?

Again, that's the theory.

Strictly speaking, the answer seems to be no, given that observed mutations do not actually entail the addition of new information, but changes in preexisting information, the overwhelming majority of which cause deleterious or neutral outcomes. Technically speaking, however, I suppose the answer is yes, albeit, depending on how one defines new information.

There's that catch 22 again.

In this wise, evolutionists point to some previously unexpressed traits as signs of new information, but our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy. A growing body of evidence shows that inherently original genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information de novo, and shows that inherently original information in a compressed form within genomes can become decompressed and be seen as new. In fact, it seems to me that the changes induced by the latter are not mutations at all, but built-in or preprogrammed alterations of adaptability.

I sense the presence of an intelligent designer in the background. How about you?

Also, the built-in alternatives of homologous recombination effected by crossover events can produce existentially new traits, and these nonrandom events would be indistinguishable from mutations sans the sequencing of the pertinent pieces of DNA .

Evolutionists point to adaptive immunity as an example of new genes (or traits) created by mutation, but this actually entails a mechanism that scrambles DNA modules to generate antibodies for antigens only. These changes occur in a controlled manner, affecting a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only a part of the immune system. These changes are not heritable.

On the DDC model of gene duplication, do the point mutations thereof constitute new information or produce new functions?

Last edited:

#### james bond

##### Gold Member
Now this is avoidance.
Excuse you, my little fraud. I directly asked you what you needed to be clarified. Then you respond with this dog and pony show (as I knew you would). Because, as everyone knows, you know less than nothing about any mathematics and don't even KNOW what you need clarified. You literally don't even know how to answer the question.

It's just so easy to expose frauds like you. A simple question does the trick. Back in my claims investigation days, you are what we would call "a dunker".
As I thought. You could not disprove my porterhouse steak that I'm cooking now was fed with GMO corn. One can ask the butcher about the cattle and meat. What kind of nutgoober are you stating chances and what not? There are many people who do not want to eat GMO foods, but it's more difficult for them. I admit it's a little more work and trouble.

It doesn't bother me and its my mouth and my family's mouth they are going into. Not yours. It is worth the extra care.

Anyway, you avoid my questions. What are your favorite GMO foods then? You should be able to answer it easily. I'm the one having to go through the trouble of ensuring I'm not eating GMO. For example, farmed raised fish is everywhere. It's in the frozen fish and meats section. OTOH, it's more difficult for me to get wild caught fish.

You, Sunsettommy, and Toddsterpatriot can eat anything you want and not worry except maybe getting too many calories since you're evolutionists and think GMOs are fine.

#### james bond

##### Gold Member
RE: Sous vide

I thought about the amount of money one spends on metal cooking pans and how one has to watch their meat cooking from pre-heating the pan or oven, to cooking, searing it just right, flipping it over and being careful to not cut the meat open and let the juices flow out. With sous vide, you just set the right temperature, season the meat, vacuum seal the food, and then let the timer and water do the work. They even have an app so you can turn it off while you're out. It takes hours tho as you're cooking with low heat. Anyway, it gives you an excellent chance for success with the better cuts of meat. The food sealer also saves you money of keeping food fresh for much longer. You'll be throwing less out. If there's a weird part, then it's the blow torch to sear the meat but I think most men like to do it.

I think this guy is the most popular on youtube. See if what he says makes sense as in \$s and ¢s.

#### Fort Fun Indiana

##### Diamond Member
You could not disprove my porterhouse steak that I'm cooking now was fed with GMO corn.
I am betting it was. I am also betting that you have absolutely zero idea why you are terrified of GMOs.

#### james bond

##### Gold Member
LMAO . 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?
The actually infinite does not and cannot exist in the spacetime continuum. Period!

Are you claiming—contrary to the logical, mathematical and scientific ramifications of the Kalam Cosmological Argument—that the spacetime continuum is an actual infinite?!
I don't know why you interpret things I've already stated multiple times wrong. It's too bad Frannie isn't here anymore. Have you discussed things with him before? He could repeat things and contradict himself ad infinitum.

#### james bond

##### Gold Member
You could not disprove my porterhouse steak that I'm cooking now was fed with GMO corn.
I am betting it was. I am also betting that you have absolutely zero idea why you are terrified of GMOs.
How about clarifying why GMO foods are good for you (not me) and pretty please answer What are your favorite GMO foods then?

#### Fort Fun Indiana

##### Diamond Member
How about clarifying why GMO foods are good for you
Because we need nutrition to survive. What a stupid question. Duh, why is food good for us? Derrrr

#### james bond

##### Gold Member
For the atheists hear who like to lol.

DOCTORS CONFIRM FIRST HUMAN DEATH OFFICIALLY CAUSED BY GMOS

#### Fort Fun Indiana

##### Diamond Member
For the atheists hear who like to lol.

DOCTORS CONFIRM FIRST HUMAN DEATH OFFICIALLY CAUSED BY GMOS
Haha...nice source. Was it Batboy?

#### james bond

##### Gold Member
How about clarifying why GMO foods are good for you
Because we need nutrition to survive. What a stupid question. Duh, why is food good for us? Derrrr
It's not just GMO foods. Many people try to just eat non-GMO foods for their nutrition.

C'mon, you're avoiding what GMO foods you like to eat. Thus, it appears you are running away from GMO foods because they're scary and can kill you earlier than your 70s and 80s.

It's not stupid if the foods you eat can kill you and give you tumors.

We just had a report today on the non-GMO foods market -- Worldwide Non-GMO Foods Industry to 2025 - Key Drivers, Challenges and Trends.

I know what you'd like to eat. Chicken butts. 5 cents a cut. Or pork butts. Any kind of butts haha.

For those who do not care to indulge in GMO and deadly foods, you can look here -- Verified Products – The Non-GMO Project.

#### Fort Fun Indiana

##### Diamond Member
It's not just GMO foods. Many people try to just eat non-GMO foods for their nutrition.
That's deep, man.

C'mon, you're avoiding what GMO foods you like to eat.
I have no idea, because i don't pay any attention to that. I don't have an irrational fear of GMO foods that was created by lying bloggers. That's your department.

OP

#### Ringtone

##### Gold Member
I don't know why you interpret things. I've already stated multiple times wrong. It's too bad Frannie isn't here anymore. Have you discussed things with him before? He could repeat things and contradict himself ad infinitum.
You're claiming I don't understand what actual and potential infinities are, and that I'm contradicting myself, once again, sans giving any coherent reason why that's true.

The actually infinite does not and cannot exist in the spacetime continuum. Period! That's what the mathematical treatment in the above goes to. I'm not talking about the mathematical concept as it exists in minds in this instance. Is that what's throwing you now?

Fine. Let me restate things so that there is no room for confusion in that mind of yours. Bear in mind that the following only pertains to entities of the natural world, not to the existential ground of any supernatural entities whatsoever:

The actually infinite does not and cannot exist anywhere in the spacetime continuum, except as it exists as a mathematical concept in human minds. Period!​
Are you claiming—contrary to the logical, mathematical and scientific ramifications of the Kalam Cosmological Argument—that the spacetime continuum is an actual infinite?!​

It's a yes/no question. I'm trying to understand what you're saying. Emphatically establish your contention in this wise.

#### ReinyDays

##### Gold Member
I would say all we need for a discussion is a gap or an incongruity in the status quo theory. Stasis and lack of transitional fossils fit that bill. But I get your position, you believe natural selection explains everything. I don't.
I agree 100% ... with any scientific theory, the counter-examples must be correctly explained ... or one must question the theory ... what I want to know is what counter-example are you talking about, or is this some hypothetical species that could have existed? ...

Fossils are exceptionally difficult to make, and are generally rare ... and that's only for organisms that can form fossils, a vast majority do not ... gaps in the fossil record are due to a lack of fossils, we have to interpolate the data we do have ... we also have very little time resolution in the geologic record, the Grand Canyon is only 6,000 feet deep and covers about half the age of the Earth itself, 2.2 billion years at her lowest levels, about 350,000 thousand years per foot ... and dating the layers is more art than science ...

What other kinds of selection could there be? ... besides human domestication ...

#### ding

##### Confront reality
I would say all we need for a discussion is a gap or an incongruity in the status quo theory. Stasis and lack of transitional fossils fit that bill. But I get your position, you believe natural selection explains everything. I don't.
I agree 100% ... with any scientific theory, the counter-examples must be correctly explained ... or one must question the theory ... what I want to know is what counter-example are you talking about, or is this some hypothetical species that could have existed? ...

Fossils are exceptionally difficult to make, and are generally rare ... and that's only for organisms that can form fossils, a vast majority do not ... gaps in the fossil record are due to a lack of fossils, we have to interpolate the data we do have ... we also have very little time resolution in the geologic record, the Grand Canyon is only 6,000 feet deep and covers about half the age of the Earth itself, 2.2 billion years at her lowest levels, about 350,000 thousand years per foot ... and dating the layers is more art than science ...

What other kinds of selection could there be? ... besides human domestication ...
In the context of speciation, my point is that it's not natural selection. It's always been genetic mutations. So I don't think any selections are responsible for speciation.

The examples are stasis when no mutations occur or are unsuccessful in creating a new species and all of the speciations which have no transitional fossils. The same "examples" that led to the theories of punctuated equilibrium and saltation.

#### ReinyDays

##### Gold Member
In the context of speciation, my point is that it's not natural selection. It's always been genetic mutations. So I don't think any selections are responsible for speciation.

The examples are stasis when no mutations occur or are unsuccessful in creating a new species and all of the speciations which have no transitional fossils. The same "examples" that led to the theories of punctuated equilibrium and saltation.
A genetic mutation is the cause, natural selection is the effect ... this is easy to demonstrate in the lab with fruit flies ... sounds like you're pointing out a few cases where this doesn't happen, like in the shark family ... they've changed very little over the past 200 millions year, but it's a good design, maybe improvements aren't needed ... and there's absolutely noting in the math that says species must change over time ... our k value being very close to zero ...

Natural selection allows for both punctuated equilibrium and saltation ... just change your k value up and down ...

ETA: What is there about punctuated equilibrium and saltation that doesn't allow "in between" pathways? ...

OP

#### Ringtone

##### Gold Member
I don't know why you interpret things I've already stated multiple times wrong. It's too bad Frannie isn't here anymore. Have you discussed things with him before? He could repeat things and contradict himself ad infinitum.
Hey, James, still looking for that yes/no answer. See post #436. Thanks.

Replies
162
Views
889
Replies
26
Views
178
Replies
110
Views
711
Replies
16
Views
94
Replies
40
Views
220
Replies
71
Views
162