Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

[alang1216]

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.

Yet you claimed that the mechanism for the creation of new species was a natural one. Can I assume you've changed your mind?

 

[Ringtone]

Yet you claimed that the mechanism for the creation of new species was a natural one. Can I assume you've changed your mind?

No. In the past, I believe that God created new organisms predicated on the priorly existing genetic motifs of other organisms, which he periodically modified and transcribed onto the new organisms he thusly brought into being—wholly formed and equipped to adaptively radiate thereafter via the natural mechanisms of natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift and genetic mutation.

 

[Hollie]

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?​

I think your retreat to slogans you share at Harun Yahya are a poor substitute for your illiteracy regarding science. The ''evodelusionist's'' interpretation of evidence is based on interpretation of the evidence. See how that works? Have you ever stopped to consider that we accept the inescapable conclusions drawn from the physical evidence that life has DESCENDED through millions of years from a common ancestor? We accept evolution because that's what the evidence unambiguously tells us, and for no other reason.

Actually, I don't refuse to address the substance of speciation via common design. You refuse to support your case for supernatural common ''design''. You refuse to support your case for supernatural design because you know you can not do so. Matter and energy conform to and behave according to ''laws'' we are learning about and they happen to behave like they do. The fact that the natural world (as opposed to your undemonstrated supernatural world) operates as it does, does not presume that were necessarily designed by your particular polytheistic gods to do so. If you feel that the properties of nature require that they have been designed by your particular polytheistic gods, please provide evidence of such.

Here is your opportunity to present your evidence for anything, anything at all, that shows ''design'' by one or more supernatural entities.

__________ <----- Here ya' go. Here's a placeholder. Show us the supermagicalism.

If you have any new scientific data on ID'iot creationism, you should come forward with it. Everything so far submitted by ID' creationists has been completely lacking in evidence and totally unsubstantiated.

It is difficult to interpret supernatural evidence as a means to interpret the supernatural because there's, you know, no supernatural evidence in evidence.

 

[Ringtone]

Only the Lord Thy God knows the answer.

Well, the essence of the hypothesis of evolution is a transitionally branching, evolutionary speciation from a common ancestry soley predicated on natural mechanisms. I don't see how that can be reconciled to intelligent origins, let alone the achievement of any predetermined goal.

As I have written elsewhere:

Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Pasteur—all understood that the teachings of revealed religion and the inferences of scientific observation were not mutually exclusive, but mutually affirming sources of information about the same indivisible reality. They rightly held that divinity constituted the only guarantee that the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition were reliably synchronized with the substances and mechanisms of empirical phenomena. What are we to make of the pronouncements of Neo-Darwinists? Are they not the stuff of a perception-altering process of speciation?​

By what process of “angelization” could men have become cognizant of their random origins and spectators of all time and existence, as though from some superior and independent vantage-point? Do the Neo-Darwinians, like so many other system-builders, desert the system of which they are the authors, claiming special cognitive principles that cannot be justified within the system? —Richard Spilsbury, Providence Lost: A Critique of Darwinism, Oxford University Press (1974, pg. 116)​

 

[Hollie]

Yet you claimed that the mechanism for the creation of new species was a natural one. Can I assume you've changed your mind?

No. In the past, I believe that God created new organisms predicated on the priorly existing genetic motifs of other organisms, which he periodically modified and transcribed onto the new organisms he thusly brought into being—wholly formed and equipped to adaptively radiate thereafter via the natural mechanisms of natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift and genetic mutation.

"The Gawds Did It''

Interesting that the gods would provide for Noah and his immediate family to repopulate the planet after the flood-thingy. Science tells us what radiates from familial and incestuous relations.

 

[Hollie]

Only the Lord Thy God knows the answer.

Well, the essence of the hypothesis of evolution is a transitionally branching, evolutionary speciation from a common ancestry soley predicated on natural mechanisms. I don't see how that can be reconciled to intelligent origins, let alone the achievement of any predetermined goal.

As I have written elsewhere:

Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Pasteur—all understood that the teachings of revealed religion and the inferences of scientific observation were not mutually exclusive, but mutually affirming sources of information about the same indivisible reality. They rightly held that divinity constituted the only guarantee that the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition were reliably synchronized with the substances and mechanisms of empirical phenomena. What are we to make of the pronouncements of Neo-Darwinists? Are they not the stuff of a perception-altering process of speciation?​

By what process of “angelization” could men have become cognizant of their random origins and spectators of all time and existence, as though from some superior and independent vantage-point? Do the Neo-Darwinians, like so many other system-builders, desert the system of which they are the authors, claiming special cognitive principles that cannot be justified within the system? —Richard Spilsbury, Providence Lost: A Critique of Darwinism, Oxford University Press (1974, pg. 116)​

"Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Pasteur—all understood that the teachings of revealed religion and the inferences of scientific observation were not mutually exclusive.''

It will come as a shock to the hyper-religious that science has advanced a bit since the Dark Ages.

 

[ReinyDays]

... 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 ...

 

[Bush92]

Only the Lord Thy God knows the answer.

Well, the essence of the hypothesis of evolution is a transitionally branching, evolutionary speciation from a common ancestry soley predicated on natural mechanisms. I don't see how that can be reconciled to intelligent origins, let alone the achievement of any predetermined goal.

As I have written elsewhere:

Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Pasteur—all understood that the teachings of revealed religion and the inferences of scientific observation were not mutually exclusive, but mutually affirming sources of information about the same indivisible reality. They rightly held that divinity constituted the only guarantee that the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition were reliably synchronized with the substances and mechanisms of empirical phenomena. What are we to make of the pronouncements of Neo-Darwinists? Are they not the stuff of a perception-altering process of speciation?​

By what process of “angelization” could men have become cognizant of their random origins and spectators of all time and existence, as though from some superior and independent vantage-point? Do the Neo-Darwinians, like so many other system-builders, desert the system of which they are the authors, claiming special cognitive principles that cannot be justified within the system? —Richard Spilsbury, Providence Lost: A Critique of Darwinism, Oxford University Press (1974, pg. 116)​

"Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Pasteur—all understood that the teachings of revealed religion and the inferences of scientific observation were not mutually exclusive.''

It will come as a shock to the hyper-religious that science has advanced a bit since the Dark Ages.

Dumb.

 

[Bush92]

Only the Lord Thy God knows the answer.

Well, the essence of the hypothesis of evolution is a transitionally branching, evolutionary speciation from a common ancestry soley predicated on natural mechanisms. I don't see how that can be reconciled to intelligent origins, let alone the achievement of any predetermined goal.

As I have written elsewhere:

Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Pasteur—all understood that the teachings of revealed religion and the inferences of scientific observation were not mutually exclusive, but mutually affirming sources of information about the same indivisible reality. They rightly held that divinity constituted the only guarantee that the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition were reliably synchronized with the substances and mechanisms of empirical phenomena. What are we to make of the pronouncements of Neo-Darwinists? Are they not the stuff of a perception-altering process of speciation?​

By what process of “angelization” could men have become cognizant of their random origins and spectators of all time and existence, as though from some superior and independent vantage-point? Do the Neo-Darwinians, like so many other system-builders, desert the system of which they are the authors, claiming special cognitive principles that cannot be justified within the system? —Richard Spilsbury, Providence Lost: A Critique of Darwinism, Oxford University Press (1974, pg. 116)​

It's simple. God runs the show. Your bullshit science is superceded.

 

[Ringtone]

"Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Pasteur—all understood that the teachings of revealed religion and the inferences of scientific observation were not mutually exclusive.''

It will come as a shock to the hyper-religious that science has advanced a bit since the Dark Ages.

No, actually, the irrationality of atheism/agnosticism and the metaphysical naturalism thereof are the spiralling death of the biological sciences. Evodelusion is the stuff of a gratuitous apriority that axiomatically yields a false interpretation of the evidence; it's a myth, a dream, a bad trip, it's Alice when she's ten feet tall, a fairy tale, a fantasy, a fable, a yarn . . . a long con . . . indeed, a mathematical and engineering monstrosity of human invention.

 

[Ringtone]

It's simple. God runs the show. Your bullshit science is superceded.

Well, I agree that natural processes were periodically superseded by God, but I don't see why the natural processes of science are bullshit.

 

[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.

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.

View attachment 459172

Would I be correct in assuming that you're a theistic evolutionist?

 

[Ringtone]

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 ...

Actually, the paleontological record is littered with the abrupt appearances of seemingly new and wholly formed organisms sans priorly existing transitional forms.

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 ...

I established my credentials only to make the point that a fully understand evodelusion and why I reject it. That's all.

Focus on the obsolete ideas of Darwinism?! You're a liar. My focus has been on the mythical apriority that drives your fantasies.

As for the math. . . . LOL! You explain how it proves that naturalism and the axiomatic interpretation of the empirical evidence thereof are true. The mathematics you sighted are nothing more than the calculi of hindsight, wherein evodelusion is assumed relative to the pertinent history of speciation

 

[Ringtone]

I think your retreat to slogans you share at Harun Yahya are a poor substitute for your illiteracy regarding science. The ''evodelusionist's'' interpretation of evidence is based on interpretation of the evidence. See how that works? Have you ever stopped to consider that we accept the inescapable conclusions drawn from the physical evidence that life has DESCENDED through millions of years from a common ancestor? We accept evolution because that's what the evidence unambiguously tells us, and for no other reason.

Actually, I don't refuse to address the substance of speciation via common design. You refuse to support your case for supernatural common ''design''. You refuse to support your case for supernatural design because you know you can not do so. Matter and energy conform to and behave according to ''laws'' we are learning about and they happen to behave like they do. The fact that the natural world (as opposed to your undemonstrated supernatural world) operates as it does, does not presume that were necessarily designed by your particular polytheistic gods to do so. If you feel that the properties of nature require that they have been designed by your particular polytheistic gods, please provide evidence of such.

Here is your opportunity to present your evidence for anything, anything at all, that shows ''design'' by one or more supernatural entities.

__________ <----- Here ya' go. Here's a placeholder. Show us the supermagicalism.

If you have any new scientific data on ID'iot creationism, you should come forward with it. Everything so far submitted by ID' creationists has been completely lacking in evidence and totally unsubstantiated.

It is difficult to interpret supernatural evidence as a means to interpret the supernatural because there's, you know, no supernatural evidence in evidence.

When the sky sobs and the wind wails,
When the Earth shakes the dust off Her face—
I discreetly take my leave and fade into the gray.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

I will wait until your research paper is published. Don't forget to iron out the kinks of your theoretical mathematics paper. Kinks like: having no theory or mathematics.

 

[ReinyDays]

Actually, the paleontological record is littered with the abrupt appearances of seemingly new and wholly formed organisms sans priorly existing transitional forms.

This is true ... but only in some taxa ... in others we do see the smooth incremental transition from one form to another ... one wonderful example of this is the hawthorns, the transitions between populations across the geography is very step-wise ... taxa that live only a few tens of miles away show very little difference, yet as this distance increases the differences do as well ... to the point that halfway across the continent, the taxa can't sucessfully breed with each other ...

I established my credentials only to make the point that a fully understand evodelusion and why I reject it. That's all.

Focus on the obsolete ideas of Darwinism?! You're a liar. My focus has been on the mythical apriority that drives your fantasies.

As for the math. . . . LOL! You explain how it proves that naturalism and the axiomatic interpretation of the empirical evidence thereof are true. The mathematics you sighted are nothing more than the calculi of hindsight, wherein evodelusion is assumed relative to the pertinent history of speciation

You only claim to have gotten A's at some two-bit liberal arts college ... your OP title clearly states this is a mathematical discussion ... why won't you discuss the mathematics that back up evolution? ...

This is the same answer you always give me ... "You're a liar" ... tsk tsk ... I explained that's the loser's out, you've failed once again to make your point and are only left with personal attacks ... I've posted the beginning of the rigid mathematical proof that was in effect a good 100 years ago, the proof much of the Modern Synthesis is based on ...

Maybe your degree is in Psycho-babble? ... the way you throw around words incorrectly shows your little private liberal arts college doesn't have much in the way of proper science programs ... it's a shame the tax-payer short changed your public education so badly ...

You rely on divine miracles to create new species ... and yet say mine in a fantasy ... yeah, right ... even the Bible disagrees with you ...

 

[alang1216]

Yet you claimed that the mechanism for the creation of new species was a natural one. Can I assume you've changed your mind?

No. In the past, I believe that God created new organisms predicated on the priorly existing genetic motifs of other organisms, which he periodically modified and transcribed onto the new organisms he thusly brought into being—wholly formed and equipped to adaptively radiate thereafter via the natural mechanisms of natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift and genetic mutation.

God is the very definition of supernatural. I'm hearing that God created the Biblical 'kinds' and only then let nature take its course. It seems to me you've dressed up your creationism in some fancy clothes but at its core it is still creationism.

 

[ReinyDays]

God is the very definition of supernatural. I'm hearing that God created the Biblical 'kinds' and only then let nature take its course. It seems to me you've dressed up your creationism in some fancy clothes but at its core it is still creationism.

God created each plant and animal perfectly ... nature won't take it's course and blemish that which is created perfectly ... only Man can corrupt what God sets in motion ... the OP is trying to blend the two philosophical arguments into a single cohesive theory, which is just blind ... evolution isn't philosophy ...

 

[Hollie]

"Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Pasteur—all understood that the teachings of revealed religion and the inferences of scientific observation were not mutually exclusive.''

It will come as a shock to the hyper-religious that science has advanced a bit since the Dark Ages.

No, actually, the irrationality of atheism/agnosticism and the metaphysical naturalism thereof are the spiralling death of the biological sciences. Evodelusion is the stuff of a gratuitous apriority that axiomatically yields a false interpretation of the evidence; it's a myth, a dream, a bad trip, it's Alice when she's ten feet tall, a fairy tale, a fantasy, a fable, a yarn . . . a long con . . . indeed, a mathematical and engineering monstrosity of human invention.

It is regrettable that the ID’iot creationer ministries churn out such science loathing, ignorance embracing cultists.

To promote the idea that the biological sciences are some vast conspiracy is pretty typical for religious extremists, the Christian Taliban. I’m afraid it is a case that the ID’iot creationers / Christian Taliban and the rational, thinking world are diametrically opposed to one another. Biological evolution as well as all of the physical sciences are rooted in naturalism, which attributes ALL phenomenon in the universe to natural explanations. This is consistent with all of human history and all of human knowledge. Obviously, this explicitly rules out the supernatural, hence the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural". As we see with all claims to supernaturalism by the ID’iot creationers / Christian Taliban, when they are tasked with demonstrating their gods and the supernatural acts performed by their gods, they fail to do so.

One obvious refutation to the ID’iot creationer claim of a 6,000 year old planet is the stratified order of fossil remains. If all organisms lived within such a timeframe as the ID’iot creationers believe, we would expect to see trilobites, brachiopods, dinosaurs, and mammals (including humans) all randomly mixed together in the worldwide blanket of sedimentary layers. This is not what is observed. The fossil record exhibits an order consistent with the theory of evolution (but inconsistent with ID’iot creationism), from simple forms to more complex forms, and from creatures very unlike modern species to those more closely resembling modern species. In addition, there would be no extinction events found in the fossil record. There are at least five major extinction events in the fossil record.

 

[alang1216]

God is the very definition of supernatural. I'm hearing that God created the Biblical 'kinds' and only then let nature take its course. It seems to me you've dressed up your creationism in some fancy clothes but at its core it is still creationism.

God created each plant and animal perfectly ... nature won't take it's course and blemish that which is created perfectly ... only Man can corrupt what God sets in motion ... the OP is trying to blend the two philosophical arguments into a single cohesive theory, which is just blind ... evolution isn't philosophy ...

Pretty arrogant of man to tell God how he should do things. Man is impatient but God is ageless, maybe evolution is how he likes to work.