Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Haha. Not altering your DNA.

I see. I thought you meant that, as this is a myth often espoused by irrational GMO fearmongers like you.

Yes Bond, we understand that DNA is modified in genetically modified organisms. I mean..it's right there in the name, bro.

And your point is...?

 

[james bond]

And your point is...?

You couldn't figure out what I meant and was wrong due to being soooooooooo defensive about GMO causing cancer.

If it was safe, then there would be no need for you to be defensive. In fact, I said why doesn't the GMO groups just tell us by labeling the GMO foods and ingredients, i.e. go on a marketing offensive like the non-GMO groups? People just have to look for the "organic" or "non-GMO" logo. No need to be against labeling.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You couldn't figure out what I meant and was wrong due to being soooooooooo defensive about GMO causing cancer.

No, i explained why: the anti-gmo kooks often spread that ridiculous talking point.

In the topic isnt you misunderstanding me. It's you misunderstanding GMOs.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In fact, I said why doesn't the GMO groups just tell us by labeling the GMO foods and ingredients, i.e. go on a marketing offensive like the non-GMO groups?

Because they know irrational fear of GMOs -- like the horseshit you are peddling -- will harm their revenue.

 

[james bond]

Instead, we have to have this kind of labeling in states where they are forcing cos to label.

Doesn't sound very appetizing you know what I mean?

In the topic isnt you misunderstanding me. It's you misunderstanding GM

It's not just me. There are a whole bunch of people for non-GMOs, Trader Joe's and Whole Foods Market, and more stores are successful in reaching this market.

In fact, the non-GMO label has taken the lead in terms of marketing and rising sales due to the pro-GMO cos and spending big money to hide and defeat measures for more openness. Why would they do that when it could be a a sign of quality and safety? Are you saying it isn't? For example, it may be safe, but less quality? Remember, I said foods can be fast, cheap, and good, but you can only have two?

I think it makes their food look shady, secretive, and unsafe when you said it was safe.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Doesn't sound very appetizing you know what I mean?

Sounds just fine to me, because I don't possess an irrational fear of GMOs.

There are a whole bunch of people for non-GMOs, Trader Joe's and Whole Foods Market, and more stores.

Yes, I have pointed that out twice, now. Though, let me help you out, since you are a bit gullible: Those businesses you mentioned are capitalizing on irrational people.

 

[Ringtone]

The inductions and deductions from properties of Identity matrix - Wikipedia are closely related with interpretations about monism.

Philosophical monism, right?

Following the order of the discourse, the above alludes to the countably infinite set of natural/counting numbers, yes?

A clear scope for the meaning of an Irrational number - Wikipedia could be useful.

An element with infinitude does not directly imply that an irrational number is magnanimous.

Consider an irrational number , for example the ratio of square root of 2 and 2 , or sqrt ( 2 ) / 2 , the irrational number is bounded , meaning that numbers on either side of the irrational number can be chosen to indicate an upper and lower bound , however choosing numbers nearer to the infinite number below the upper bound and above the lower bound until the distance between the numbers chosen and the number itself is zero does not ever occur .

Where an irrational number is presumed its properties are perceived to be indeterminate and more colloquially described as infinite , or perpetual , or without end when applying hermeneutics.

In antiquity an irrational number was denoted as a Surd - Wikipedia .

Taylor's theorem - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I agree with the above, but I'm not sure I follow you below. Given the order of discourse, I wrote:

The mathematical concepts of infinitudes (i.e., actual infinities) and logic certainly point to the existential necessity of the eternal, but from that it does not follow, assuming I understand you correctly, that the eternal existent is an actual infinite.

Then you wrote:

An eternal existence would be an identity set with identity elements that have a quality of infinitude.

An identity set can be a singular infinitesimal element or an identity set can be a set with an infinite value of identity elements each with a property of infinitude, as infinitesimals, as monads.

Again, assuming I understand what you're getting at, my response would be that the eternal existent could not be either a physical composite nor a qualitatively divisible being, but would necessarily be a comprehensively self-subsistent whole entailing all attributes of greatness and perfection at once! In other words, for example, humanity's set of knowledge is an aggregate. God understands all things at once in a comprehensively indivisible cognition.

The state or quality of infinitude pertains to a physical magnitude with no limit, which is an absurdity, or to a conceptual magnitude with no limit, the latter being the mathematical concept of a boundlessly large, indeterminate quantity or value, which only exists in minds as an idea.

For the sake of clarity, do you subscribe to philosophical monism?

I subscribe to things which are interesting to me and philosophical monism is interesting to me, there are also contributions to be made.

Fair enough.

Yes, after a fashion, namely, in the revelational sense regarding the existential necessity of the eternal.

* Proof Must Be Falsifiable *

Fair enough, but proof in what sense?

 

[james bond]

Doesn't sound very appetizing you know what I mean?

Sounds just fine to me, because I don't possess an irrational fear of GMOs.

There are a whole bunch of people for non-GMOs, Trader Joe's and Whole Foods Market, and more stores.

Yes, I have pointed that out twice, now. Though, let me help you out, since you are a bit gullible: Those businesses you mentioned are capitalizing on irrational people.

I know that, but that isn't my point. It's about why the genetic engineering cos aren't more open and embrace a logo for GMO products. You don't want produced by genetic engineering or genetically engineered on the label. Why not have a nice logo to be proud of it as a mark of quality and safety?

The way they are behaving, it makes the processing of the food sound worse and have the opposite effect. If it's a benefit, then why not capitalize on it?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's about why the genetic engineering cos aren't more open and embrace a logo for GMO products.

Which I have directly addressed twice, only to have you ignore my direct point twice. Why are you like this?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Doesn't sound very appetizing you know what I mean?

Why do you feel that?

 

[james bond]

It's about why the genetic engineering cos aren't more open and embrace a logo for GMO products.

Which I have directly addressed twice, only to have you ignore my direct point twice. Why are you like this?

I thought you meant the non-GMO cos were capitalizing on gullible people. What are the GMO cos doing? They're scaring the same customers away into the hands of the non-GMOs.

It's clear you do not understand marketing.

 

[james bond]

Doesn't sound very appetizing you know what I mean?

Why do you feel that?

It could be poison. Monsanto makes Roundup. Many people want foods that is natural and nutritious. They want food that taste good. You didn't understand the cheap, fast, and good of food processing.

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

Is that you, Ding?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I thought you meant the non-GMO cos were capitalizing on gullible people.

They are, absolutely. As is every single grocery store, or restaurant that features "Non-GMO!"

What are the GMO cos doing? They're scaring the same customers away into the hands of the non-GMOs.

Total nonsense. For one...how do you know the product is GMO, if not labelled as such? This simple question makes your point look pretty stupid.

They know it is not smart to accept the labelling, because irrational people like you will suddenly stop buying their product. It isn't rocket surgery. But you will be you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It could be poison.

What could be poison? This should be hilarious.

 

[Ringtone]

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.

Is that you, Ding?

I don't subscribe to naturalism, but to an open-ended, methodological naturalism, and I don't believe for one moment that chemical evolution (abiogenesis) or biological evolution are possible. See OP again and see Ding's stance. We are not the same person, dummy. I told you that before.

Does that answer your question?

 

[ReinyDays]

Instead, we have to have this kind of labeling in states where they are forcing cos to label.

Doesn't sound very appetizing you know what I mean?

In the topic isnt you misunderstanding me. It's you misunderstanding GM

It's not just me. There are a whole bunch of people for non-GMOs, Trader Joe's and Whole Foods Market, and more stores are successful in reaching this market.

In fact, the non-GMO label has taken the lead in terms of marketing and rising sales due to the pro-GMO cos and spending big money to hide and defeat measures for more openness. Why would they do that when it could be a a sign of quality and safety? Are you saying it isn't? For example, it may be safe, but less quality? Remember, I said foods can be fast, cheap, and good, but you can only have two?

I think it makes their food look shady, secretive, and unsafe when you said it was safe.

Do you know what's sprayed on this corn by the farmers? ...

 

[Hollie]

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.

Is that you, Ding?

I don't subscribe to naturalism, but to an open-ended, methodological naturalism, and I don't believe for one moment that chemical evolution (abiogenesis) or biological evolution are possible. See OP again and see Ding's stance. We are not the same person, dummy. I told you that before.

Does that answer your question?

You’re certainly free to believe in a flat earth, that your gods magically created the planet 6,000 years ago. Believe what you want.

As it was delineated for you earlier, there is no requirement for “belief” when the facts are confirmed by data. Biological evolution is a fact confirmed by the data.

Everyone can understand that YEC’ists feel threatened by science because science matters such as biological evolution present direct challenges to the YEC’ist vision of supernatural creation, Arks cruising the seas, “kinds” two by two and their comforting fables.

 

[Ringtone]

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.

Is that you, Ding?

I don't subscribe to naturalism, but to an open-ended, methodological naturalism, and I don't believe for one moment that chemical evolution (abiogenesis) or biological evolution are possible. See OP again and see Ding's stance. We are not the same person, dummy. I told you that before.

Does that answer your question?

You’re certainly free to believe in a flat earth, that your gods magically created the planet 6,000 years ago. Believe what you want.

As it was delineated for you earlier, there is no requirement for “belief” when the facts are confirmed by data. Biological evolution is a fact confirmed by the data.

Everyone can understand that YEC’ists feel threatened by science because science matters such as biological evolution present direct challenges to the YEC’ist vision of supernatural creation, Arks cruising the seas, “kinds” two by two and their comforting fables.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Is that you, Ding?

I don't subscribe to naturalism, but to an open-ended, methodological naturalism, and I don't believe for one moment that chemical evolution (abiogenesis) or biological evolution are possible. See OP again and see Ding's stance. We are not the same person, dummy. I told you that before.

Does that answer your question?

You’re certainly free to believe in a flat earth, that your gods magically created the planet 6,000 years ago. Believe what you want.

As it was delineated for you earlier, there is no requirement for “belief” when the facts are confirmed by data. Biological evolution is a fact confirmed by the data.

Everyone can understand that YEC’ists feel threatened by science because science matters such as biological evolution present direct challenges to the YEC’ist vision of supernatural creation, Arks cruising the seas, “kinds” two by two and their comforting fables.

YEC’ists retreat to cartoons because they’re incapable of refuting facts.