Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

[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.

 

[alang1216]

biological history is actually a series of creative events

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

 

[Ringtone]

biological history is actually a series of creative events

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

Natural.

 

[alang1216]

biological history is actually a series of creative events

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

Natural.

And the mechanism?

 

[Ringtone]

biological history is actually a series of creative events

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

Natural.

And the mechanism?

Mechanism for what? Stop talking like Breezewood.

 

[abu afak]

The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that the entirety of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain ofg 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.

Of course Evolution is falsifiable in any number of ways.
If one fossil of millions found was found out of place.
(ie man and dinosaur),
(bird before one celled creatures, etc x1000)
that would falsify it.
But didn't happen... of course.

Or, ie, 'his special creation,' could have No DNA at all. Could be wired uniquely, but of course isn't, just a progression of closer and closer creatures/species in physical and DNA make up.

An Explosion of New Sciences have come along in the last 160 years (DNA, Isotopic dating, etc, etc, etc). and None contradict it.
All relevant one help Confirm it.

And of course any evidence for any god would do it too.
If the stars all lined up overhead one night and spelled 'VISHNU' in Hindi, I would accept it with wonder. It would explain alot.
While you and tens of millions of other religionists of a different tribe would commit suicide.
Your whole lives, history, and holy books now trash.

/idiotic thread

(I skipped the 1 hr Boobtube/conspiracists special)
`
`

 

[ReinyDays]

Mechanism for what? Stop talking like Breezewood.

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

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

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

Where has SARS been hiding all these centuries ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

DNA sequencing supports the claim of common ancestry.

 

[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.

It’s hilarious when the hyper-religious use a gathering of Disco’tute charlatans in an attempt to refute science.

 

[Ringtone]

The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that the entirety of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain ofg 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.

Of course Evolution is falsifiable in any number of ways.
If one fossil of millions found was found out of place.
(ie man and dinosaur),
(bird before one celled creatures, etc x1000)
that would falsify it.
But didn't happen... of course.

Or, ie, 'his special creation,' could have No DNA at all. Could be wired uniquely, but of course isn't, just a progression of closer and closer creatures/species in physical and DNA make up.

An Explosion of New Sciences have come along in the last 160 years (DNA, Isotopic dating, etc, etc, etc). and None contradict it.
All relevant one help Confirm it.

And of course any evidence for any god would do it too.
If the stars all lined up overhead one night and spelled 'VISHNU' in Hindi, I would accept it with wonder. It would explain alot.
While you and tens of millions of other religionists of a different tribe would commit suicide.
Your whole lives, history, and holy books now trash.

/idiotic thread

(I skipped the 1 hr Boobtube/conspiracists special)
`
`

I said that the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism is not falsifiable, and that is the basis of your myth.

 

[Ringtone]

DNA sequencing supports the claim of common ancestry.

How so, precisely?

 

[Ringtone]

It’s hilarious when the hyper-religious use a gathering of Disco’tute charlatans in an attempt to refute science.

It's hilarious how evolutionists make slogan speak.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

DNA sequencing supports the claim of common ancestry.

How so, precisely?

An interesting additional line of evidence supporting evolution involves sequences of DNA known as "pseudogenes." Pseudogenes are remnants of genes that no longer function but continue to be carried along in DNA as excess baggage. Pseudogenes also change through time, as they are passed on from ancestors to descendants, and they offer an especially useful way of reconstructing evolutionary relationships.

With functioning genes, one possible explanation for the relative similarity between genes from different organisms is that their ways of life are similar—for example, the genes from a horse and a zebra could be more similar because of their similar habitats and behaviors than the genes from a horse and a tiger. But this possible explanation does not work for pseudogenes, since they perform no function. Rather, the degree of similarity between pseudogenes must simply reflect their evolutionary relatedness. The more remote the last common ancestor of two organisms, the more dissimilar their pseudogenes will be.

The evidence for evolution from molecular biology is overwhelming and is growing quickly. In some cases, this molecular evidence makes it possible to go beyond the paleontological evidence. For example, it has long been postulated that whales descended from land mammals that had returned to the sea. From anatomical and paleontological evidence, the whales' closest living land relatives seemed to be the even-toed hoofed mammals (modem cattle, sheep, camels, goats, etc.).

Recent comparisons of some milk protein genes (beta-casein and kappa-casein) have confirmed this relationship and have suggested that the closest land-bound living relative of whales may be the hippopotamus. In this case, molecular biology has augmented the fossil record.

Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution - Science and Creationism - NCBI Bookshelf (nih.gov)

 

[Ringtone]

Where has SARS been hiding all these centuries ...

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

 

[Hollie]

It’s hilarious when the hyper-religious use a gathering of Disco’tute charlatans in an attempt to refute science.

It's hilarious how evolutionists make slogan speak.

Nothing, as usual, from the Harun Yahya groupie.

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

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

 

[ReinyDays]

Where has SARS been hiding all these centuries ...

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

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

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

 

[Ringtone]

DNA sequencing supports the claim of common ancestry.

How so, precisely?

An interesting additional line of evidence supporting evolution involves sequences of DNA known as "pseudogenes." Pseudogenes are remnants of genes that no longer function but continue to be carried along in DNA as excess baggage. Pseudogenes also change through time, as they are passed on from ancestors to descendants, and they offer an especially useful way of reconstructing evolutionary relationships.

With functioning genes, one possible explanation for the relative similarity between genes from different organisms is that their ways of life are similar—for example, the genes from a horse and a zebra could be more similar because of their similar habitats and behaviors than the genes from a horse and a tiger. But this possible explanation does not work for pseudogenes, since they perform no function. Rather, the degree of similarity between pseudogenes must simply reflect their evolutionary relatedness. The more remote the last common ancestor of two organisms, the more dissimilar their pseudogenes will be.

The evidence for evolution from molecular biology is overwhelming and is growing quickly. In some cases, this molecular evidence makes it possible to go beyond the paleontological evidence. For example, it has long been postulated that whales descended from land mammals that had returned to the sea. From anatomical and paleontological evidence, the whales' closest living land relatives seemed to be the even-toed hoofed mammals (modem cattle, sheep, camels, goats, etc.).

Recent comparisons of some milk protein genes (beta-casein and kappa-casein) have confirmed this relationship and have suggested that the closest land-bound living relative of whales may be the hippopotamus. In this case, molecular biology has augmented the fossil record.

Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution - Science and Creationism - NCBI Bookshelf (nih.gov)

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

The idea that pseudogenes are merely evolutionary relics has been so ingrained in the scientific community that few studies have actually attempted to find any kind of function for many of the thousands of mammalian pseudogenes. In fact, the first functional role for a pseudogene was found through a study that was not even designed to study pseudogenes:​

​

An expressed pseudogene regulates the messenger-RNA stability of its homologous coding gene​

​

This study was looking at expression of a fruit fly gene that was being inserted into the genes of laboratory mice. The investigators produced several lines of mice by inserting the fruit fly gene randomly into the mouse DNA. However, just one line of the genetically-altered mice was found to have multi-organ failure in at least 80% of the individuals. Instead of discarding the aberrant line, the scientists probed to find out why the insertion was lethal. What they found is that the fruit fly gene had been inserted into the middle of a pseudogene sequence called Makorin1-p1. The scientists found that this pseudogene produced an mRNA product that regulated the expression of the functional Makorin1 gene. Not only was the pseudogene functional, but its destruction resulted in a lethal mutation in the mice. Scientists had found the first required pseudogene.​

​

The abstract from a commentary in an issue of Nature in which the study was published indicated:​

'Pseudogenes' are produced from functional genes during evolution, and are thought to be simply molecular fossils. The unexpected discovery of a biological function for one pseudogene challenges that popular belief ("Complicity of gene and pseudogene").​

Since this first study, many other studies have found that pseudogenes exhibit functional activity, including gene expression, gene regulation, and generation of genetic diversity ("Pseudogenes: Are They 'Junk' or Functional DNA?"). Recent work shows that up to 50% of pseudogenes in some genomes appear to be transcriptionally active ("The Ambiguous Boundary between Genes and Pseudogenes: The Dead Rise Up, or Do They?").​

​

It's been shown that transcripts of "pseudogenes" are involved in gene regulation through RNA interference pathways, and it appears that non-transcribed pseudogenes perform regulatory functions in nearby genes. I agree with those who expect that it will eventually be shown that at least half of all "pseudogenes" are functional, with the remainder playing some role in chromosomal stability and structure.

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

DNA sequencing supports the claim of common ancestry.

How so, precisely?

An interesting additional line of evidence supporting evolution involves sequences of DNA known as "pseudogenes." Pseudogenes are remnants of genes that no longer function but continue to be carried along in DNA as excess baggage. Pseudogenes also change through time, as they are passed on from ancestors to descendants, and they offer an especially useful way of reconstructing evolutionary relationships.

With functioning genes, one possible explanation for the relative similarity between genes from different organisms is that their ways of life are similar—for example, the genes from a horse and a zebra could be more similar because of their similar habitats and behaviors than the genes from a horse and a tiger. But this possible explanation does not work for pseudogenes, since they perform no function. Rather, the degree of similarity between pseudogenes must simply reflect their evolutionary relatedness. The more remote the last common ancestor of two organisms, the more dissimilar their pseudogenes will be.

The evidence for evolution from molecular biology is overwhelming and is growing quickly. In some cases, this molecular evidence makes it possible to go beyond the paleontological evidence. For example, it has long been postulated that whales descended from land mammals that had returned to the sea. From anatomical and paleontological evidence, the whales' closest living land relatives seemed to be the even-toed hoofed mammals (modem cattle, sheep, camels, goats, etc.).

Recent comparisons of some milk protein genes (beta-casein and kappa-casein) have confirmed this relationship and have suggested that the closest land-bound living relative of whales may be the hippopotamus. In this case, molecular biology has augmented the fossil record.

Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution - Science and Creationism - NCBI Bookshelf (nih.gov)

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

The idea that pseudogenes are merely evolutionary relics has been so ingrained in the scientific community that few studies have actually attempted to find any kind of function for many of the thousands of mammalian pseudogenes. In fact, the first functional role for a pseudogene was found through a study that was not even designed to study pseudogenes:​

​

An expressed pseudogene regulates the messenger-RNA stability of its homologous coding gene​

​

This study was looking at expression of a fruit fly gene that was being inserted into the genes of laboratory mice. The investigators produced several lines of mice by inserting the fruit fly gene randomly into the mouse DNA. However, just one line of the genetically-altered mice was found to have multi-organ failure in at least 80% of the individuals. Instead of discarding the aberrant line, the scientists probed to find out why the insertion was lethal. What they found is that the fruit fly gene had been inserted into the middle of a pseudogene sequence called Makorin1-p1. The scientists found that this pseudogene produced an mRNA product that regulated the expression of the functional Makorin1 gene. Not only was the pseudogene functional, but its destruction resulted in a lethal mutation in the mice. Scientists had found the first required pseudogene.​

​

The abstract from a commentary in an issue of Nature in which the study was published indicated:​

'Pseudogenes' are produced from functional genes during evolution, and are thought to be simply molecular fossils. The unexpected discovery of a biological function for one pseudogene challenges that popular belief ("Complicity of gene and pseudogene").​

Since this first study, many other studies have found that pseudogenes exhibit functional activity, including gene expression, gene regulation, and generation of genetic diversity ("Pseudogenes: Are They 'Junk' or Functional DNA?"). Recent work shows that up to 50% of pseudogenes in some genomes appear to be transcriptionally active ("The Ambiguous Boundary between Genes and Pseudogenes: The Dead Rise Up, or Do They?").​

​

It's been shown that transcripts of "pseudogenes" are involved in gene regulation through RNA interference pathways, and it appears that non-transcribed pseudogenes perform regulatory functions in nearby genes. I agree with those who expect that it will eventually be shown that at least half of all "pseudogenes" are functional, with the remainder playing some role in chromosomal stability and structure.

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

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?

 

[Ringtone]

Where has SARS been hiding all these centuries ...

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

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

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

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

We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry. All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time. This in no way, shape or form precludes the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.​

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

 

[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?