Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

[Hollie]

I would think you've heard of the Biblical Timeline which was there BEFORE the evolutionary timeline

I.E., our first and worst attempt at that. Turns out it is completely wrong. Children know this.

Growing up you must've heard of the first civilization and they fit in the Biblical Timeline. What does the evolutionary timeline have for first civilization and history?

Odd that the Bible doesn’t account for Chinese civilization, for one example, which predates the Bible.

You need some new Bibles.

Why don't you, Fort Fun Indiana, or ReinyDays answer my question? The evolution timeline is fake.

Your “... because I say so”, comments are of little consequence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I would think you've heard of the Biblical Timeline which was there BEFORE the evolutionary timeline

I.E., our first and worst attempt at that. Turns out it is completely wrong. Children know this.

Growing up you must've heard of the first civilization and they fit in the Biblical Timeline. What does the evolutionary timeline have for first civilization and history?

Odd that the Bible doesn’t account for Chinese civilization, for one example, which predates the Bible.

You need some new Bibles.

Why don't you, Fort Fun Indiana, or ReinyDays answer my question? The evolution timeline is fake.

It isnt. You are wrong. Your question is stupid.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I would think you've heard of the Biblical Timeline which was there BEFORE the evolutionary timeline

I.E., our first and worst attempt at that. Turns out it is completely wrong. Children know this.

Growing up you must've heard of the first civilization and they fit in the Biblical Timeline. What does the evolutionary timeline have for first civilization and history?

Odd that the Bible doesn’t account for Chinese civilization, for one example, which predates the Bible.

You need some new Bibles.

Why don't you, Fort Fun Indiana, or ReinyDays answer my question? The evolution timeline is fake.

An oldie but a goodie:

Sumerians Look On In Confusion As God Creates World

Members of the earth's earliest known civilization, the Sumerians, looked on in shock and confusion some 6,000 years ago as God, the Lord Almighty, created Heaven and Earth.

www.theonion.com

"I do not understand," reads an ancient line of pictographs depicting the sun, the moon, water, and a Sumerian who appears to be scratching his head. "A booming voice is saying, 'Let there be light,' but there is already light. It is saying, 'Let the earth bring forth grass,' but I am already standing on grass."

"Everything is here already," the pictograph continues. "We do not need more stars."

 

[james bond]

I'm not claiming a Bible Timeline a win yet, but we have established the evolution timeline is a fake and does not reflect history. Otherwise, you would be all over me with the history

 

[james bond]

Here is the WINNING shot.

From a practical viewpoint, the Bible timeline on which most scholars agree starts with Abram, renamed “Abraham” by God in the year 2166 BC (Genesis 17:4-6). Prior to that, we have the beginning in Genesis contains a rich history of creation, Adam and Eve, the Fall of Man, extensive genealogies, stories of human travails leading up to Noah, and the Great Flood (date unknown), and much more. I don't expect you to believe that as we do not know the time frame.

Don't Fort Fun Indiana, Hollie, and ReinyDays ever wish they took the WINNING shot with evolution ?

 

[james bond]

I would think you've heard of the Biblical Timeline which was there BEFORE the evolutionary timeline

I.E., our first and worst attempt at that. Turns out it is completely wrong. Children know this.

Growing up you must've heard of the first civilization and they fit in the Biblical Timeline. What does the evolutionary timeline have for first civilization and history?

Odd that the Bible doesn’t account for Chinese civilization, for one example, which predates the Bible.

You need some new Bibles.

Why don't you, Fort Fun Indiana, or ReinyDays answer my question? The evolution timeline is fake.

An oldie but a goodie:

Sumerians Look On In Confusion As God Creates World

Members of the earth's earliest known civilization, the Sumerians, looked on in shock and confusion some 6,000 years ago as God, the Lord Almighty, created Heaven and Earth.

www.theonion.com

"I do not understand," reads an ancient line of pictographs depicting the sun, the moon, water, and a Sumerian who appears to be scratching his head. "A booming voice is saying, 'Let there be light,' but there is already light. It is saying, 'Let the earth bring forth grass,' but I am already standing on grass."

"Everything is here already," the pictograph continues. "We do not need more stars."

The Onion is a satirical website. It reflects your evolution timeline which no one has ever seen. It's more potential history and timeline that has not been proven in actual history like the Bible Timeline. See how evolution is NOT A FACT and is a LIE if no one has ever seen it?

 

[Ringtone]

. . . Force, A., M. Lynch, F.B. Pickett, A. Amores, Y.-L. Yan, and J. Postlethwait. The preservation of duplicate genes by complementary degenerative mutations. Genetics 151:1531-1545. 1999.

Gene duplication is commonly given as the explanation for the increase in complexity via the acquisition of new functions. This paper addresses the standard scenario of duplication followed by either an adaptive mutation leading to the preservation of both genes or followed by degeneration of one of the copies. Since detrimental mutations are more likely than benificial mutations, the classical model predict that one of the duplicated genes will become a psuedogene. Actual data seems to indicate that the number of functional copies is larger than expected from the classical model and the authors present an interesting alternative. The alternative explains duplicate gene preservation by the fixation of a degenerative mutation rather than a more rare benificial mutations. The authors also present data from the Zebrafish consistent with this new model.

ABSTRACT The origin of organismal complexity is generally thought to be tightly coupled to the evolution of new gene functions arising subsequent to gene duplication. Under the classical model for the evolution of duplicate genes, one member of the duplicated pair usually degenerates within a few million years by accumulating deleterious mutations, while the other duplicate retains the original function. This model further predicts that on rare occasions, one duplicate may acquire a new adaptive function, resulting in the preservation of both members of the pair, one with the new function and the other retaining the old. However, empirical data suggest that a much greater proportion of gene duplicates is preserved than predicted by the classical model. Here we present a new conceptual framework for understanding the evolution of duplicate genes that may help explain this conundrum. Focusing on the regulatory complexity of eukaryotic genes, we show how complementary degenerative mutations in different regulatory elements of duplicated genes can facilitate the preservation of both duplicates, thereby increasing long-term opportunities for the evolution of new gene functions. The duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC) model predicts that (1) degenerative mutations in regulatory elements can increase rather than reduce the probability of duplicate gene preservtion and (2) the usual mechanism of duplicate gene preservation is the partitioning of ancestral functions rather than the evolution of new functions. We present several examples (including analysis of a new engrailed gene in zebrafish) that appear to be consistent with the DDC model, and we suggest several analytical and experimental approaches for determining whether the complementary loss of gene subfunctions or the acquisition of novel functions are likely to be the primary mechanisms for the preservation of gene duplicates.

Hilarious! Please explain how this refutes my observations regarding the DDC model and the subsequent preservation of the duplicate genes in the mutationally derived degenerative-complementary pathways that optimize the functions of the original gene. Please do so in your own words, as one who has first-hand knowledge and understanding of the matter; you know, like I did.

Thanks.

P.S. I suggest you read your citation very carefully again before you proceed.

 

[Ringtone]

g transacted, so technically it's not a fraud, just a lie ...

Where is your disproof of common descent? ...

The video is just a philosophical statement ... and is mistaken ... the claims apply to vector spaces well enough but outside this type of grouping things aren't quite as absolute as the video assumes ... for example, 1 + 1 = 2 is only true with our definition of addition, change the definition and we come up with a different answer ...

The mathematics of population genetics is discussed in the video. Watch the video! Then let's have your refutation of their observations in your own words.

Thanks.

Still winning!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

You can't disprove it, so it is not a fraud. While evolution and its common ancestor has been disproven many times.
The math proof is explained here.

The mathematical proof hasn't been submitted, thus the proof becomes a lie of omission ... I agree there's no money being transacted, so technically it's not a fraud, just a lie ...

Where is your disproof of common descent? ...

The video is just a philosophical statement ... and is mistaken ... the claims apply to vector spaces well enough but outside this type of grouping things aren't quite as absolute as the video assumes ... for example, 1 + 1 = 2 is only true with our definition of addition, change the definition and we come up with a different answer ...

The mathematics of population genetics is discussed in the video. Watch the video!

Why? It's not as if you ever watched it.

 

[there4eyeM]

All this just to arrive at the point of saying, "We don't know definitively". Yet, so many must pin a name on the process, because then we would have some control over it.
Fortunately, some of us are content to view the wonders of life and the universe and accept that no comprehensive answer satisfactory to all is possible. We laugh at your frustration, feeling none ourselves. We are quite happy to accept, with gratitude, an existence that is inexplicable, painful and pleasurable, frustrating to our limited egos and inexhaustible in our imaginings.

 

[Ringtone]

I have it right. It is the atheists and their scientists who believe in potential infinities as actual infinities in the natural world. They do not understand potential infinities and actual infinities. Actual infinities exist ONLY in the supernatural world. It is potential infinities that exist in the natural world. For example, we can have a set of counting numbers. Cosmologists may disagree, but the universe has to be bounded or else we can have an infinite past and other crazy things. Scientists believed in an infinite universe before the big bang theory and it was disproven.

No, James, you don't have it right, and I don't need you to explain to me what potential and actual infinities are, and, subsequently, what the distinction between potential and actual infinities. is. I grasp these thing. What you don't grasp is what an actual infinite is.

You keep saying that "[a]ctual infinities exist ONLY in the supernatural world."

False! The supernatural world has nothing to do with the price of beans in China.

They exist in both the natural and supernatural world, albeit, as mathematical concepts in minds ONLY. They conceptually exist in the minds of man, angels and God. An actual infinite is the concept of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things or a a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something. The place where actual infinities do not have existentiality is outside of minds. Period.

 

[Hollie]

. . . Force, A., M. Lynch, F.B. Pickett, A. Amores, Y.-L. Yan, and J. Postlethwait. The preservation of duplicate genes by complementary degenerative mutations. Genetics 151:1531-1545. 1999.

Gene duplication is commonly given as the explanation for the increase in complexity via the acquisition of new functions. This paper addresses the standard scenario of duplication followed by either an adaptive mutation leading to the preservation of both genes or followed by degeneration of one of the copies. Since detrimental mutations are more likely than benificial mutations, the classical model predict that one of the duplicated genes will become a psuedogene. Actual data seems to indicate that the number of functional copies is larger than expected from the classical model and the authors present an interesting alternative. The alternative explains duplicate gene preservation by the fixation of a degenerative mutation rather than a more rare benificial mutations. The authors also present data from the Zebrafish consistent with this new model.

ABSTRACT The origin of organismal complexity is generally thought to be tightly coupled to the evolution of new gene functions arising subsequent to gene duplication. Under the classical model for the evolution of duplicate genes, one member of the duplicated pair usually degenerates within a few million years by accumulating deleterious mutations, while the other duplicate retains the original function. This model further predicts that on rare occasions, one duplicate may acquire a new adaptive function, resulting in the preservation of both members of the pair, one with the new function and the other retaining the old. However, empirical data suggest that a much greater proportion of gene duplicates is preserved than predicted by the classical model. Here we present a new conceptual framework for understanding the evolution of duplicate genes that may help explain this conundrum. Focusing on the regulatory complexity of eukaryotic genes, we show how complementary degenerative mutations in different regulatory elements of duplicated genes can facilitate the preservation of both duplicates, thereby increasing long-term opportunities for the evolution of new gene functions. The duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC) model predicts that (1) degenerative mutations in regulatory elements can increase rather than reduce the probability of duplicate gene preservtion and (2) the usual mechanism of duplicate gene preservation is the partitioning of ancestral functions rather than the evolution of new functions. We present several examples (including analysis of a new engrailed gene in zebrafish) that appear to be consistent with the DDC model, and we suggest several analytical and experimental approaches for determining whether the complementary loss of gene subfunctions or the acquisition of novel functions are likely to be the primary mechanisms for the preservation of gene duplicates.

Hilarious! Please explain how this refutes my observations regarding the DDC model and the subsequent preservation of the duplicate genes in the mutationally derived degenerative-complementary pathways that optimize the functions of the original gene. Please do so in your own words, as one who has first-hand knowledge and understanding of the matter; you know, like I did.

Thanks.

P.S. I suggest you read your citation very carefully again before you proceed.

Fundies are a total hoot. I suggest you carefully read what was provided to you. If you have additional questions, you might want to consider learning some basic biology so you’re prepared to ask legitimate questions.

 

[Ringtone]

All this just to arrive at the point of saying, "We don't know definitively". Yet, so many must pin a name on the process, because then we would have some control over it.
Fortunately, some of us are content to view the wonders of life and the universe and accept that no comprehensive answer satisfactory to all is possible. We laugh at your frustration, feeling none ourselves. We are quite happy to accept, with gratitude, an existence that is inexplicable, painful and pleasurable, frustrating to our limited egos and inexhaustible in our imaginings.

Your observation is not profound. It's fallacious, arrogant and obtuse.

 

[Ringtone]

Fundies are a total hoot. I suggest you carefully read what was provided to you. If you have additional questions, you might want to consider learning some basic biology so you’re prepared to ask legitimate questions.

Well, since you cannot explain your implied refutation in your own words. . . .

Have you ever stood in crowded halls and listened to the footfalls

that approach you and pass you and leave you stranded?​

Have you ever sensed the faint and weightless drift beyond the temporal stream?
Did you touch it?
Did you taste it?
Were you frightened?
Have you ever stood in the pouring rain?
Or felt a Dread so acute that you believed yourself to be teetering

on the very edge of the blackest hole in your brain?​

Did you fall?
Have you ever walked on a rainbow?
Or felt the touch of a child’s hand—frail and tiny—

wrap itself around your smallest finger?​

Did the air hold its breath?
Did time stop?
Did you stop?
I should have been a monstrous insect, with fetid breath,

hanging on your bedroom wall.​

 

[Hollie]

Here is the WINNING shot.

From a practical viewpoint, the Bible timeline on which most scholars agree starts with Abram, renamed “Abraham” by God in the year 2166 BC (Genesis 17:4-6). Prior to that, we have the beginning in Genesis contains a rich history of creation, Adam and Eve, the Fall of Man, extensive genealogies, stories of human travails leading up to Noah, and the Great Flood (date unknown), and much more. I don't expect you to believe that as we do not know the time frame.

Don't Fort Fun Indiana, Hollie, and ReinyDays ever wish they took the WINNING shot with evolution ?

Using gotquestions.org as a source is hardly a reason anyone other than you should accept it.

The Genesis fable is hardly a “rich history of creation”. It’s a couple of chapters written by unknown author(s), containing some obvious absurdities.

 

[Hollie]

Fundies are a total hoot. I suggest you carefully read what was provided to you. If you have additional questions, you might want to consider learning some basic biology so you’re prepared to ask legitimate questions.

Well, since you cannot explain your implied refutation in your own words. . . .

Have you ever stood in crowded halls and listened to the footfalls

that approach you and pass you and leave you stranded?​

Have you ever sensed the faint and weightless drift beyond the temporal stream?
Did you touch it?
Did you taste it?
Were you frightened?
Have you ever stood in the pouring rain?
Or felt a Dread so acute that you believed yourself to be teetering

on the very edge of the blackest hole in your brain?​

Did you fall?
Have you ever walked on a rainbow?
Or felt the touch of a child’s hand—frail and tiny—

wrap itself around your smallest finger?​

Did the air hold its breath?
Did time stop?
Did you stop?
I should have been a monstrous insect, with fetid breath,

hanging on your bedroom wall.​

Well, since you’re unable, as usual, to support your specious claims, you are forced to retreat to your usual tactic of spamming threads with off topic nonsense.

 

[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.

I thought it was pretty darn funny that the charlatans at the Disco’tute were unable to produce a biologist within a discussion of biological evolution.

Outside of fundamentalist religious ministries and repositories for religious cranks such as the Disco’tute, evolutionary biologists do research and publish in peer reviewed journals addressing not just questions related to matters of evolutionary science, but also to matters such as development and testing of computational tools that are used to study evolutionary biology.

 

[Ringtone]

Well, since you’re unable, as usual, to support your specious claims, you are forced to retreat to your usual tactic of spamming threads with off topic nonsense.

Liar. You implied your copy-and-paste refutes my observations. It does not. You really don't have any first-hand knowledge or understanding, do you?

Still winning!

 

[Hollie]

Well, since you’re unable, as usual, to support your specious claims, you are forced to retreat to your usual tactic of spamming threads with off topic nonsense.

Liar. You implied your copy-and-paste refutes my observations. It does not. You really don't have any first-hand knowledge or understanding, do you?

Still winning!

I can’t help but notice you’re a sore loser. Suggesting your silly poetry addresses anything but your lack of training and knowledge in the sciences advises...

You’re still losing!

 

[Ringtone]

I can’t help but notice you’re a sore loser. Suggesting your silly poetry addresses anything but your lack of training and knowledge in the sciences advises...

You’re still losing!

I have seen the blood that flows from Private altars,
That glistens on wasted flesh and bone.
I have seen the tiny severed Fingers—

pink, adrift in murky, black waters.​

In all my feverish dreams I hear their muted screams,
And in their eyes, those bewildered eyes turned on callous faces,
I see a plea . . . and the wounded face of God.

“It is our Right!” they rant. “Our Right!”​

Yes,” I whisper, small and foolish,​

“But the Babies, the little Babies.”​