Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

[Hollie]

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.”​

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.

Winning!

 

[ReinyDays]

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!

I posted the commonly accepted derivation ... or at least the beginning ... if you can't address the facts stated in that sceintific paper then you don't belong in your own thread ... video schmideo, the guests are philosopers, not mathmeticians ...

The peer-reviewed, scientifically published paper refutes all the videos from ... YouTube ... (ha ha ha ha ha ha) ... I'd admit, it takes a special kind to throw a YouTube video up against 100 years of scientific understanding ... just special ...

 

[Ringtone]

I posted the commonly accepted derivation ... or at least the beginning ... if you can't address the facts stated in that sceintific paper then you don't belong in your own thread ... video schmideo, the guests are philosopers, not mathmeticians ...

The peer-reviewed, scientifically published paper refutes all the videos from ... YouTube ... (ha ha ha ha ha ha) ... I'd admit, it takes a special kind to throw a YouTube video up against 100 years of scientific understanding ... just special ...

How does it do that. Please explain in your own words. Thanks.

In the meantime, PiltDown Man and the Archaeoraptor.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I posted the commonly accepted derivation ... or at least the beginning ... if you can't address the facts stated in that sceintific paper then you don't belong in your own thread ... video schmideo, the guests are philosopers, not mathmeticians ...

The peer-reviewed, scientifically published paper refutes all the videos from ... YouTube ... (ha ha ha ha ha ha) ... I'd admit, it takes a special kind to throw a YouTube video up against 100 years of scientific understanding ... just special ...

How does it do that. Please explain in your own words. Thanks.

In the meantime, PiltDown Man and the Archaeoraptor.

You idiot...you just gave two examples of the strength of the body of science, as it is what ultimately exposed the fakery. Damn you are ignorant. You know less than nothing about evolution or any related topic.

 

[ReinyDays]

The peer-reviewed, scientifically published paper refutes all the videos from ... YouTube ... (ha ha ha ha ha ha) ... I'd admit, it takes a special kind to throw a YouTube video up against 100 years of scientific understanding ... just special ...

How does it do that. Please explain in your own words. Thanks.

Do you understand the coefficient of selection and how it is used in equation 1.0? ... I'm not going to waste my time on you explaining simple high school math ...

 

[ding]

The peer-reviewed, scientifically published paper refutes all the videos from ... YouTube ... (ha ha ha ha ha ha) ... I'd admit, it takes a special kind to throw a YouTube video up against 100 years of scientific understanding ... just special ...

How does it do that. Please explain in your own words. Thanks.

Do you understand the coefficient of selection and how it is used in equation 1.0? ... I'm not going to waste my time on you explaining simple high school math ...

So long as k is small the time taken for any given change in the proportions varies inversely as k?

 

[ding]

We know Darwin got transference wrong. So what's wrong with questioning the origin of species? It's pretty obvious that natural selection is a reasonable explanation for the evolution of species. But it seems a fair point to investigate the origin as that is not so obvious.

 

[james bond]

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

It's not what I say, but what God said. He gave us the Bible Timeline.

So, your evolution timeline is a made up time line by the atheist scientists with the powers that be starting from Darwin, Lyell, and Hutton (two atheists and an ag). I wouldn't trust it because it was created by humans with Satan behind it.

Evolution timeline -- Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia.

"because they exchanged the truth about God for ua lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, vwho is blessed forever! Amen." Romans 1:25

10 Scientific Facts Disproving Evolution

10 Scientific Facts Disproving Evolution

www.christianevidence.net

 

[james bond]

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.

You're on your own and getting beaten up in this thread.

Even Aristotle agrees with me -- Potential Infinite v. Actual Infinite | Aristotle.

So did you lose?

 

[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 ?

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.

Genesis is the truth and not a fable. It is evolution that is a fable. Nothing has been observed and science does not back it up. Genesis is the best explanation for why the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here. It is explained in the pre-Bible Timeline and science backs it up. We also have Answers in Genesis which explains how science backs up the Bible as another source.

The swan neck experiment shows that life won't be found below the surface of Mars because of no abiogenesis.

 

[Hollie]

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

It's not what I say, but what God said. He gave us the Bible Timeline.

So, your evolution timeline is a made up time line by the atheist scientists with the powers that be starting from Darwin, Lyell, and Hutton (two atheists and an ag). I wouldn't trust it because it was created by humans with Satan behind it.

Evolution timeline -- Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia.

"because they exchanged the truth about God for ua lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, vwho is blessed forever! Amen." Romans 1:25

10 Scientific Facts Disproving Evolution

10 Scientific Facts Disproving Evolution

www.christianevidence.net

“What the gods said” is not an argument you want to make. None of the gods said anything in any of the Bibles. Shrubbery spontaneously bursting into flames aside, none of the gods provided direct dictation in the Bibles so I’m curious why you have some illusion about gods (and snakes), conversing with humans.

Your conspiracy theory about Satan being behind the evilutionist atheist timeline of biological evilution is one not uncommon for religious extremists. The problem with such a conspiracy theory is that absent any support for such an entity as a “Satan” and absent any evidence that refutes the evolutionary timeline, your conspiracy theory is better described as a pathology.

It’s a common tactic of ID’iot creation’istas to use “Christian evidence” in an attempt to support their conspiracy theories. That tactic is literally shouting out your bias. Why does evidence need a Christian bias unless the evidence needs a bias to be accepted by Christians? If one is to accept documented, testable evidence, Is Christian evidence necessarily separate and unique from scientific evidence?

Your Bible verse from Romans is problematic. If you had ever read the Genesis fable you would know that the gods lied while the serpent told the truth.

 

[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.

Genesis is the truth and not a fable. It is evolution that is a fable. Nothing has been observed and science does not back it up. Genesis is the best explanation for why the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here. It is explained in the pre-Bible Timeline and science backs it up. We also have Answers in Genesis which explains how science backs up the Bible as another source.

The swan neck experiment shows that life won't be found below the surface of Mars because of no abiogenesis.

Why would you accept the Genesis fable as truth when there are such glaring contradictions? Gods who lie while serpents tell the truth is an obvious contradiction.

Ignoring the evidence for biological evolution while believing contradictory fables is common among Christian extremists. I’m afraid your frantic claims about the Genesis fable as an answer for anything about this planet or the universe is sadly lacking. The earth is not flat. You can start with that fact. As far as science “backs up the Bible”, it’s curious that you offer no support for such a statement.

 

[ReinyDays]

... It is explained in the pre-Bible Timeline and science backs it up ...

Heresy ... there is no pre-Bible time line ... is this your own private religion or something? ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

. So what's wrong with questioning the origin of species?

Nothing at all! Question away. But -- nothing personal -- scientists have been doing that for 160 years. You are probably not going to come up with a question they have not thought of already. So, if someone is honestly questioning the theory, their first act should be to go see what the scientists have learned about that question.

One thing we can safely say, knowing evolution is a fact: all species on Earth share a common ancestor. Not just a species, but one individual of a species was the common ancestor. This is mathematical certainty.

 

[ReinyDays]

This is mathematical certainty.

Approaching certainty ...

 

[ding]

. So what's wrong with questioning the origin of species?

Nothing at all! Question away. But -- nothing personal -- scientists have been doing that for 160 years. You are probably not going to come up with a question they have not thought of already. So, if someone is honestly questioning the theory, their first act should be to go see what the scientists have learned about that question.

One thing we can safely say, knowing evolution is a fact: all species on Earth share a common ancestor. Not just a species, but one individual of a species was the common ancestor. This is mathematical certainty.

You misrepresent science when you say evolution is a fact. You can operate under the assumption that evolution is true but nothing is ever really settled in science.

Can you prove all species share a common ancestor? That is the question, right? That natural selection explains the evolution of species but not their origin.

Do you know why there are no transitional fossils for new species (think drastically different species)?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This is mathematical certainty.

Approaching certainty ...

IF evolution is a fact, it's certainty, is what i mean.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You misrepresent science when you say evolution is a fact.

No. I am not saying science has 100% proven it. I am saying it is as proven as it needs to be for us to call it fact and move on. As with everything, you are free to question or challenge that.

Can you prove all species share a common ancestor?

Now you are misrepresenting science. Science doesn't "prove" hypotheses. All we can do is look at all the evidence and safely assume evolution is, in fact, the origin of the diversity of species. Given this assumption, it is mathematical certainty that all species share a common ancestor.

 

[ding]

You misrepresent science when you say evolution is a fact.

No. I am not saying science has 100% proven it. I am saying it is as proven as it needs to be for us to call it fact and move on. As with everything, you are free to question or challenge that.

Can you prove all species share a common ancestor?

Now you are misrepresenting science. Science doesn't "prove" hypotheses. All we can do is look at all the evidence and safely assume evolution is, in fact, the origin of the diversity of species. Given this assumption, it is mathematical certainty that all species share a common ancestor.

So you are saying that there are scientific facts that can change? If they can change, they are not facts.

So instead of using prove how about can you show me some evidence that supports your "fact" that every species has a common origin.

So is your assertion that you previously claimed was a mathematical certainty a hypothesis, theory or a fact. And if it is a mathematical certainty why are you crawfishing away from the word prove?

 

[ding]

This is mathematical certainty.

Approaching certainty ...

IF evolution is a fact, it's certainty, is what i mean.

It's not a fact. It's called the theory of evolution for good reason.