Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

[ding]

If it is as you say that all transitions would be seen if the fossil record was complete precludes mutations which are dramatic and had no transition.

No. I believe what modern scientists say: that evolution can and does happen at all speeds.

Not when a new species is emerging it doesn't. Let's take humans for instance. Humans from 10,000 years ago have the same physiology as humans today. Very little has changed. Which is the reason the fossil record doesn't capture the transitions. There aren't any.

 

[Ringtone]

Your ID’iot creationer nonsense about mutations is right out of the Henry Morris Academy for the Slow. It is nothing more than the silly ID’iot creationer “what are the odds”, slogans.

These nonsensical “the odds are too great” are stereotypical blathering that ooze from all of the fundamentalist creation ministries.

Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that proteins and the building blocks of life formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.

Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions occurring simultaneously.


To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School for the Silly

I see that you do not directly address the thrust of my argument again, but change the topic and do so by, once again, presupposing evodelution is true and "straw manning" my observation. I never said anything about the calculation of odds in this wise. I said:

The mutations required to affect the kind of change and variation among species we see today from a unicellular organism would involve incalculably extraordinary additions of new information, and that information would have to be present at the very beginning of any significant transmorphic development. Not only does natural selection select from already existing information, it causes a loss of information since unfavorable genes are eventually removed from environmentally separated populations, and the differences in groups of similar organisms that are isolated from one another may eventually become great enough so that the populations no longer interbreed in the wild. Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.​

 

[ding]

Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin[8] is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ding]

A year before their 1972 Eldredge and Gould paper, Niles Eldredge published a paper in the journal Evolution which suggested that gradual evolution was seldom seen in the fossil record and argued that Ernst Mayr's standard mechanism of allopatric speciation might suggest a possible resolution.[6]

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your ID’iot creationer nonsense about mutations is right out of the Henry Morris Academy for the Slow. It is nothing more than the silly ID’iot creationer “what are the odds”, slogans.

These nonsensical “the odds are too great” are stereotypical blathering that ooze from all of the fundamentalist creation ministries.

Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that proteins and the building blocks of life formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.

Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions occurring simultaneously.


To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School for the Silly

I see that you do not directly address the thrust of my argument again, but change the topic and do so by, once again, presupposing evodelution is true and "straw manning" my observation. I never said anything about the calculation of odds in this wise. I said:

The mutations required to affect the kind of change and variation among species we see today from a unicellular organism would involve incalculably extraordinary additions of new information, and that information would have to be present at the very beginning of any significant transmorphic development. Not only does natural selection select from already existing information, it causes a loss of information since unfavorable genes are eventually removed from environmentally separated populations, and the differences in groups of similar organisms that are isolated from one another may eventually become great enough so that the populations no longer interbreed in the wild. Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.​

Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome,

Why not?

 

[Hollie]

Your ID’iot creationer nonsense about mutations is right out of the Henry Morris Academy for the Slow. It is nothing more than the silly ID’iot creationer “what are the odds”, slogans.

These nonsensical “the odds are too great” are stereotypical blathering that ooze from all of the fundamentalist creation ministries.

Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that proteins and the building blocks of life formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.

Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions occurring simultaneously.


To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School for the Silly

I see that you do not directly address the thrust of my argument again, but change the topic and do so by, once again, presupposing evodelution is true and "straw manning" my observation. I never said anything about the calculation of odds in this wise. I said:

The mutations required to affect the kind of change and variation among species we see today from a unicellular organism would involve incalculably extraordinary additions of new information, and that information would have to be present at the very beginning of any significant transmorphic development. Not only does natural selection select from already existing information, it causes a loss of information since unfavorable genes are eventually removed from environmentally separated populations, and the differences in groups of similar organisms that are isolated from one another may eventually become great enough so that the populations no longer interbreed in the wild. Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.​

I see that you are ignoring the failure of the usual ID'iot creationer "the odds are too great", weasel.

These nonsensical “the odds are too great” are stereotypical blathering that ooze from all of the fundamentalist creation ministries.

Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that proteins and the building blocks of life formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.

Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions occurring simultaneously.

Not surprisingly, the religious extremists have only ''the gawds did it" as an explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. That is not an argument but simply an appeal to fear and superstition.

 

[Ringtone]

Actually, Nick Matzke has done some research on this very topic.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242594653_Evolution_in_Brownian_space_a_model_for_the_origin_of_the_bacterial_flagellum

While you’re not aware of the processes of science, it involves a process of hypotheses, theories and testing to see if the model survives rigorous experimentation.

Otherwise, we’re still waiting for publication of that “General Theory of Supernatural Creation”

That seems fair. It’s fair that ID’iot creationer claims to supernatural gods meet the same standard of review that the relevant sciences are subject to.

So, when can we see the ID’iot creationer data supporting a flat earth, creation by supernatural gods, talking snakes, men living to be 900 years old?

Thank you for yet another hypothetical model story predicated on the presupposition of naturalism, and why did you attach it to a post of mine regarding biochemical engineering?

cricket's chirping

 

[ding]

My last comment is that when the ticking time bomb of punctuated equilibrium explodes upon the scene all at once all across the species, the birth of the new species is indistinguishable from the originating species. What they end up becoming is not at all obvious from their early years. It is only when it has matured can the new species be seen for what it is. Hence there won't be any transitional fossils.

 

[ding]

Sort of like it was programmed to emerge.

 

[ding]

Nature filling voids doesn't seem like a random behavior.

 

[Hollie]

Your ID’iot creationer nonsense about mutations is right out of the Henry Morris Academy for the Slow. It is nothing more than the silly ID’iot creationer “what are the odds”, slogans.

These nonsensical “the odds are too great” are stereotypical blathering that ooze from all of the fundamentalist creation ministries.

Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that proteins and the building blocks of life formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.

Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions occurring simultaneously.


To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School for the Silly

I see that you do not directly address the thrust of my argument again, but change the topic and do so by, once again, presupposing evodelution is true and "straw manning" my observation. I never said anything about the calculation of odds in this wise. I said:

The mutations required to affect the kind of change and variation among species we see today from a unicellular organism would involve incalculably extraordinary additions of new information, and that information would have to be present at the very beginning of any significant transmorphic development. Not only does natural selection select from already existing information, it causes a loss of information since unfavorable genes are eventually removed from environmentally separated populations, and the differences in groups of similar organisms that are isolated from one another may eventually become great enough so that the populations no longer interbreed in the wild. Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.​

"Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome,''

Of course they do. This was addressed for you earlier.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not when a new species is emerging it doesn't.

False. Example: two isolated populations of one species undergo gradual changes until they are distinct species.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nature filling voids doesn't seem like a random behavior.

Because it isn't. Selection isn't random.

 

[Hollie]

Actually, Nick Matzke has done some research on this very topic.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242594653_Evolution_in_Brownian_space_a_model_for_the_origin_of_the_bacterial_flagellum

While you’re not aware of the processes of science, it involves a process of hypotheses, theories and testing to see if the model survives rigorous experimentation.

Otherwise, we’re still waiting for publication of that “General Theory of Supernatural Creation”

That seems fair. It’s fair that ID’iot creationer claims to supernatural gods meet the same standard of review that the relevant sciences are subject to.

So, when can we see the ID’iot creationer data supporting a flat earth, creation by supernatural gods, talking snakes, men living to be 900 years old?

Thank you for yet another hypothetical model story predicated on the presupposition of naturalism, and why did you attach it to a post of mine regarding biochemical engineering?

cricket's chirping

I see that you become completely flummoxed when your specious claims are met with a supported rebuttal.

While you’re not aware of the processes of science, it involves a process of hypotheses, theories and testing to see if the model survives rigorous experimentation. The data in the works prepared by Nick Matzke are a direct rebuttal to your unsupported claims. This is all very typical for ID'iot creationers. While you revile science, you seek to shelter yourself under a burqa of fear and ignorance. Your entire participation in this thread, in typical ID'iot creationer fashion, is to try and find a small crack in the science data and then spackle your gods into that crack.

Otherwise, we’re still waiting for publication of that “General Theory of Supernatural Creation”.

 

[Ringtone]

Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome,

Why not?

I actually addressed this earlier with Hollie, but she didn't grasp my point, which causes me to think that she's a copy-and-paste evodelutionist with little real knowledge.

I'll break my observation down with you. . . .

First, do you agree that the standard or classical evolutionary model holds that gene duplication gives rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of new functions? Also, generally, on this model, it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene)?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome,

Why not?

I actually addressed this earlier with Hollie, but she didn't grasp my point, which causes me to think that she's a copy-and-paste evodelutionist with little real knowledge.

I'll break my observation down with you. . . .

First, do you agree that the standard or classical evolutionary model holds that gene duplication gives rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of new functions? Also, generally, on this model, it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene)?

it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene)?

So a mutation can't add new information because it'll kill you or it'll be non-functional?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome,

Why not?

I actually addressed this earlier with Hollie, but she didn't grasp my point, which causes me to think that she's a copy-and-paste evodelutionist with little real knowledge.

I'll break my observation down with you. . . .

First, do you agree that the standard or classical evolutionary model holds that gene duplication gives rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of new functions? Also, generally, on this model, it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene)?

Just make your point. Tell us why mutations cannot add new information. Then we will all laugh at you and point back to the explanation earlier in the thread.

 

[Hollie]

Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome,

Why not?

I actually addressed this earlier with Hollie, but she didn't grasp my point, which causes me to think that she's a copy-and-paste evodelutionist with little real knowledge.

I'll break my observation down with you. . . .

First, do you agree that the standard or classical evolutionary model holds that gene duplication gives rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of new functions? Also, generally, on this model, it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene)?

It seems the relevant science work disagrees with you and those at the Henry Morris Madrassah.

Shirley, you can provide some research data from AIG or Harun Yahya to support your position.

Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information | New Scientist

 

[Ringtone]

Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome,

Why not?

I actually addressed this earlier with Hollie, but she didn't grasp my point, which causes me to think that she's a copy-and-paste evodelutionist with little real knowledge.

I'll break my observation down with you. . . .

First, do you agree that the standard or classical evolutionary model holds that gene duplication gives rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of new functions? Also, generally, on this model, it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene)?

it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene)?

So a mutation can't add new information because it'll kill you or it'll be non-functional?

I didn't say that. This is precisely why I'm breaking things down with you. All I'm asking you right now: do you agree that the above is an apt summary of the standard model regarding gene duplication?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome,

Why not?

I actually addressed this earlier with Hollie, but she didn't grasp my point, which causes me to think that she's a copy-and-paste evodelutionist with little real knowledge.

I'll break my observation down with you. . . .

First, do you agree that the standard or classical evolutionary model holds that gene duplication gives rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of new functions? Also, generally, on this model, it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene)?

it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene)?

So a mutation can't add new information because it'll kill you or it'll be non-functional?

I didn't say that. This is precisely why I'm breaking things down with you. All I'm asking you right now: do you agree that the above is an apt summary of the standard model regarding gene duplication?

Gene duplication adds information.