|
Title: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: BADecker on April 29, 2016, 08:01:00 PM The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution (http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/)
According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away. Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people—until it is examined quantitatively, that is! For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense. Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most. But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (˝)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts." The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021. All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible! 8) Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: Gaugh on April 30, 2016, 12:35:34 PM I quite agree with your analysis, even scientists are now agreeing with the idea that life was created, it didn't evolve. They just don't know who created life, you and I both know God did.
Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: Gleb Gamow on May 01, 2016, 12:04:42 AM hahahaha Don't laugh! I, too, don't lean toward creation, but have to admit that the OP got me to a thinkin'. Further, I'd say it's a stronger argument than what the Flat Earthers present, they, too, got me to a thinkin', albeit not as much as the OP above (this thread, not the dome). Title: Intervention Theory: An alternative to Darwinism and Creationism Post by: qwik2learn on May 01, 2016, 05:59:19 AM THE EMERGENCE OF DOMESTICATED PLANTS (http://www.whale.to/b/pye1.html)
Quote from: http://www.whale.to/b/pye1.html Nearly all domesticated plants are believed to have appeared between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago, with different groups coming to different parts of the world at different times. Initially, in the so-called Fertile Crescent of modern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, came wheat, barley and legumes, among other varieties. Later on, in the Far East, came wheat, millet, rice and yams. Later still, in the New World, came maize (corn), peppers, beans, squash, tomatoes and potatoes. Many have "wild" predecessors that were apparently a starting point for the domesticated variety, but others--like many common vegetables--have no obvious precursors. But for those that do, such as wild grasses, grains and cereals, how they turned into wheat, barley, millet, rice, etc. is a profound mystery. No botanist can conclusively explain how wild plants gave rise to domesticated ones. The emphasis here is on "conclusively". Botanists have no trouble hypothesising elaborate scenarios in which Neolithic (New Stone Age) farmers somehow figured out how to hybridise wild grasses, grains and cereals, not unlike Gregor Mendel when he cross-bred pea plants to figure out the mechanics of genetic inheritance. It all sounds so simple and so logical, almost no one outside scientific circles ever examines it closely. But that brings up what Charles Darwin himself called the "abominable mystery" of flowering plants. The first ones appear in the fossil record between 150 and 130 million years ago, primed to multiply into over 200,000 known species. But no one can explain their presence because there is no connective link to any form of plants that preceded them. It is as if--dare I say it?--they were brought to Earth by something akin to You Know What. If so, then it could well be that they were delivered with a built-in capacity to develop multiple chromosome sets, and somehow our Neolithic forebears cracked the codes for the ones most advantageous to humans. However the codes were cracked, the great expansion of genetic material in each cell of the domestic varieties caused them to grow much larger than their wild ancestors. As they grew, their seeds and grains became large enough to be easily seen and picked up and manipulated by human fingers. Simultaneously, the seeds and grains softened to a degree where they could be milled, cooked and consumed. And at the same time, their cellular chemistry was altered enough to begin providing nourishment to humans who ate them. The only word that remotely equates with that achievement is: miracle. Of course, "miracle" implies that there was actually a chance that such complex manipulations of nature could be carried out by primitive yeomen in eight geographical areas over 5,000 years. This strains credulity because, in each case, in each area, someone actually had to look at a wild progenitor and imagine what it could become, or should become, or would become. Then they somehow had to ensure that their vision would be carried forward through countless generations that had to remain committed to planting, harvesting, culling and crossbreeding wild plants that put no food on their tables during their lifetimes, but which might feed their descendants in some remotely distant future. It is difficult to try to concoct a more unlikely, more absurd, scenario, yet to modern-day botanists it is a gospel they believe with a fervor that puts many "six day" Creationists to shame. Why? Because to confront its towering absurdity would force them to turn to You Know What for a more logical and plausible explanation. To domesticate a wild plant without using artificial (i.e., genetic) manipulation, it must be modified by directed crossbreeding, which is only possible through the efforts of humans. So the equation is simple. Firstly, wild ancestors for many (but not all) domestic plants do seem apparent. Secondly, most domesticated versions did appear from 10,000 to 5,000 years ago. Thirdly, the humans alive at that time were primitive barbarians. Fourthly, in the past 5,000 years, no plants have been domesticated that are nearly as valuable as the dozens that were "created" by the earliest farmers all around the world. Put an equal sign after those four factors and it definitely does not add up to any kind of Darwinian model. Botanists know they have a serious problem here, but all they can suggest is that it simply had to have occurred by natural means because no other intervention--by God or You Know What--can be considered under any circumstances. That unwavering stance is maintained by all scientists, not just botanists, to exclude overwhelming evidence such as the fact that in 1837 the Botanical Garden in St Petersburg, Russia, began concerted attempts to cultivate wild rye into a new form of domestication. They are still trying, because their rye has lost none of its wild traits, especially the fragility of its stalk and its small grain. Therein lies the most embarrassing conundrum botanists face. Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: criptix on May 01, 2016, 11:27:17 AM ^
The barbarians at that time were building pyramids and that stuff lmao. Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: nihilnegativum on May 01, 2016, 01:15:49 PM I love how he imagines living beings as being composed of legos, like mutations happen when someone randomly grows another nose or something.
Title: Re: Intervention Theory: An alternative to Darwinism and Creationism Post by: qwik2learn on May 01, 2016, 05:50:27 PM I love how he imagines living beings as being composed of legos, like mutations happen when someone randomly grows another nose or something. Mutations, eh? Have a closer read from the essay I am quoting:TWEEDLEDUM AND TWEEDLEDEE (http://www.whale.to/b/pye1.html) Quote from: http://www.whale.to/b/pye1.html Plants and animals evolve, eh? Alright, how do they evolve? By gradual but constant changes, influenced by adaptive pressures in their environment that cause physical modifications to persist if they are advantageous. Can you specify the kind of gradual change you're referring to? In any population of plants or animals, over time, random genetic mutations will occur. Most will be detrimental, some will have a neutral effect and some will confer a selective advantage, however small or seemingly inconsequential it might appear. Really? But wouldn't the overall population have a gene pool deep enough to absorb and dilute even a large change? Wouldn't a small change rapidly disappear? Well, yes, it probably would. But not in an isolated segment of the overall population. An isolated group would have a much shallower gene pool, so positive mutations would stand a much better chance of establishing a permanent place in it. Really? What if that positive mutation gets established in the isolated group, then somehow the isolated group gets back together with the main population? Poof! The mutation will be absorbed and disappear. Well, maybe. So let's make sure the isolated population can't get back with the main group until crossbreeding is no longer possible. How would you do that? Put a mountain range between them, something impossible to cross. If it's impossible to cross, how did the isolated group get there in the first place? If you're asking me just how isolated is isolated, let me ask you one. What kind of mutations were you talking about being absorbed? Small, absolutely random changes in base pairs at the gene level. Really? Why not at the chromosome level? Wouldn't change at the base pair level be entirely too small to create any significant change? Wouldn't a mutation almost have to be at the chromosome level to be noticeable? Who says? Change at that level would probably be too much, something the organism couldn't tolerate. Maybe we're putting too much emphasis on mutations. Right! What about environmental pressures? What if a species suddenly found itself having to survive in a significantly changed environment? One where its members must adapt to the new circumstances or die out? Exactly! How would they adapt? Could they just will themselves to grow thicker fur or stronger muscles or larger size? That sounds like mutations have to play a part. Mutations, eh? All right, how do they play a part? This game of intellectual thrust and parry goes on constantly at levels of minutiae that boggle an average mind. Traditional Darwinists are one-upped by neo-Darwinists at every turn. Quantum evolutionists refashion the work of those who support the theory of peripheral isolates. Mathematicians model mutation rates and selective forces, which biologists do not trust. Geneticists have little use for palaeontologists, who return the favour in spades (pun intended). Cytogenetics labours to find a niche alongside genetics proper. Population geneticists utilise mathematical models that challenge palaeontologists and systematists. Sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists struggle to make room for their ideas. All perform a cerebral dance of elegant form and exquisite symmetry. Their dance is, ironically, evolution writ large throughout science as a process. New bits of data are put forth to a peer group. The new data are discussed, written about, criticised, written about again, criticised some more. This is gradualism at work, shaping, reshaping and reshaping again if necessary until the new data can comfortably fit into the current paradigm in any field, whatever it is. This is necessary to make it conform as closely as possible to every concerned scientist's current way of thinking. To do it any other way is to invite prompt rejection under a fusillade of withering criticism. This system of excruciating "peer review" is how independent thinkers among scientists have always been kept in line. Darwin was an outsider until he barged into the club by sheer, overpowering brilliance. Patent clerk Einstein did the same. On the other hand, Alfred Wegener was the German meteorologist who figured out plate tectonics in 1915. Because he dared to bruise the egos of "authorities" outside his own field, he saw his brilliant discovery buried under spiteful criticism that held it down for 50 years. Every scientist in the game knows how it is played--and very few dare to challenge its rules. The restrictions on scientists are severe, but for a very good reason. They work at the leading edges of knowledge, from where the view can be anything from confusing to downright terrifying. Among those who study the processes of life on Earth, they must cope with the knowledge that a surprising number of species have no business being here. In some cases, they can't even be here. Yet they are, for better or worse, and those worst-case examples must be hidden or at least obscured from the general public. But no matter how often facts are twisted, data are concealed or reality is denied, the truth is out there. Title: Re: Intervention Theory: An alternative to Darwinism and Creationism Post by: criptix on May 01, 2016, 05:59:53 PM I love how he imagines living beings as being composed of legos, like mutations happen when someone randomly grows another nose or something. Mutations, eh? Have a closer read from the essay I am quoting:TWEEDLEDUM AND TWEEDLEDEE (http://www.whale.to/b/pye1.html) Quote from: http://www.whale.to/b/pye1.html Plants and animals evolve, eh? Alright, how do they evolve? By gradual but constant changes, influenced by adaptive pressures in their environment that cause physical modifications to persist if they are advantageous. Can you specify the kind of gradual change you're referring to? In any population of plants or animals, over time, random genetic mutations will occur. Most will be detrimental, some will have a neutral effect and some will confer a selective advantage, however small or seemingly inconsequential it might appear. Really? But wouldn't the overall population have a gene pool deep enough to absorb and dilute even a large change? Wouldn't a small change rapidly disappear? Well, yes, it probably would. But not in an isolated segment of the overall population. An isolated group would have a much shallower gene pool, so positive mutations would stand a much better chance of establishing a permanent place in it. Really? What if that positive mutation gets established in the isolated group, then somehow the isolated group gets back together with the main population? Poof! The mutation will be absorbed and disappear. Well, maybe. So let's make sure the isolated population can't get back with the main group until crossbreeding is no longer possible. How would you do that? Put a mountain range between them, something impossible to cross. If it's impossible to cross, how did the isolated group get there in the first place? If you're asking me just how isolated is isolated, let me ask you one. What kind of mutations were you talking about being absorbed? Small, absolutely random changes in base pairs at the gene level. Really? Why not at the chromosome level? Wouldn't change at the base pair level be entirely too small to create any significant change? Wouldn't a mutation almost have to be at the chromosome level to be noticeable? Who says? Change at that level would probably be too much, something the organism couldn't tolerate. Maybe we're putting too much emphasis on mutations. Right! What about environmental pressures? What if a species suddenly found itself having to survive in a significantly changed environment? One where its members must adapt to the new circumstances or die out? Exactly! How would they adapt? Could they just will themselves to grow thicker fur or stronger muscles or larger size? That sounds like mutations have to play a part. Mutations, eh? All right, how do they play a part? This game of intellectual thrust and parry goes on constantly at levels of minutiae that boggle an average mind. Traditional Darwinists are one-upped by neo-Darwinists at every turn. Quantum evolutionists refashion the work of those who support the theory of peripheral isolates. Mathematicians model mutation rates and selective forces, which biologists do not trust. Geneticists have little use for palaeontologists, who return the favour in spades (pun intended). Cytogenetics labours to find a niche alongside genetics proper. Population geneticists utilise mathematical models that challenge palaeontologists and systematists. Sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists struggle to make room for their ideas. All perform a cerebral dance of elegant form and exquisite symmetry. Their dance is, ironically, evolution writ large throughout science as a process. New bits of data are put forth to a peer group. The new data are discussed, written about, criticised, written about again, criticised some more. This is gradualism at work, shaping, reshaping and reshaping again if necessary until the new data can comfortably fit into the current paradigm in any field, whatever it is. This is necessary to make it conform as closely as possible to every concerned scientist's current way of thinking. To do it any other way is to invite prompt rejection under a fusillade of withering criticism. This system of excruciating "peer review" is how independent thinkers among scientists have always been kept in line. Darwin was an outsider until he barged into the club by sheer, overpowering brilliance. Patent clerk Einstein did the same. On the other hand, Alfred Wegener was the German meteorologist who figured out plate tectonics in 1915. Because he dared to bruise the egos of "authorities" outside his own field, he saw his brilliant discovery buried under spiteful criticism that held it down for 50 years. Every scientist in the game knows how it is played--and very few dare to challenge its rules. The restrictions on scientists are severe, but for a very good reason. They work at the leading edges of knowledge, from where the view can be anything from confusing to downright terrifying. Among those who study the processes of life on Earth, they must cope with the knowledge that a surprising number of species have no business being here. In some cases, they can't even be here. Yet they are, for better or worse, and those worst-case examples must be hidden or at least obscured from the general public. But no matter how often facts are twisted, data are concealed or reality is denied, the truth is out there. Is that directly from Twilight zone? Or outer limits? Rofl Title: Re: Intervention Theory: An alternative to Darwinism and Creationism Post by: nihilnegativum on May 01, 2016, 06:06:12 PM Mutations, eh? Have a closer read from the essay I am quoting: Yes, its hilarious. What exactly is the reason that you chose to believe this? Do you think a natural origin somehow diminishes human value? Is a star slowly exploding into you not cool enough of a origin story? Or do you just lack the critical thought required to judge something before believing in it? Title: Re: Intervention Theory: An alternative to Darwinism and Creationism Post by: BADecker on May 02, 2016, 12:11:05 AM Mutations, eh? Have a closer read from the essay I am quoting: Yes, its hilarious. What exactly is the reason that you chose to believe this? Do you think a natural origin somehow diminishes human value? Is a star slowly exploding into you not cool enough of a origin story? Or do you just lack the critical thought required to judge something before believing in it? Don't you realize that greater than 99% of the popular sci-fi books and movies depend on some form of evolution in the background for their theme and plot? Believing in evolution is believing in science fiction. Fun, but too much of it is a waste of time and corrupts logical thinking. 8) Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: nihilnegativum on May 02, 2016, 04:23:58 PM Thats a strong argument you got there, surely if something is represented in fiction it must be fiction. QED
I am convinced now, praise the dark lord of creation! Title: Re: Intervention Theory: An alternative to Darwinism and Creationism Post by: qwik2learn on May 02, 2016, 04:57:17 PM Hmmmm, no rational responses to the evidence supporting Intervention, and no discussion of what these astronomical figures might mean for life's origin...
Is that directly from Twilight zone? Or outer limits? Rofl https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/82/79/d1/8279d128e8609e8e5fd5da1050a75f00.jpg Title: Re: Intervention Theory: An alternative to Darwinism and Creationism Post by: qwik2learn on May 02, 2016, 05:00:49 PM Mutations, eh? Have a closer read from the essay I am quoting: Yes, its hilarious. What exactly is the reason that you chose to believe this? Do you think a natural origin somehow diminishes human value? Is a star slowly exploding into you not cool enough of a origin story? Or do you just lack the critical thought required to judge something before believing in it? Why do I support Intervention? It's more powerful than Creationism and more powerful than Darwinism. Why don't you do some critical thought yourself? Did you judge the evidence of domesticated plants? What about all of the other evidence cited by Pye? I don't think that this discussion has anything to do with a "cool origin story", my support of Intervention is based on the evidence already outlined in Pye's essay. How could you ask me why it is that I support Intervention when I gave you Pye's essay? Maybe you did not do any critical reading? Title: Re: Intervention Theory: An alternative to Darwinism and Creationism Post by: criptix on May 02, 2016, 05:07:08 PM Hmmmm, no rational responses to the evidence supporting Intervention, and no discussion of what these astronomical figures might mean for life's origin... Is that directly from Twilight zone? Or outer limits? Rofl https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/82/79/d1/8279d128e8609e8e5fd5da1050a75f00.jpg More please im on the brink to joining your religion Lol Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: qwik2learn on May 02, 2016, 05:07:23 PM ^ The barbarians at that time were building pyramids and that stuff lmao. Those stone age barbarians sure must have been clever; they apparently domesticated all sorts of wild plants and many other clever things that certainly appear to be impossible for modern man; Pye's essay mentions some of these clever things and some others are found here: 100 things evolutionists hate (http://www.modomedia.com/quantum/100things.html) Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: criptix on May 02, 2016, 05:09:11 PM ^ The barbarians at that time were building pyramids and that stuff lmao. Those stone age barbarians sure must have been clever; they apparently domesticated all sorts of wild plants and many other clever things that certainly appear to be impossible for modern man; Pye's essay mentions some of these clever things and some others are found here: 100 things evolutionists hate (http://www.modomedia.com/quantum/100things.html) Dat angry chinese meme. You got me. Where can i join your church rofl :D Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: qwik2learn on May 02, 2016, 05:11:07 PM What do you need a church for? Use some critical thinking; I posted some great links in this thread. Welcome!
Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: criptix on May 02, 2016, 05:18:19 PM What do you need a church for? Use some critical thinking; I posted some great links in this thread. Welcome! Your links are total shit like your perception of reality lmao So this is not advertisement for some weird judaistic religion? Lol Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: nihilnegativum on May 02, 2016, 05:19:08 PM Interesting how his argument is always that irreducible complexity makes people so fragile, yet he's clearly able to write with just half of a brain.
Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: criptix on May 02, 2016, 05:20:10 PM Interesting how his argument is always that irreducible complexity makes people so fragile, yet he's clearly able to write with just half of a brain. Zombies^^" Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: qwik2learn on May 02, 2016, 05:36:33 PM What do you need a church for? Use some critical thinking; I posted some great links in this thread. Welcome! Your links are total shit Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: qwik2learn on May 02, 2016, 05:37:07 PM Interesting how his argument is always that irreducible complexity makes people so fragile, yet he's clearly able to write with just half of a brain. You have not comprehended the argument that I am putting forward. Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: criptix on May 02, 2016, 05:45:49 PM What do you need a church for? Use some critical thinking; I posted some great links in this thread. Welcome! Your links are total shit Your links are just concatenation of scientific words without meaning behind. Like one of this bot created papers. The links are just science fiction without science Lol Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: qwik2learn on May 02, 2016, 05:52:54 PM You (criptix) cannot admit that Darwinism might be wrong.
Creationists cannot admit that Creationism might be wrong. I will admit that Intervention might be wrong. I am ready to discuss the facts. I would not expect to have a rational discussion with someone who can only laugh at the ideas presented here. Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: nihilnegativum on May 02, 2016, 06:55:11 PM My advice is to have more rational ideas.
Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: goostatic74829 on May 02, 2016, 07:16:12 PM Lol wow didn't expect to find creationism retardation on this forum
Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: qwik2learn on May 02, 2016, 07:52:10 PM My advice is to have more rational ideas. How so? I am still waiting on you to rationally engage with these ideas; so far no discussion of domesticated plants. How can you say you are rational if you won't think clearly and intelligently assess these new ideas when they are presented? ??? Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: qwik2learn on May 02, 2016, 07:55:00 PM Lol wow didn't expect to find creationism retardation on this forum Intervention Theory is an alternative to Creationism and Darwinism, and its explanatory power is superior to both. Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: Gleb Gamow on May 02, 2016, 07:58:23 PM I'll just leave this here in case anybody's seeking some light reading: http://www.darwinsmaths.com/
Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: qwik2learn on May 02, 2016, 08:00:30 PM I'll just leave this here in case anybody's seeking some light reading: http://www.darwinsmaths.com/ Good reading.But what about the empirical, observational challenges to BOTH Creationism and Darwinism as described in Pye's essay? I have not seen a plausible refutation for those. Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: BADecker on May 02, 2016, 08:19:18 PM I'll just leave this here in case anybody's seeking some light reading: http://www.darwinsmaths.com/ I like to go the simple route. I never before realized that God went the simple route when He created the universe with all its mind-boggling complexity. Just think how great the New Heavens and New Earth are going to be... a place where God is putting a little thought into the whole new thing. 8) Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: qwik2learn on May 02, 2016, 09:48:54 PM In this thread are many empirical observations and we should all think rationally about them, each one holds a clue to life on earth.
Who in this thread also thinks that their theory may be wrong? A rational thinker will not rest in the belief that s/he already knows everything s/he needs to know, but if something is wrong with an idea s/he will specifically state the problem. We are all here to learn. I am also here to give a voice for Intervention Theory; it is an alternative to Creationism and Darwinism. I will admit that Intervention Theory may be wrong, but my attempts to discuss the details with others in this thread have failed precisely because others will not admit to the same about their own theories. Others in this thread think that their theory alone is factual, but a theory is just a rational explanation of observations, and if your explanation does not plausibly fit the observations that I am presenting, then mine is obviously more rational by definition. Who are you to say that you are more rational than me if you cannot even make your theory fit my observations? I think that my theory is superior but you do not need to conclude GOD, you just need to conclude that you don't know everything yet: The A-s strangely assume that those who believe in God believe in a fairy tale. It’s a postulation they arrogantly consider themselves qualified to make as if they have mastered the totality of knowledge of life and of the Universe – an intellectual hypocrisy they deem to be nowhere near as bad as the supposed fallacy of the believers’ blind faith. Yet they sanctimoniously use said blind faith in their own God Complex or their Know-it-all Syndrome to appoint themselves as the new gods and unseat the true God whom they pompously declare to be either dead or non-existent. It’s their equivalent of a coup d’état. Hence they rebuff everything and anything that have to do with the Almighty. They have developed a fantasy – in many cases a hatred – that can only be explained thus: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ ” Psalm 14:1 They actually fool themselves to believe there’s no God by adhering to cockamamy theories like the Theory of Evolution (see how we destroy that nonsense here) and the Big (bada-bing-bada) Bang Theory, which they want humanity to believe are facts when in reality they’re just that, theories (i.e., unproved assumptions or conjectures). I will link Pye's essay again because I think the domesticated plants are a powerful example: Quote from: http://www.whale.to/b/pye1.html However the codes were cracked, the great expansion of genetic material in each cell of the domestic varieties caused them to grow much larger than their wild ancestors. As they grew, their seeds and grains became large enough to be easily seen and picked up and manipulated by human fingers. Simultaneously, the seeds and grains softened to a degree where they could be milled, cooked and consumed. And at the same time, their cellular chemistry was altered enough to begin providing nourishment to humans who ate them. The only word that remotely equates with that achievement is: miracle. Of course, "miracle" implies that there was actually a chance that such complex manipulations of nature could be carried out by primitive yeomen in eight geographical areas over 5,000 years. This strains credulity because, in each case, in each area, someone actually had to look at a wild progenitor and imagine what it could become, or should become, or would become. Then they somehow had to ensure that their vision would be carried forward through countless generations that had to remain committed to planting, harvesting, culling and crossbreeding wild plants that put no food on their tables during their lifetimes, but which might feed their descendants in some remotely distant future. Also take a look at: 'More Rational Than Thou', an open letter to Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stuart-hameroff/more-rational-than-thou-a_b_7515498.html), it discusses "three remaining mysteries in evolution" listed by Dawkins. The math behind evolution is far from the only example of biological studies failing to be complete and thorough. Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: BADecker on May 02, 2016, 10:10:57 PM In this thread are many empirical observations and we should all think rationally about them, each one holds a clue to life on earth. Who in this thread also thinks that their theory may be wrong? A rational thinker will not rest in the belief that s/he already knows everything s/he needs to know, but if something is wrong with an idea s/he will specifically state the problem. We are all here to learn. I am also here to give a voice for Intervention Theory; it is an alternative to Creationism and Darwinism. I will admit that Intervention Theory may be wrong, but my attempts to discuss the details with others in this thread have failed precisely because others will not admit to the same about their own theories. Others in this thread think that their theory alone is factual, but a theory is just a rational explanation of observations, and if your explanation does not plausibly fit the observations that I am presenting, then mine is obviously more rational by definition. Who are you to say that you are more rational than me if you cannot even make your theory fit my observations? I think that my theory is superior but you do not need to conclude GOD, you just need to conclude that you don't know everything yet: The A-s strangely assume that those who believe in God believe in a fairy tale. It’s a postulation they arrogantly consider themselves qualified to make as if they have mastered the totality of knowledge of life and of the Universe – an intellectual hypocrisy they deem to be nowhere near as bad as the supposed fallacy of the believers’ blind faith. Yet they sanctimoniously use said blind faith in their own God Complex or their Know-it-all Syndrome to appoint themselves as the new gods and unseat the true God whom they pompously declare to be either dead or non-existent. It’s their equivalent of a coup d’état. Hence they rebuff everything and anything that have to do with the Almighty. They have developed a fantasy – in many cases a hatred – that can only be explained thus: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ ” Psalm 14:1 They actually fool themselves to believe there’s no God by adhering to cockamamy theories like the Theory of Evolution (see how we destroy that nonsense here) and the Big (bada-bing-bada) Bang Theory, which they want humanity to believe are facts when in reality they’re just that, theories (i.e., unproved assumptions or conjectures). I will link Pye's essay again because I think the domesticated plants are a powerful example: Quote from: http://www.whale.to/b/pye1.html However the codes were cracked, the great expansion of genetic material in each cell of the domestic varieties caused them to grow much larger than their wild ancestors. As they grew, their seeds and grains became large enough to be easily seen and picked up and manipulated by human fingers. Simultaneously, the seeds and grains softened to a degree where they could be milled, cooked and consumed. And at the same time, their cellular chemistry was altered enough to begin providing nourishment to humans who ate them. The only word that remotely equates with that achievement is: miracle. Of course, "miracle" implies that there was actually a chance that such complex manipulations of nature could be carried out by primitive yeomen in eight geographical areas over 5,000 years. This strains credulity because, in each case, in each area, someone actually had to look at a wild progenitor and imagine what it could become, or should become, or would become. Then they somehow had to ensure that their vision would be carried forward through countless generations that had to remain committed to planting, harvesting, culling and crossbreeding wild plants that put no food on their tables during their lifetimes, but which might feed their descendants in some remotely distant future. Also take a look at: 'More Rational Than Thou', an open letter to Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stuart-hameroff/more-rational-than-thou-a_b_7515498.html), it discusses "three remaining mysteries in evolution" listed by Dawkins. The math behind evolution is far from the only example of biological studies failing to be complete and thorough. Keep entropy in mind when you read this, and consider what our ancient ancestors might have been able to do. Changing Our DNA through Mind Control? (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/changing-our-dna-through-mind-control/) A study finds meditating cancer patients are able to affect the makeup of their DNA ... In Carlson’s study distressed breast cancer survivors were divided into three groups. The first group was randomly assigned to an 8-week cancer recovery program consisting of mindfulness meditation and yoga; the second to 12-weeks of group therapy in which they shared difficult emotions and fostered social support; and the third was a control group, receiving just a 6-hour stress management course. A total of 88 women completed the study and had their blood analyzed for telomere length before and after the interventions. Telomeres were maintained in both treatment groups but shortened in controls. ... 8) Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: BADecker on April 18, 2017, 06:43:53 PM As Richard Dawkins says, "Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening."
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: daronch on April 20, 2017, 03:59:00 AM As Richard Dawkins says, "Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening." ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Can you show where he made this quote? I don't think he ever said that. This is a misconception of evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: qwik2learn on August 16, 2017, 02:03:07 AM The origin of life indicates the existence of a life force. An outside variable is necessary to account for the scientific model of abiogenesis.
The Improbability of Abiogenesis: https://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/abiogenesis.html Abiogenesis is falsifiable with these statistics, there has to be an additional factor that caused the impossible transformation. Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: dakovic on August 16, 2017, 02:43:21 AM This is the last place i expected this creationism cool aid. I though cryptoheads were supposed to be science nerds. You know rational with deductive reasoning. How did this slip through the cracks?
Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: qwik2learn on August 17, 2017, 02:00:46 PM This is the last place i expected this creationism cool aid. I though cryptoheads were supposed to be science nerds. You know rational with deductive reasoning. How did this slip through the cracks? I am definitely a science nerd, I learned all that I could about abiogenesis and came to my own conclusions. Instead of accepting what my professors told me I chose to do research.Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: QlooQl on August 17, 2017, 03:51:40 PM Yeah, you only need to get old to realize nothing your body does is "Intelligently Designed". You start to see the random chance a lot faster when everything isn't unicorn farts and participation trophies.
Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: senin on August 17, 2017, 04:41:08 PM Scientists are also convinced that in the process of evolution a person can only lose positive qualities and functions, and not multiply them. As for Darwin's theory of natural selection, it is completely untenable. The probability of its existence is compared with the probability of creating a new type of aircraft hurricane, which flies into the cemetery is old
Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: BADecker on August 17, 2017, 08:21:04 PM As Richard Dawkins says, "Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening." ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Can you show where he made this quote? I don't think he ever said that. This is a misconception of evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html Google it. Various websites show it. Doesn't make it true, however. 8) Title: Re: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution Post by: BADecker on August 17, 2017, 08:24:46 PM Yeah, you only need to get old to realize nothing your body does is "Intelligently Designed". You start to see the random chance a lot faster when everything isn't unicorn farts and participation trophies. Cause and effect shows that nothing operates by chance at all. Everything is programmed. 8) |
