Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, 2019

a reply to: Snarl

But that’s not right
I read in the bible that nobody can meet God and live, so I find your comments questionable
I don’t believe in the scientific method re evolution but, that doesn’t mean God couldn’t have used evolution as part of His creation method
Evolution may well be true, I don’t know

You may have met a god, met an imitation of God, but to just assume you are right and everyone else is wrong.

I can’t deny evolution, I can argue the scientific method

a reply to: AlienView

As one of the speakers describes it - The math does not hold up - the odds of all the species that have developed throughout the years is greater than probablitiy would dictate.

A probability of greater than 0 means that something can happen. A basic fact of calculating probabilities is that after something has happened, the probabilities are irrelevant. In other words, in this case, a red herring. Never mind the fact that the changes occur as a series, over a long period of time. Not all at once.

can't happen that way !

Why not?

a reply to: Box of Rain

None of that disputes the foundation concepts of Darwin's idea on the Origin of Species.

If by "foundation" you mean the notion that organisms have an ability to change, yes, that is the basis of the theory. He had no idea how that could happen exactly (with no notion of genetics) but it did fit his observations. Which, after all, is the purpose of a theory. An explanation for facts. How, for example, could so many different and unique species of flightless birds (now extinct) have existed on an isolated island group like Hawaii?

Darwin was wrong about some aspects of evolution ("survival of the fittest"), but the basis of the theory is strong. Organisms can, and do, change.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Box of Rain

None of that disputes the foundation concepts of Darwin's idea on the Origin of Species.

If by "foundation" you mean the notion that organisms have an ability to change, yes, that is the basis of the theory. He had no idea how that could happen exactly (with no notion of genetics) but it did fit his observations. Which, after all, is the purpose of a theory. An explanation for facts. How, for example, could so many different and unique species of flightless birds (now extinct) have existed on an isolated island group like Hawaii?

Darwin was wrong about some aspects of evolution ("survival of the fittest"), but the basis of the theory is strong. Organisms can, and do, change.

I have no problem with what has been observed by evolution - Some of it is self evident.

The problem I have, and maybe some of the many scientists who are now disputing it have

is WHY

You have already dismissed 'survival of the fittest' which too, does not explain why.

Why would one cell lead to two cells, lead to many cells, lead to a massive diversity of life creating species of an almost
infinite variety

Interestingly I read that originally Darwin, who was religious, thought his Evolution could be used to uphold his
religiosity.

In most of science there is a solid explanation as to why things happen - Many, more so now than ever, are disputing
Evolution because there really is no explanation for it.

Of course the religious will keep trying to attribute it all to a creator, but that too is a poor explanation.

BUT if you take Intelligent design, without any religious prejudice about an intelligent designer and say

that the universe, existence itself and all that happens is based upon an inherent programming built into
the existent state itself - then you do have a why.

And isn't all of science, the chemistry, physics, etc. always unveiling what is ???

Isn't all science always based upon a form of intelligent design ?? Isn't that the way it really is

Now if you want to accept that concept and apply it to Evolution - then there is no argument

Evolution is then happening because it is pre- programmed by nature.

Still it is valid to question the root or roots ot the programming - And speculate on its goals

a reply to: AlienView

is WHY

Science is not really concerned with that.

Isn't all science always based upon a form of intelligent design ??

No.

Still it is valid to questing the root or roots ot the programming

Sure. But that's not what the science of evolution is about. No "programming" required, some mutations work out, some don't. Sort of like how some people have won the lottery multiple times and most have never done so.


But nice try backtracking on the red herring of the probabilities.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I read in the bible that nobody can meet God and live, so I find your comments questionable

I've read the Bible (the Koran too). Several times even.

After meeting God, I've gone back and relooked swathes of them. They read differently now. There's still some truth you can find in there, much of it is just BS (to me). I'll guarantee you this, whoever wrote those books was in touch/tune with their God ... or had talked to someone who was (more likely). Here's a little test you can do right from your keyboard. Look up the different versions of the Bible. Set 'em side by side and see how the words are literally different. Meanings are subtly changed this way. What was said thousands of years ago cannot be the same thing we're reading now ... and in a completely different language even.

People 'knew' God before the Romans. Not so much anymore. And, that's okay. I know we've pushed this subject around over time in different threads. I wish I could give you the magic recipe, but it doesn't exist. I don't think anyone wants to be told, "Just believe." They want to be shown/introduced. I can't do that for you, Brother, no matter how much it tears my heart.

My gateway was Matthew 18:20. My path had been cut by a friend, who had walked the length of it, and then came back to get me. I've never had cause to be more grateful to another, the one possible exception being my wife of 35 years and the mother of my children.

a reply to: Snarl

Be blunt, don’t believe for a second you have read the bible or Koran, even if you were truthful it would still be irrelevant.
It’s not a book that reading makes relevant, I have studied it for near on 10 years and still havnt read the whole thing. Have no intention of ever reading it all, why. It’s hard enough just studying the New Testament to understand it

Read it? So what, it’s not a golden book

To suggest “people new God before the Romans” you have no idea

originally posted by: Phage


some mutations work out

Please, love to see them.
Let’s go and no, Pokémon are not real

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Box of Rain

He had no idea how that could happen exactly (with no notion of genetics) but it did fit his observations. Which, after all, is the purpose of a theory. An explanation for facts.

Ha ha hu 😶

I have a tv, it’s a flat screen, it has people on the tv, fat people but, they can’t really be that fat because my tv is skinny, he can’t fit in my tv it’s to skinny

Observation means absolutely nothing in relation to theory

and we have all been told over and over and over evolution is not just “A” theory, it’s a confirmed scientific theory different from any other theory
Here is a link saying evolution is not just a theory
www.patheos.com...
Pages and pages why scientific theory is BIGGER than any other theory.

Staggers me.
Because it’s observable, magicians are observable, theory? Scientific theory, pretend magic and pretend scientific evolution. Just change your story whenever you like

Evolution may well be true but there is no scientific evidence anywhere to justify it as a science
And now, scientists are admitting it’s all faith and so many just can’t handle the truth

a reply to: Phage

Perhaps the birds swam there. Not like there is not precedence in that over they all changed species?

Of course believing in Evolution requires no intelligence - Some people just like to believe it based on some observations.

Intelligent Design on the other hand, with or without a belief in a creator requires intellignece
- Hence Intelligent design is only for the intelligent - Evolution is for everyone else.


Here is a short 5 minute video you all may like:

Does Science Support Evolutionary Theory?

"There is an assumption made in most schools, universities and even in the production of documentaries on nature, that all scientists are unanimous in their belief that life as we know it on earth, evolved over time from rudimentary non-life into viruses and cells that then, over eons of time, developed into the lifeforms we know today. Is this assumption correct? Does science support Evolutionary Theory?"

Highlights:
0:35 - A Scientific descent from Darwinism
1:48 - Cosmology and Evolution
2:30 - Physics and Evolution
3:28 - Biology and Evolution

originally posted by: Phage

Darwin was wrong about some aspects of evolution ("survival of the fittest"), but the basis of the theory is strong. Organisms can, and do, change.

Organisms change, but these changes are reversible, as shown by recent findings in genetics. Take for example anti-biotic resistance, which was once the prime example of evolutionary theory, but the problem is that it is quickly reversible which indicates it is not hard-wired genetic change. The mechanism for this is actually epigenetic inheritance, which in the case of anti-biotic resistance involves turning up production for a particular detoxification pump which helps the bacteria survive antibiotic exposure. Surely enough, once the antibiotic is removed, the populations eventually return to baseline. This proves it's not evolution.

source

Organisms and populations of organisms can change within particular genetic boundaries, but they can never change into another kind of organism. They will always maintain their essence, as Plato so eloquently said long ago.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: AlienView

As one of the speakers describes it - The math does not hold up - the odds of all the species that have developed throughout the years is greater than probablitiy would dictate.

A probability of greater than 0 means that something can happen. A basic fact of calculating probabilities is that after something has happened, the probabilities are irrelevant. In other words, in this case, a red herring. Never mind the fact that the changes occur as a series, over a long period of time. Not all at once.

Exactly. The guy in the video talking about the probability of a specific string of amino acids happening as being astronomical is being deceptive. Maybe not on purpose, but his point is nevertheless deceiving.

Here's an illustration. I just rolled a single die 25 times, and I got this string:

3, 6 ,6, 1, 2, 3, 5, 3, 1, 4, 6, 4, 3, 5, 2, 5, 5, 3, 6, 1, 1, 1, 5, 2, 4

If I gave you my die, and asked you to try roll this exact same string of 25 rolls, the odds of you doing so would be 6^25, or more than 28,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1, or a probability of 0.000000000000000000035 (someone check my figures).

Those odds are quite astronomical. Yet I randomly got that exact string just now when I rolled a die 25 times. However, it would be deceptive if I said that I "defied the odds" by getting that specific string of rolls.

And whatever chain of 25 die rolls you come up with when you roll, I would have a 1 in 28,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance of getting YOUR chain if on my next 25 rolls.


So for that scientist's comment about looking at a specific chain of amino acids coming together, and saying how the chances of that specific chain happening are astronomically low, those low chances are not relevant (as you mentioned, Phage).

And as I mentioned in an earlier post, it's possible that a completely different chain of amino acids could lead to a completely different form of self-replicating life processes in a completely different form of life who may ask the same question about the odds of THAT different amino acid chain happening.

originally posted by: Box of Rain

So for that scientist's comment about specific chains of amino acids coming together, the probability is not relevant (as you mentioned, Phage).

And as I mentioned in an earlier post, it's possible that a completely different chain of amino acids could lead to a completely different form of self-replicating life processes in a completely different form of life who may ask the same question about the odds of THAT different amino acid chain happening.

Your example of dice is insisting that the genetic code could be arbitrarily any set of numbers. Its the opposite. The genetic code has specific sequences which code for organic microbots (proteins) that execute functioning on a biological level. Yhese have very precise functions base on their shape, charge, and so on. The odds of one functional group generating by random chance is estimated to be 1/10^67. And thats just any random functional group, let alone getting a relevant functional group that generates a needed outcome. Its sheer fantasy to think this is how things came to be.

Those who don't believe in an intelligent designer require many miracles throughout the theorized process of evolution. As we learn more about the intricacies of microbiology, the less likely evolutionary theory becomes.

a reply to: cooperton

True, but there are countless amino acid chains coming together at any given time, and there were countless combinations of chains coming together in the distant past. The chances that some of those chains led to life processes as we know it are pretty good considering the number of random combinations that occurred in history.

And if we subscribe to panspermia (it's possible), then we are even going back farther with even more amino acid chains randomly coming together.

Plus, as I mentioned, WE get to talk about the odds of the specific amino acid chains WE see as vital to life because those are the chains vital to OUR form of life. It is quite possible that life on Earth might have taken a different turn with different proteins doing life processes in ways that are completely foreign to us.

That second point I'm making is similar to the argument that "the universe is fined tuned for us." That is, if the universe had slightly different physical laws, it would be a completely foreign universe -- one that we could not even imagine, and one in which we could NOT exist.

And that is true, but it's likely more a case of us being fine-tuned to the universe.

A different form of life (life that we can't even imagine) might have arisen in that strange universe in which we could not exist, and became intelligent enough to wonder "Isn't it strange that the universe is so fine-tuned to us?"

originally posted by: Box of Rain
a reply to: cooperton

True, but there are countless amino acid chains coming together at any given time and there were countless combinations of chains coming together in the distant past. The chances that some of those chains led to life processes as we know it are pretty good considering the number of random combinations that occurred in history.

Peptide bonds that hold amino acids together require are endergonic meaning they require an input of energy to form. Meaning this wasn't happening spontaneously. Even if they did manage to get to a functional length, there are no replication mechanisms to replicate the strand. This means even if, against all odds, a worthwhile protein were made in the theoretical primordial soup, it would have no means to sustain itself and replicate. Even the most basic bacteria ever found require a cacophony of proteins for their baseline functions. The necessities of early life are insurmountable without Intelligent Design

Plus, as I mentioned, WE get to talk about the odds of the specific amino acid chains WE see as vital to life because those are the chains vital to OUR form of life. It is quite possible that life on Earth might have taken a different turn with different proteins doing life processes in ways that are completely foreign to us.

The DNA code seems to be doing a great job, to speculate about other baselines for life is somewhat irrelevant. Code most certainly requires something Intelligible to code it. Apple computer doesn't upgrade their software by random chance.

That second point I'm making is similar to the argument that "the universe is fined tuned for us." That is, if the universe had slightly different physical laws, it would be a completely foreign universe -- one that we could not even imagine, and one in which we could NOT exist.

Which demonstrates we and the other life forms are the purpose of the perpetuating physical laws that uphold our bodies and the universe. We were raised in an education system that essential taught us the opposite... their narrative is that we're mutant monkeys. But it's just another santa claus. Evolution is a dying theory, and it will open up a new stage of human self-awareness that makes us more thoroughly realize our true place in the universe.

They have given up on the 'missing-link' - Apparently it doesn't exist !!!

The Missing Link That Wasn’t

"The myth of the Missing Link--the idea that there must be a specimen that partly resembles an ape but also partly resembles a modern human--is persistent. But the reality is that there is no missing link in our lineage, because that’s not how evolution works."


Or maybe its because in fact Evolution does not work, never did work and had little, if anything to do with the

variety of species

originally posted by: AlienView
They have given up on the 'missing-link' - Apparently it doesn't exist !!!

The Missing Link That Wasn’t

"The myth of the Missing Link--the idea that there must be a specimen that partly resembles an ape but also partly resembles a modern human--is persistent. But the reality is that there is no missing link in our lineage, because that’s not how evolution works."


Or maybe its because in fact Evolution does not work, never did work and had little, if anything to do with the

variety of species

I love the cop-out "it's a little more complicated than that".... like what? Now does the theory involve a quantum leap from apes to humans? Otherwise it has to be a gradual morphological change. There's more remains found of cone heads than there are potential missing link fossils. The theory needs to be destroyed so we can start thinking about a higher dimensional origin theory en masse. It served the purpose of pulling people out of the pothole of faithful ignorance, but now given that there is no data to support evolutionary theory, it is time to move on.

originally posted by: AlienView

"The myth of the Missing Link--the idea that there must be a specimen that partly resembles an ape but also partly resembles a modern human--is persistent. But the reality is that there is no missing link in our lineage, because that’s not how evolution works."


Or maybe its because in fact Evolution does not work, never did work and had little, if anything to do with the

variety of species

There would be no specimen "in between" apes and humans because humans did not evolve from apes. Instead, apes (plus other primates) and humans both evolved from a common ancestor. That common ancestor was neither an ape nor a human. So why would a human ancestor be half ape? That would make no sense since our ancestor wan't an ape.

Having said that, there are early human ancestors (such as Australopithecus africanus) that share some characteristics with apes and other primates -- as do we modern humans share some characteristics with other modern primates, such as opposable thumbs and forward-looking eyes -- because both humans and other primates evolved from the same ancestor.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: AlienView
They have given up on the 'missing-link' - Apparently it doesn't exist !!!

The Missing Link That Wasn’t

"The myth of the Missing Link--the idea that there must be a specimen that partly resembles an ape but also partly resembles a modern human--is persistent. But the reality is that there is no missing link in our lineage, because that’s not how evolution works."


Or maybe its because in fact Evolution does not work, never did work and had little, if anything to do with the

variety of species

I love the cop-out "it's a little more complicated than that".... like what? Now does the theory involve a quantum leap from apes to humans? Otherwise it has to be a gradual morphological change. There's more remains found of cone heads than there are potential missing link fossils. The theory needs to be destroyed so we can start thinking about a higher dimensional origin theory en masse. It served the purpose of pulling people out of the pothole of faithful ignorance, but now given that there is no data to support evolutionary theory, it is time to move on.

One reason, maybe even the main reason, why the scientific mainstream will not give up on evolution is a kind of
religious Athieism among many in the scientific community - If a concept has the least bit of anything that even sounds
supernatural - they nix it. And of course concepts such as intelligent design, especially because they have religious
roots, are abhorrent to them.

In previous debates here on the subject I've pointed out that ID and evolution are not opposing theories like many
say they are. If evolution in any form is happening - It could easily be seen as a form of intelligent deign
- In fact all science can be seen as a form of intelligent design.

But 'they' will never see it that way because of the religious roots of intelligent design and the fact that many, but
not all, believers in ID say that there must be an intelligent designer - I say not necessarily - Intelligent design
is a way of perceiving the existent state - An intelligent designer is a 'leap of faith' believing in a Creator
- Uness you want to believe in 'aliens' from elsewhere? - but I leave that for the alien believers.
-