Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, 2019

Skekptical about Darwinism ??? Think it is missing something ???Think there may be some truth in a non-religious Intelligent design ???

Realize that more and more scientists are questioning Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism - In this video from Stanford Universities Hoover Institute
we have three scientist/philosophers of today sending Darwin to the realm of the archaic - Darwin's explanations do not stand the test of time !


Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution


"Based on new evidence and knowledge that functioning proteins are extremely rare, should Darwin’s theory of evolution be dismissed, dissected, developed or replaced with a theory of intelligent design?

Has Darwinism really failed? Peter Robinson discusses it with David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer, who have raised doubts about Darwin’s theory in their two books and essay, respectively The Deniable Darwin, Darwin’s Doubt, and “Giving Up Darwin” (published in the Claremont Review of Books).

Robinson asks them to convince him that the term “species” has not been defined by the authors to Darwin’s disadvantage. Gelernter replies to this and explains, as he expressed in his essay, that he sees Darwin’s theory as beautiful (which made it difficult for him to give it up): “Beauty is often a telltale sign of truth. Beauty is our guide to the intellectual universe—walking beside us through the uncharted wilderness, pointing us in the right direction, keeping us on track—most of the time.” Gelernter notes that there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape. Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether Darwin can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. Meyer explains Darwinism as a comprehensive synthesis, which gained popularity for its appeal. Meyer also mentions that one cannot disregard that Darwin’s book was based on the facts present in the 19th century."

HooverInstitution

Recorded on June 6, 2019 in Italy.

a reply to: AlienView

So what specific point negates evolution?

a reply to: AlienView

blisteringly obvious question :

where did the alledged inteligence in " I D " come from ?

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: AlienView

So what specific point negates evolution?

You have to watch the video - Even though it is an hour long it is worth it - no matter where you stood before.

I think one of the most important points can be summed up like this:

Darewin's Evoulutiion can, and probably still does, explain subtle changes within species
- But does not explain why the development of new species

And they give some modern science to show that new species would not have, could not have, developed
by the traditional views of Evoulution.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: AlienView

blisteringly obvious question :

where did the alledged inteligence in " I D " come from ?

Yes, they debate that in the video - My answer to you goes like this:

From Max Planck famous scientist who won the Noble Prize for his work on developing Quantum Mechanics.

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
― Max Planck

I suppose if your religious You mght think he was talking about god
- But like Einstein, Planck did not believe in god in a religious sense.

a reply to: AlienView

no - i do not " have to watch " the video

if the 3 " best points " - cannot be reduced to 3 * 15 word " bullet points " - then its an hour of waffle

thats all i ask - the 3 best points - condensed to 45 words

a reply to: ignorant_ape

I'll give you two more points even though there are more:

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.

Allright, I've already given you two points here's a third.

Evolution impies 'bottom up' development form one cell [and the cell itself is still not fully understood]
to higher forms - can't happen that way !

originally posted by: AlienView
Darwin's explanations do not stand the test of time !

Darwin was just a man. The people who are going to 'come at ya' in this thread? I don't know if there will be any men amongst them. Just froot-loops who have invested a lifetime of 'belief' in a system that hasn't proven itself Scientifically (see that uppercase S there) over the last 140 years.

I mean ... really ... it's been 140 years. Please show me the Science of the last new species?

Ahhhhahahahahahahahah!! Losers!!

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: AlienView

blisteringly obvious question :

where did the alledged inteligence in " I D " come from ?

Blisteringly obvious answer
Your problem, no one else’s , you work it out for yourself

Spoon fed lies your whole life and you line up to be spoon fed more lies from someone else
Atheists, mind numbing

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: AlienView

no - i do not " have to watch " the video

if the 3 " best points " - cannot be reduced to 3 * 15 word " bullet points " - then its an hour of waffle

thats all i ask - the 3 best points - condensed to 45 words

Typical atheist comment reflecting intelligence in the argument re evolution
Basically, “I am not capable of comprehending an hours worth of scientific information, so just damn well dumb it down for me”

You are awesome IA

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: AlienView
Darwin's explanations do not stand the test of time !

Darwin was just a man. The people who are going to 'come at ya' in this thread? I don't know if there will be any men amongst them. Just froot-loops who have invested a lifetime of 'belief' in a system that hasn't proven itself Scientifically (see that uppercase S there) over the last 140 years.

I mean ... really ... it's been 140 years. Please show me the Science of the last new species?

Ahhhhahahahahahahahah!! Losers!!

It will be the same old group as usual - can't let go of 'the so called science of evolution'
- And as usual I will say genetics is a science, while evolution is an observation.

I'm not trying to start another same old same old debate on Evolution which is why I posted that video

- There you will see a mathematician who did believe in Evolution in the past tell us why he swore it off
even though he hated to let it go because it had a beauty as a theory he liked.

Maybe we should form a group like AA [alcoholics anonymous] and call it EV [evolutionists anonymous],
where former Evolutionists can get up in front of the group and say I am an Evolutionist and then explain
how they have been working on beating the addiction

a reply to: AlienView

Gelernter doesn't accept evolution as presented by Darwin. But he can't accept intelligent design either.

Sounds like a skeptic to me. And that is fine.

Imho Darwin's theory is the best thing we've got so far. Just like Newton's theory of gravity was the best thing we had until Einstein. Will we develop a better more complete theory of evolution? I really hope so.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

I got you.

Darwin entirely failed to explain or thought what he was explaining which was the emergence of biological complexities on the species level or higher. He successfully was able to explain local characteristics.

Evolution is a theory, as we know and anything theoretical could be described as being restricted to theory and existing only in theory. Even if it is thought of as a scientific theory, surely evolution cannot be tested experimentally and under controlled conditions and if not, would abductive reasoning be called upon, which gives an acceptable outcome without being able to positively verify it?

Maybe it just all comes down to personal belief with no outcome being verifiable.

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: AlienView

Imho Darwin's theory is the best thing we've got so far. Just like Newton's theory of gravity was the best thing we had until Einstein. Will we develop a better more complete theory of evolution? I really hope so.

Yes. I think big-picture wise Darwin was generally right in describing the nutshell effects of natural selection as it pertains to speciation, just like Newton was generally right in describing the effects of gravity, big-picture wise.

Darwin laid a solid foundation, but his ideas are not the complete explanation. Newton laid a solid foundation, but his ideas about gravity were incomplete.

But neither Newton nor Darwin were wrong, IMO.

originally posted by: Box of Rain
But neither Newton nor Darwin were wrong, IMO.

Start the video in the OP at ~10:45. Listen to the question the interviewer asks ... and hear the answer. Darwin's theory was based on subject matter yet to be developed/discovered/observed ... Scientifically.

Just because some schoolmaster mandated the teaching of "Darwinistic Belief" doesn't make it Scientific. But I get it. Getting people out of their 'belief zone' is a damned near impossible task. Much like when I tell religious people I'm not going to learn anything about their God by going to their church with them. I have met God ... and they can't believe/accept that ... because they haven't (and probably won't because they don't know how ... and will never figure it out).

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Box of Rain
But neither Newton nor Darwin were wrong, IMO.

Start the video in the OP at ~10:45. Listen to the question the interviewer asks ... and hear the answer. Darwin's theory was based on subject matter yet to be developed/discovered/observed ... Scientifically.

I mean Darwin's basic concepts of natural selection leading to speciation are right, IMO. The exact mechanisms behind all of that is something that needs to be reived.refined/yet to be discovered, but using what Darwin said is (to me) a good foundation.


As for the probability of certain long strings of amino to be "just so" in order to make vital proteins life on Earth uses, it could be said that life uses those specific strings of amino acids because those are the strings that came together.

Other strings of amino acids that may have (by chance) formed may also have been a benefit to life processes, and if those strings of amino acids came together instead of the strings that DID come together, then there still might have been life on Earth, but it might have been very different; the mechanism of that life might have worked differently.

If that were the case, then it might have been that very different kind of life saying "what are the odds of these strings of amino acids coming together to give us the life processes that we have?"


And the ultra-complexity of all of the little machines in cells is believed to have come about due to symbiotic relationships between early single-celled organisms. That is, some organelles that make up the complexity of cells, such as mitochondria, are thought to have long ago once been their own separate organism that, through a symbiotic relationship, were eventually absorbed as an organelle within another cell.


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

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: AlienView

no - i do not " have to watch " the video

if the 3 " best points " - cannot be reduced to 3 * 15 word " bullet points " - then its an hour of waffle

thats all i ask - the 3 best points - condensed to 45 words

It's a video of several scientists 10x smarter than any of us debating an interesting topic. If you don't want to watch it, stop posting in the thread.

i've always asked, what self respecting single cell organism would volunteer to become part of a _ _ _hole in another life form?
or what cell organism/ organisms decides who's gonna be what when they join up?

Another good video [only 10 minutes long]:

8:07 / 9:33
OVER 500 RENOWNED SCIENTISTS REJECT DARWIN'S THEORY of EVOLUTION



And another quickie:

0:03 / 1:17
Did you know that a growing number of scientists doubt the Darwinian theory of evolution?

"Over 1000 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution. There Is Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. It deserves to be heard".