Destroying Evolution in less than 5 minutes

[BCP1928]

It was "badly flawed" on purpose.

"Flawed" in favor of evolution, so as to give evolution a very large benefit of a doubt.

And evolution was still pwned mathematically.

I thought you meant Dembski's mathematical critique. And no, evolution is on solid ground mathematically.

 

[Ophiolite]

White elephant - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

"Because the animals were considered sacre₩₩¥d and laws protected them from labor, receiving a gift of a white elephant from a monarch was simultaneously a blessing and a curse"

I thought it might describe your "gift" in a similar kind of a way...

Yes, I see your point. I had overlooked the orginal meaning of white elephant. It has morphed, in my experience, into a sense of a "worthless object that gets, somewhat, in the way". It was that reading that obscured for me, your intent.

I think, taking the curse angle, that echoes my argument that some may view personal responsibility as a curse.

 

[AV1611VET]

I thought you meant Dembski's mathematical critique.

I'm not familiar with Dembski, so I Googled him.

It says he's a proponent of Intelligent Design, so I'm not too crazy about him.

HOWEVER, since he uses mathematics, which I assume in academic circles is by far head-and-shoulders above biological evolution, I'll assume he's right.

 

[BCP1928]

I'm not familiar with Dembski, so I Googled him.

It says he's a proponent of Intelligent Design, so I'm not too crazy about him.

HOWEVER, since he uses mathematics, which I assume in academic circles is by far head-and-shoulders above biological evolution, I'll assume he's right.

Two assumptions, both wrong. Mathematics is an analytical tool used by scientists. Dembski's mathematics had mistakes in it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Two assumptions, both wrong.

Eh?

Mathematics is an analytical tool used by scientists.

So I notice:

Dembski's mathematics had mistakes in it.

As I said, the "mistakes" were on purpose.

Had he not made them, he would have reduced evolution down to a "theory in crisis."

Oh ... wait ...

 

[1Tonne]

Funny how these overconfident OPs and subsequent flame outs occur every few months or so. I wonder when the next one will roll around.

Since no one was able to provide a clear resolution to Haldane’s Dilemma across more than 300 posts, it’s not surprising that the conversation has now shifted from addressing evidence to mocking the person who raised it. When the argument can’t be refuted, the messenger becomes the target.
Feel free to continue the discussion without me, knowing that none of you were able to defeat the first post, and so, evolution remains mathematically impossible.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

An "overconfident flame-out" thread will appear the next time there's a scientific disaster.

... if you say so...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Since no one was able to provide a clear resolution to Haldane’s Dilemma across more than 300 posts, it’s not surprising that the conversation has now shifted from addressing evidence to mocking the person who raised it. When the argument can’t be refuted, the messenger becomes the target.
Feel free to continue the discussion without me, knowing that none of you were able to defeat the first post, and so, evolution remains mathematically impossible.

But they did. You've just chosen to ignore them, and that does not mean that evolution is mathematically impossible, and if it was mathematically impossible, wouldn't there be a MUCH bigger thing going on in the scientific community and especially the biologist community if that were the case, rather than the video of a trio of creationists put up on YouTube?

 

[1Tonne]

I can resist this.
I was really wrong about evolution. I just found 100% evidence for it.

Sorry. I couldn't help it.
I was on Youtube and these came up and it reminded me of this discussion.
I am sure you see the humour in it. (I hope)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sorry. I couldn't help it.
I was on Youtube and these came up and it reminded me of this discussion.
I am sure you see the humour in it. (I hope)

There's no humour in it at all.

Look, here's a very simple and logical question: if the claim you made is valid, wouldn't the fact that evolution could be mathematically be shown to be wrong (it doesn't but for the sake arguing let's say it is) be such a massive deal that the entire evolutionary literature and works would be overturned in like... maybe a week or so, instead of still going strong since 1957 when the dilemma was first put forward? Would the 'destruction' of evolution really hinge on a video of a guy talking on a video in another video by two creationists if that were the case? Wouldn't the scientific community, especially those who actually work in evolutionary biology, actually give a crap if it was true?

 

[AV1611VET]

I was really wrong about evolution. I just found 100% evidence for it.

Me too!

I Have Found Both The Missing Link and Abiogenesis!

 

[BCP1928]

Since no one was able to provide a clear resolution to Haldane’s Dilemma across more than 300 posts, it’s not surprising that the conversation has now shifted from addressing evidence to mocking the person who raised it. When the argument can’t be refuted, the messenger becomes the target.
Feel free to continue the discussion without me, knowing that none of you were able to defeat the first post, and so, evolution remains mathematically impossible.

It would have helped if you had been willing to pay attention to the answers you got and actually discuss them. Haldane's Dilemma is an interesting hypothesis which challenges evolutionary biologists and suggests that biological evolution may not be fully understood--a state of affairs to which everyone here would agree. What it is not is a "gotcha" which disproves the theory of evolution. Since it was proposed by an atheist I think it was certainly not intended to be used as you are attempting to use it, to prove that "science" is trying to deny the existence of God, and as an excuse to mock other peoples' religion. And what would it get you if you did "disprove" it? All you would have is a disproven theory, likely to be replaced by one equally inconvenient to your religious beliefs, because biblical creationism has been off the table as a scientific proposition for two hundred years--since before Darwin.

 

[1Tonne]

Look, here's a very simple and logical question: if the claim you made is valid, wouldn't the fact that evolution could be mathematically be shown to be wrong (it doesn't but for the sake arguing let's say it is) be such a massive deal that the entire evolutionary literature and works would be overturned in like... maybe a week or so, instead of still going strong since 1957 when the dilemma was first put forward? Would the 'destruction' of evolution really hinge on a video of a guy talking on a video in another video by two creationists if that were the case? Wouldn't the scientific community, especially those who actually work in evolutionary biology, actually give a crap if it was true?

The destruction of evolution doesn’t hinge on a video made by two creationists. It hinges on a mathematical dilemma posed by J. B. S. Haldane, a respected evolutionary biologist. His calculations revealed a fundamental limit on how much beneficial genetic change could realistically accumulate in a population over time. That dilemma has never been resolved (Some on here try to claim it has. LOL), only sidestepped or reinterpreted. The video simply highlighted that unresolved problem. If evolutionary theory is truly as unshakable as claimed, it should have decisively answered Haldane’s dilemma by now. It hasn’t. So, the theory is very weak, but many who claim to be wise in their own eye still choose to put their faith in it, and so it continues. (There are a number of bible verses for these people, but I am not putting them up.)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The destruction of evolution doesn’t hinge on a video made by two creationists. It hinges on a mathematical dilemma posed by J. B. S. Haldane, a respected evolutionary biologist. His calculations revealed a fundamental limit on how much beneficial genetic change could realistically accumulate in a population over time. That dilemma has never been resolved (Some on here try to claim it has. LOL), only sidestepped or reinterpreted. The video simply highlighted that unresolved problem. If evolutionary theory is truly as unshakable as claimed, it should have decisively answered Haldane’s dilemma by now. It hasn’t. So, the theory is very weak, but many who claim to be wise in their own eye still choose to put their faith in it, and so it continues. (There are a number of bible verses for these people, but I am not putting them up.)

Okay, so let's focus on the first half of my question then: if the claim you made is valid, wouldn't the fact that evolution could be mathematically be shown to be wrong (it doesn't but for the sake arguing let's say it is) be such a massive deal that the entire evolutionary literature and works would be overturned in like... maybe a week or so, instead of still going strong since 1957 when the dilemma was first put forward?

 

[sjastro]

Since no one was able to provide a clear resolution to Haldane’s Dilemma across more than 300 posts, it’s not surprising that the conversation has now shifted from addressing evidence to mocking the person who raised it. When the argument can’t be refuted, the messenger becomes the target.
Feel free to continue the discussion without me, knowing that none of you were able to defeat the first post, and so, evolution remains mathematically impossible.

Is that so?
It was pointed out to you a major flaw in the dilemma it assumed mutations occurred over a single lineage rather than multiple pathways in a population.

Here is another refutation, the dilemma assumes only beneficial mutations become fixed in a population yet one of the models mentioned in post #250, the neutral theory of molecular evolution supported by observation, proves otherwise. It states neutral mutations are also fixed into the population and since the ratio of neutral to beneficial mutations has been estimated to be anywhere from 100:1 to 1000:1 it destroys the mathematics behind the dilemma.

All you have achieved in this thread is to provide an example of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.

 

[1Tonne]

Is that so?
It was pointed out to you a major flaw in the dilemma it assumed mutations occurred over a single lineage rather than multiple pathways in a population.

Here is another refutation, the dilemma assumes only beneficial mutations become fixed in a population yet one of the models mentioned in post #250, the neutral theory of molecular evolution supported by observation, proves otherwise. It states neutral mutations are also fixed into the population and since the ratio of neutral to beneficial mutations has been estimated to be anywhere from 1000:1 to 100000:1 it destroys the mathematics behind the dilemma.

All you have achieved in this thread is to provide an example of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.

You’re simply repeating common talking points that have been around for decades, none of which have resolved Haldane’s actual dilemma. Claiming neutral mutations fix doesn’t answer the real issue: how long it takes for beneficial mutations to spread and accumulate when those alone are needed to drive the kind of large-scale functional changes evolutionary theory demands. Even Kimura’s neutral theory was proposed in part to escape the mathematical constraints Haldane identified, it didn’t solve them.
Pointing to 'multiple pathways' also doesn’t bypass the reproductive cost Haldane calculated, which applies to populations as a whole, not just lineages.
So yes, despite all the noise, the core mathematical problem remains. You’ve offered reinterpretations, not refutations.
Still, evolution fails, and no one can refute Haldane's dilemma. Thanks for coming.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Still, evolution fails, and no one can refute Haldane's dilemma. Thanks for coming.

Then it's actually a great thing that evolution does not stand or fall on a mathematical problem, and it's biology that is the most powerful tool to either support or destroy evolution, and evolution sure as shoot stands tall.

 

[BCP1928]

You’re simply repeating common talking points that have been around for decades, none of which have resolved Haldane’s actual dilemma. Claiming neutral mutations fix doesn’t answer the real issue: how long it takes for beneficial mutations to spread and accumulate when those alone are needed to drive the kind of large-scale functional changes evolutionary theory demands. Even Kimura’s neutral theory was proposed in part to escape the mathematical constraints Haldane identified, it didn’t solve them.
Pointing to 'multiple pathways' also doesn’t bypass the reproductive cost Haldane calculated, which applies to populations as a whole, not just lineages.
So yes, despite all the noise, the core mathematical problem remains. You’ve offered reinterpretations, not refutations.
Still, evolution fails, and no one can refute Haldane's dilemma. Thanks for coming.

Brilliant. Even Haldane didn't think it would disprove evolution. How are you going to explain your wonderful discovery to agribusinesses, which make millions off of it as an applied science? Stalin tried banning it, Soviet agriculture collapsed and many thousands starved, so I doubt anyone would want to do that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You’re simply repeating common talking points that have been around for decades, none of which have resolved Haldane’s actual dilemma. Claiming neutral mutations fix doesn’t answer the real issue: how long it takes for beneficial mutations to spread and accumulate when those alone are needed to drive the kind of large-scale functional changes evolutionary theory demands. Even Kimura’s neutral theory was proposed in part to escape the mathematical constraints Haldane identified, it didn’t solve them.
Pointing to 'multiple pathways' also doesn’t bypass the reproductive cost Haldane calculated, which applies to populations as a whole, not just lineages.
So yes, despite all the noise, the core mathematical problem remains. You’ve offered reinterpretations, not refutations.
Still, evolution fails, and no one can refute Haldane's dilemma. Thanks for coming.

You're welcome.

 

[Ophiolite]

J. B. S. Haldane, a respected evolutionary biologist.

And that respect was due to his incisive mind that could - among other things - identify areas of uncertainty within evolutionary theory, That respect for him and for the questions he posed led many other brilliant minds to explore and resolve the dilemma. It is a pity you have chosen not to respect their work, or their solutions, but instead disrespect Haldane by abusing his name via a fallacious Argument from Authority. Duly noted.