Evolution is mathematically impossible

[xianghua]

Correct

so this isnt evidence for design? i think that most people will disagree.

(image from Alive stone word in the sand - Buy this stock photo and explore similar images at Adobe Stock)

 

[xianghua]

HUMAN design, sure.

Do you ever have a legitimate point?

some guys here disagree with you. see above.

 

[tas8831]

some guys here disagree with you. see above.

Good for them. I note that nobody agrees with you on anything.

 

[Speedwell]

some guys here disagree with you. see above.

Sometimes design can be detected in objects, sometimes it can't. Design is usually detected in objects through evidence of intentional manufacture. Without that kind of evidence, no conclusion can be reached.

Do you get that? There are only two possible conclusions,

1. It was designed.
2. We can't tell if it was designed or not.

There is no third possibility. It is not possible to say, "This object was not designed"

Let me repeat that to be clear. If someone asks you to look at an object to see if it was designed there are only two possible answers:

1. Yes, it was designed. I see evidence of intentional manufacture

2. I don't know. I don't see any evidence of manufacture. It might be designed but I can't tell.

Do you understand that? I don't care f you agree with it or not, I just want to know if you understand it. Do you have any questions?

 

[xianghua]

What I mean is that people may have seen somebody arranging these stones to form a word, or the person who arranged the stones could come forward to say that he or she did it.

so without that you cant conclude design just by looking?

 

[Speedwell]

so without that you cant conclude design just by looking?

You can't conclude design by form or functionality, only by evidence of intentional manufacture.

 

[tas8831]

It may be noted that such claimed similarities is reliant upon taking snippets of code and randomly matching it to any random part of the genome it happens to match.

It may be noted that this is the claim of someone that has never done this sort of analysis, has had his errors/lies on this corrected before, yet feels compelled to make the same wrong claims again to prop up his religion of peace and love's ancient middle eastern numerology claims.

Relevant links are:

Incorrect Assumptions of Past Similarities

Incorrect Assumptions of Past Similarities

Short version - justatruthseeker the fake 'expert' on all science thinks that because creationist and oft-humiliated propagandist Jeff Tomkins declared that such analyses operate by 'taking snippets of code and randomly matching it to any random part of the genome it happens to match' that this is how they are all actually done.

As one that has performed such analyses, I can confidently say that this is NOT at all how such analyses are done - at least not by honest, competent people. In fact, I have never used BLAST to do ANY actual analyses, only to see if certain loci are available in a usable database, or to help finding good primer sites.

Perhaps justa could start here:

Creating Phylogenetic Trees from DNA Sequences | HHMI BioInteractive

to actually learn how these things are done.

Or, since justa like people to think he is some kind of wiz on these things, he could read something more advanced, like this:

Molecular Phylogenetics - Genomes - NCBI Bookshelf

Or, he can just keep thinking that his misinterpretation of a failed creationist geneticist's activist essay is how actual phylolgenetic analyses are done.

By the way, superstar - if these 'snippets' could match up with other 'snippets' haphazardly in a genome, they would be 1. too small to be of any use or 2. indicative of duplication events (but these would not be haphazard) or 3. be evidence of conserved loci (in which case no actual 'tree' would be produced).

But you know all this, right? You have to be just trolling, right?

Don't be fooled by the pseudoscience people.

Why would anyone be fooled by Tomkins' or any other creationists' pseudoscience?

To test for relationships no court of law would allow one to randomly match snippets of code to a random portion of another genome and get away with calling it a match...

Good thing that is not how anything in phylogenetics is done, I suppose.

They are trying to feed you a bait and switch, as if their random matching of code has any basis in actual DNA testing for relationship..... It is nothing even similar to what is done to test for relationships, that is known to work. Instead they talk of DNA matching (the bait), then use a totally random process correlated by algorithms (the switch) to convince you there is actually science involved.

All this dopey yammering tells me but one thing - that you simply do not understand any of this stuff. Just another yokel bellowing in the breeze.

One need only read these three partial abstracts to see tht 'random snippets' of DNA are not, at all, what is being analyzed here:

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it.

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.

 

[tas8831]

Yes, it's a shame they have let the bait and switch take affect and have become convinced that a random comparison shows relatedness when no such test would ever be allowed in any court of law to prove relatedness or guilt of a suspect....

No court of law would allow a witness to fabricate testimony like a creationist does.

 

[xianghua]

Sometimes design can be detected in objects, sometimes it can't. Design is usually detected in objects through evidence of intentional manufacture. Without that kind of evidence, no conclusion can be reached.

Do you get that? There are only two possible conclusions,

1. It was designed.
2. We can't tell if it was designed or not.

There is no third possibility. It is not possible to say, "This object was not designed"

Let me repeat that to be clear. If someone asks you to look at an object to see if it was designed there are only two possible answers:

1. Yes, it was designed. I see evidence of intentional manufacture

2. I don't know. I don't see any evidence of manufacture. It might be designed but I can't tell.

Do you understand that? I don't care f you agree with it or not, I just want to know if you understand it. Do you have any questions?

yes i think that i understand your point. but i disagree with the conclusion about the image above since we never seen how such a thing can happen without design.

 

[tas8831]

yes i think that i understand your point. but i disagree with the conclusion about the image above since we never seen how such a thing can happen without design.

Human design, yes.

Just like a self-replicating robot penguin would be evidence of human design.

 

[Speedwell]

yes i think that i understand your point. but i disagree with the conclusion about the image above since we never seen how such a thing can happen without design.

But you say the same thing about evolution, and we know how that works.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sometimes design can be detected in objects, sometimes it can't. Design is usually detected in objects through evidence of intentional manufacture. Without that kind of evidence, no conclusion can be reached.

Do you get that? There are only two possible conclusions,

1. It was designed.
2. We can't tell if it was designed or not.

There is no third possibility. It is not possible to say, "This object was not designed"

Let me repeat that to be clear. If someone asks you to look at an object to see if it was designed there are only two possible answers:

1. Yes, it was designed. I see evidence of intentional manufacture

2. I don't know. I don't see any evidence of manufacture. It might be designed but I can't tell.

Do you understand that? I don't care f you agree with it or not, I just want to know if you understand it. Do you have any questions?

Observing design in the natural world is not in the best interests of science, especially evolution.

 

[tas8831]

Observing design in the natural world is not in the best interests of science, especially evolution.

Good thing there isn't any.

Just as there is no vocalization produced via direct motor input from the gut or the aorta.

 

[pitabread]

Observing design in the natural world is not in the best interests of science, especially evolution.

Science is about gaining the most accurate understanding of the natural world possible. If things really looked designed, there is no reason not to pursue that.

The problem is that things don't look designed. Or at the very least there is no way to scientifically conclude design based on current observations.

 

[tas8831]

You see it. You just don't see it.

I cannot see what the naive pretend to be able to.

I took a creative writing class when I was a freshman. There was this older (way older, maybe in her 60s) grandmother who wrote a poem every week, and every week it was some religious tripe. One of them was about 'creation', in which she took her granddaughter on a walk in the woods and proceeded to tell her daughter that everything was created in God's glory. The trees, the birds, why even the light rays shining between the leaves.

I suspect that is your level of "evidence."

 

[Bungle_Bear]

so this isnt evidence for design? i think that most people will disagree.

(image from Alive stone word in the sand - Buy this stock photo and explore similar images at Adobe Stock)

You need to learn to read what is said, not what you want to see. I didn't say it's not evidence for design, I said that we rely on more than a simple glance at a pile of stones to infer design.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

some guys here disagree with you. see above.

Nobody here disagrees. Your struggle to understand simple concepts is not an indication of others' disagreement.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

so this isnt evidence for design? i think that most people will disagree.

(image from Alive stone word in the sand - Buy this stock photo and explore similar images at Adobe Stock)

Your claim is that just by looking at something we can tell if it is designed. So tell me, which of these are designed?

Now tell us how you came to the conclusion that design was/wasn't involved.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Science is about gaining the most accurate understanding of the natural world possible. If things really looked designed, there is no reason not to pursue that.

The problem is that things don't look designed. Or at the very least there is no way to scientifically conclude design based on current observations.

I see design, others don't. No biggy.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I see design, others don't. No biggy.

You infer design, you don't see it.