Evolution is mathematically impossible

FrumiousBandersnatch · Mar 7, 2019

Justatruthseeker said:
Based upon all those missing common ancestors that cant be found?

Here's something to try - on a piece of paper, draw a nested tree of lines branching down from a single vertical line at the top. This represents a crude evolutionary tree with time running top to bottom (although the orientation doesn't really matter). Now, count every line segment that ends with a split, and every line segment that just terminates without dividing. This will give you a rough count of common ancestors (line segments that end with a split, i.e. speciation), and non-ancestral species (line segments that terminate with no split, i.e. extinction without speciation).

From this, you should get a rough idea of the proportion of fossil species we find that are likely to be common ancestors. It's probably higher than you might expect. The difficulty is in definitively identifying which are which when you only have a few random samples from the tree.

OldWiseGuy · Mar 7, 2019

pitabread said:
"It's so obvious" sounds like an emotional argument. Science is about examining things objectively.

I drew my conclusion in the cold, clear light of day.

VirOptimus · Mar 7, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
I drew my conclusion in the cold, clear light of day.

Its still unsupported.

pitabread · Mar 7, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
I drew my conclusion in the cold, clear light of day.

That's very poetic, but you still haven't offered up how you drew that conclusion.

OldWiseGuy · Mar 7, 2019

VirOptimus said:
Its still unsupported.

I believe lots of things that I cannot support.

VirOptimus · Mar 7, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
I believe lots of things that I cannot support.

Maybe so, but then its not science and can be ignored.

Ophiolite · Mar 7, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
I believe lots of things that I cannot support.

No kidding! Who would have guessed? I don't recall any of your claims being supported in any of your posts in any thread. As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.

As a self professed Alpha male you may have grown accustomed to the notion that you could impose your views on others and that your belief was sufficient to make things true. However, reality isn't interested in the fancies of people who believe what they are comfortable with amd who ignore the facts.

Do send me a pm when you have an assertion and evidential support.

pitabread · Mar 7, 2019

xianghua said:
as far as i remember you said that its because of "pattern recognition". so why this will not work with a biological system?

Excellent, you do remember our prior discussions.

Yes, it is pattern recognition based on pre-existing knowledge of both language and how humans can arrange stones to spell out letters.

In the case of biology, we don't have the same pre-existing knowledge of a designer building biological forms. The only cases of artificial biological design we know of are human genetic engineering, but even that is primarily tinkering with existing DNA patterns and not building complete organisms from scratch.

for instance: we have sonar systems in both biological world and non biological world. so according to your criteria (if i got it right) we need to conclude that a biological sonar was design as well.

No, you can't conclude that just because a mechanically built sonar is designed by humans that a biological one is as well. That is the False Equivalence fallacy, which we have been over many, many times.

OldWiseGuy · Mar 7, 2019

Ophiolite said:
No kidding! Who would have guessed? I don't recall any of your claims being supported in any of your posts in any thread. As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.

As a self professed Alpha male you may have grown accustomed to the notion that you could impose your views on others and that your belief was sufficient to make things true. However, reality isn't interested in the fancies of people who believe what they are comfortable with amd who ignore the facts.

Do send me a pm when you have an assertion and evidential support.

Retired Alpha male. You may take my place.

OldWiseGuy · Mar 7, 2019

Ophiolite said:
However, reality isn't interested in the fancies of people who believe what they are comfortable with and who ignore the facts.

The activities and attitudes of a criminal are as real to him as are those of on honest man. We get to make our own reality. I don't impose mine on anyone, I just express it. You are free to construct your own reality, using your own facts or fallacies applied in your own life.

That said if you wish to challenge the quality and value of my reality compared to yours I will accept the challenge, if we can agree on the parameters.

These forums don't change minds about very much, but it's fun and interesting (for me) to argue about our beliefs and opinions.

Belk · Mar 8, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
The activities and attitudes of a criminal are as real to him as are those of on honest man. We get to make our own reality. I don't impose mine on anyone, I just express it. You are free to construct your own reality, using your own facts or fallacies applied in your own life.

That said if you wish to challenge the quality and value of my reality compared to yours I will accept the challenge, if we can agree on the parameters.

These forums don't change minds about very much, but it's fun and interesting (for me) to argue about our beliefs and opinions.

Not the big things, but the small things. I remember several polls that revealed a lot of people had changed their minds on any number of topics due to discussion here.

Ophiolite · Mar 9, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
That said if you wish to challenge the quality and value of my reality compared to yours I will accept the challenge, if we can agree on the parameters.

Your parameters appear to value opinion over evidence and common sense expectation over rigorous investigation. That's not reality, thats dreamtime. Feel free to correct me with a list of your justifiable, measureable parameters.

OldWiseGuy · Mar 9, 2019

Ophiolite said:
Your parameters appear to value opinion over evidence and common sense expectation over rigorous investigation. That's not reality, thats dreamtime. Feel free to correct me with a list of your justifiable, measureable parameters.

The foundation of my reality of course is belief in God and salvation by grace through belief, followed by living by Godly principles as revealed in God's word and by the Holy Spirit (to the extent that I am able). This knowledge is translated and applied to all or most daily activities, including all or most relationships and interactions, including those on these forums.

VirOptimus · Mar 9, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
The foundation of my reality of course is belief in God and salvation by grace through belief, followed by living by Godly principles as revealed in God's word and by the Holy Spirit (to the extent that I am able). This knowledge is translated and applied to all or most daily activities, including all or most relationships and interactions, including those on these forums.

Science has nothing to do with religion.

OldWiseGuy · Mar 9, 2019

VirOptimus said:
Science has nothing to do with religion.

They meet in real life, not necessarily on these forums.

VirOptimus · Mar 9, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
They meet in real life, not necessarily on these forums.

Nope, science dont do religion.

Ophiolite · Mar 9, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
The foundation of my reality of course is belief in God and salvation by grace through belief, followed by living by Godly principles as revealed in God's word and by the Holy Spirit (to the extent that I am able). This knowledge is translated and applied to all or most daily activities, including all or most relationships and interactions, including those on these forums.

I am having trouble discerning there the parameters you asserted we needed in order to further our discussion and that I stated needed to be justifiable and measurable.

OldWiseGuy · Mar 9, 2019

VirOptimus said:
Science has nothing to do with religion.

VirOptimus said:
Nope, science dont do religion.

Sorry. Your response to post #393 was a non sequitur.

VirOptimus · Mar 9, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
Sorry. Your response to post #393 was a non sequitur.

No it wasnt.

It just went over your head.

OldWiseGuy · Mar 9, 2019

Ophiolite said:
I am having trouble discerning there the parameters you asserted we needed in order to further our discussion and that I stated needed to be justifiable and measurable.

I was just laying the foundation, not the details, which would seem mundane to most.

At the foundation is doing things the right way, then going above and beyond that; fully exercising the moral imperative, as I see it, to the extent that I am able.

Evolution is mathematically impossible

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

A nihilist who cares.

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

A nihilist who cares.

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

Senior Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Wake me when it's soup.

A nihilist who cares.

Wake me when it's soup.

A nihilist who cares.

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Wake me when it's soup.

A nihilist who cares.

Wake me when it's soup.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency