Evolution is mathematically impossible

[OldWiseGuy]

And yet you repeatedly refuse to admit error, and continually imply that you mere (refuted) opinions are correct.

Funny how that works.

Argue with my opinions then and leave me out of it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, they didn't. Science provided the industry. Corporations, politicians and green turned it into a wrecking ball.
Science is a neutral entity.

But are scientists neutral entities where business is concerned?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But are scientists neutral entities where business is concerned?

Scientists are humans, plain and simple and fallible.

 

[Queller]

The recent observation of molecular convergence in many species poses impossible mathematical challenges to evolution. I would be interested to know how this can be refuted... maskofscience.com

Problems right from the first two sentences:

It has been recently documented that multiple genes identified in echolocating bats and dolphins exhibit striking similarities in nucleotide sequences (molecular convergence).^1,7

The existence of identical complex genetic code sequences in two unrelated species can easily disprove evolution through the application of statistical probability mathematics.

Are they similar or are they identical? Which is it?

Humans and other primates, bats, and guinea pigs all share a broken gene that prevents the manufacture of Vitamin C. The gene is broken in one way in humans and other primates, another in bats, and yet another in guinea pigs, yet the outcome is the same across all species.

 

[Queller]

No need. Science articles routinely use words like "overwhelming" and "astronomical" in describing the odds against evolution, albeit prefaced by the phrase "in spite of". I just ignore that phrase and take them at their word.

"overwhelming" and "astronomical" are phrases used in winning the lottery as well. Yet somehow someone always wins it eventually.

 

[Queller]

I myself personally heard Carl Sagan say this some years ago.

Even if this is true that he said that, one person is not "science articles" and saying something once is not "routine".

 

[Queller]

simple logical conclusion: if a dog produce more variations of dogs, do you think that its logical to conclude that such a dog may evolve wings?

If they did, it would most likely be unlike any "wing" we're familiar with. Next you'll be telling us the evolution predicts that a dog will give birth to a cat.

 

[Queller]

True, and science hasn't solved our problems but instead has made a business of them.

Science has solved a lot of problems, from the eradication of deadly diseases (until the anti-vaxxers came along and have started screwing it up) to food production.

 

[Queller]

Says the guy who cant show any change in any fossil creature over its entire existence without claiming imaginary missing ancestors, then claims science is on his side with his imagination....

Do you really think any one organism evolves over it's entire existence? If you actually think that, you are sorely uniformed about evolutionary theory.

 

[dad]

Science has solved a lot of problems, from the eradication of deadly diseases (until the anti-vaxxers cam along and have started screwing it up) to food production.

I guess you feel that people have no right to exercise free will and chose to not take vaccines when they are aware of potential dangers.

 

[Queller]

I hope others can apply that to gun manufacturers as well.

No, gun manufacturers do provide the wrecking ball. Some people use said wrecking ball properly and some don't.

 

[the iconoclast]

The argument is right there: he cannot compare a man made machine, an impossible man made machine since mechanical constructs cannot self replicate, with the process of evolution. It's like comparing apples to plastic oranges.

Hey hey storm

Your argument is he cannot compare a man made machine to the process of evolution - cool but this may impede your success at making any future analogies for explanation or have i misunderstood something?

Your reason being a man made or mechanical machine cannot self replicate.

How does the inability for a machine to self replicate prove you right and xiang wrong?

Cheers, notice how i didnt make any pleasantries?

 

[the iconoclast]

Scientists are humans, plain and simple and fallible.

Hey hey

So what does this mean when we consider the theory of evolution?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I guess you feel that people have no right to exercise free will and chose to not take vaccines when they are aware of potential dangers.

Their rights are constrained when they live in a society with other people who may come to harm as a result of their actions. Herd immunity for measles requires about 95% vaccination, which means that everyone who can be vaccinated should be, so the other 5% consists of those who cannot be vaccinated for various (usually medical) reasons.

If healthy individuals refuse vaccination, herd immunity can be lost and not only the healthy unvaccinated, but the individuals who are unable to be vaccinated are put at risk of infection - and these are generally the most vulnerable to severe effects.

So there is a social duty for those living in communities to be vaccinated.

The other issue is that because anti-vaxxers generally refuse vaccinations for their own children, they put them at risk also. So there is a good argument that this constitutes parental neglect.

 

[tas8831]

I hope others can apply that to gun manufacturers as well.

Right. Being a high IQ guy, surely you understand that guns were invented and are designed to kill people. You know that, right?

 

[tas8831]

The third rail is belief/creation/design. With it comes the moral imperative to "dress and keep" the environment. Without it science has brought the environment to the brink of destruction (all the while cleverly decrying the very destruction it has wrought).

Odd then that all of the anti-environmentalists I am aware of are right-wing Christians.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, gun manufacturers do provide the wrecking ball. Some people use said wrecking ball properly and some don't.

This is true, but the misuse is not their intent, any more than makers of vehicles, knives, baseball bats, poison, gasoline, etc.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Right. Being a high IQ guy, surely you understand that guns were invented and are designed to kill people. You know that, right?

Are you saying that the proper use of all guns is to kill people?
I have guns and nowhere in the instructions does it say to kill people with them. I do however kill animals, and would defend myself with them if necessary.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Odd then that all of the anti-environmentalists I am aware of are right-wing Christians.

They are probably more anti-regulation than anti-environmentalist. Anyway most Christians are hardly political ideologues.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Scientists are humans, plain and simple and fallible.

That is a huge admission.