Evolution is mathematically impossible

[tas8831]

This is just a silly argument. There are special forums for debates.

Oh, Ok, well it is just my thought that creationists are brain damaged pedophiles. No support for that charge is forthcoming, because this is not a special debate forum. Assertions are OK, regardless of their inflammatory value or relationship to reality.

Cool - thanks for the 'debate' tip!

 

[tas8831]

It's a considered opinion, therefore valid.

Sure, it is an opinion.

But it is wrong and stupid, so...

 

[sfs]

I would be interested to know how this can be refuted

I would be interested in knowing how you respond to the refutation(s).

 

[pitabread]

I would be interested in knowing how you respond to the refutation(s).

Looks like this was a drive by...

 

[tas8831]

Looks like this was a drive by...

Hawking his website... Probably going to write a book any day now, and wants to up his 'look at me, I'm a martyr' points.

 

[tas8831]

Found this:

• John B. Andelin Greg G. • 4 years ago
  I am a physician. I am not on the "cutting edge of research". Nevertheless, I reject evolution because it contradicts science. Just because I disagree with the majority of biologists doesn't mean I'm "anti-science". I don't have to be on the "cutting edge of research" to formulate an intelligent opinion. Were the many non-astronomers in the 1400's who rejected the geocentric theory of the universe "anti-science"? If you would only consider the history of science, you would learn that the challenging of conventional dogmas is the heart and soul of science...and those challenges can be advanced by anyone.. not just a select few who are on the "cutting edge of research".
  
  • Share ›

'Contradicts science'? What does that even mean?

 

[Ophiolite]

No need. Use your own [math].

Certainly:

(1 Ill-informed, gullible person)*self delusions + distorted data + misinterpreted data = seriously dumb idea

 

[Astrophile]

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

This must have been at least 22 years ago. Are you sure that you have remembered Sagan's words correctly after this lapse of time?

 

[Astrophile]

Were the many non-astronomers in the 1400's who rejected the geocentric theory of the universe "anti-science"?

Who were these 15th-century anti-geocentricists? Can Dr. Andelin name any of them?

 

[Speedwell]

Who were these 15th-century anti-geocentricists? Can Dr. Andelin name any of them?

Heliocentists have been around for a long time. The Pythagoreans believed in it.

 

[Astrophile]

Heliocentrists have been around for a long time. The Pythagoreans believed in it.

Yes, but not in the 15th century AD. According to Heliocentrism - Wikipedia several Muslim astronomers in the 15th century and earlier proposed modified geocentric models and partial heliocentric models, as well as Christian astronomers such as Georg von Peuerbach, Regiomontanus (Johannes Müller) and Leonardo da Vinci, but Dr. Andelin specifically said that 'many non-astronomers' rejected geocentrism. It is these 'many non-astronomers' that I want to know more about.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This must have been at least 22 years ago. Are you sure that you have remembered Sagan's words correctly after this lapse of time?

Like it was yesterday.

 

[tas8831]

Who were these 15th-century anti-geocentricists? Can Dr. Andelin name any of them?

Probably not. Seems to be a spam and run troll wanting site visits.

 

[USincognito]

So, you gave up on your "beautiful fish" refutation of evolution - was it when you realized that lots of fish are ugly?

I must have missed that thread.

 

[tas8831]

I must have missed that thread.

Didn't miss much...

Evolution of beauty

 

[John B. Andelin]

That's just a typical junk probability calculation.

The author claims to be taking natural selection into account, but then completely ignores it in their actual calculation which is based strictly on pure chance.

The end result is a meaningless probability that has no basis on what they claim to be modeling (convergent evolution).

You misunderstood. I don't need to account for natural selection. What has been calculated is the probability of two sequences of mutations occuring over time, which result in nearly identical outcomes. (convergent genes for echolocation in bats and toothed whales. I have thrown all the variables on the side of evolution. Rather than your sweeping statements that this is "meaningless probability", my challenge is to mathematically refute my claims.

 

[pitabread]

I have thrown all the variables on the side of evolution.

No you haven't because there is absolutely no way to know all of said variables. You simply don't have full knowledge of the complete state of the evolution of those things to make such a claim.

On top of that claiming you "don't need to account for natural selection" but then claiming you have thrown in all the variables is clearly a contradiction.

Rather than your sweeping statements that this is "meaningless probability", my challenge is to mathematically refute my claims.

There's nothing to refute mathematically; the proposition itself is fundamentally flawed.

You can calculate as many probabilities as you want; they don't mean anything.

 

[John B. Andelin]

Found this:

• John B. Andelin Greg G. • 4 years ago
  I am a physician. I am not on the "cutting edge of research". Nevertheless, I reject evolution because it contradicts science. Just because I disagree with the majority of biologists doesn't mean I'm "anti-science". I don't have to be on the "cutting edge of research" to formulate an intelligent opinion. Were the many non-astronomers in the 1400's who rejected the geocentric theory of the universe "anti-science"? If you would only consider the history of science, you would learn that the challenging of conventional dogmas is the heart and soul of science...and those challenges can be advanced by anyone.. not just a select few who are on the "cutting edge of research".
  • Share ›

'Contradicts science'? What does that even mean?

All legitimate science is founded on mathematics. Evolution is mathematically impossible.
maskofscience.com

No you haven't because there is absolutely no way to know all of said variables. You simply don't have full knowledge of the complete state of the evolution of those things to make such a claim.

On top of that claiming you "don't need to account for natural selection" but then claiming you have thrown in all the variables is clearly a contradiction.



There's nothing to refute mathematically; the proposition itself is fundamentally flawed.

You can calculate as many probabilities as you want; they don't mean anything.

If you don't understand binomial distribution, then just admit it. But don't pretend that you can just dismiss mathematical proof. If you contend that I haven't considered other variables, what are they? How can I change the numbers to make even one tiny step of evolution possible?

 

[tas8831]

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

That is hilarious...

 

[tas8831]

What has been calculated is the probability of two sequences of mutations occuring over time, which result in nearly identical outcomes.

Lets see YOUR math. I don't mean the pap on your website, I mean legitimate, realistic math.

(convergent genes for echolocation in bats and toothed whales.

Wait - are you implying that they have the same genes?

I have thrown all the variables on the side of evolution. Rather than your sweeping statements that this is "meaningless probability", my challenge is to mathematically refute my claims.

Your claim is silly and not a legitimate argument. Nothing to refute.


"I have only calculated a tiny element of what would be required to create the complex genetic code for echolocation (600 nucleotides)."


Where on earth did you get that from?
Look, I was in a graduate program in a medical school in the mid 1990s. I know that the medical students there had but a 2 week crash course in basic genetics, and given your bio, I'm betting you had less than that. It seems pretty clear to me that you are not up to the task as far as genetics goes, and you sure are out in left field evolution-wise, too. Yours is the egotist's argument, not a legitimate 'challenge.'