Evolution is mathematically impossible

[the iconoclast]

Read my posts, all this stuff is addressed.

Hey hey you

Fair enough. Cheers

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You brought it up.

Where? - a link or quote would do. I suspect you've misunderstood something...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The basics indicate the improbability of it. And, the basic don't include the actual data needed. For example evolutionists say that 'this changed into that' but don't reveal the steps needed to accomplish it. If there are 100 small changes needed for one medium sized change what are the odds of each change actually happening? It's like a row of dominoes falling. Each piece must be placed in the right position or the process fails. This is the data needed to formulate the odds.

It's worth noting the two commonly missed points that affect the odds - firstly, the mutations are occurring in a whole population, not in just one individual; and secondly, and more importantly, it's not a question of waiting for an unlikely sequence of specific mutations to achieve a particular result - there is no goal being aimed for, and at any particular time there are many possible beneficial mutations that could occur and eventually become fixed in the population.

Looking at a particular existing trait and calculating the odds of the specific mutations required to get to that particular trait is a post-hoc fallacy. IOW, there are many different possible ways to many different possible advantageous traits, and evolution explores the landscape of possibilities at random, discarding the failures.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Are you saying that evolution must be proven to each new science student? Don't they already believe it going in?

At the time when people like Darwin and Wallace were presenting their well-researched ideas about evolution with copious supporting evidence, the bulk of the established scientific community accepted a static universe and the special creation of man. It took some time for this to change, with resistance from the old guard, so the upcoming younger scientists were quickest to take evolution on board, but to their credit, when the old guard heard the details of theory, saw the evidence, and had time to think it over, they found it too strong to deny, and (mostly) changed their minds.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You are simply incapable of admitting when you're wrong, aren't you?

It's my gut feeling that I'm right (I have healthy guts).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's worth noting the two commonly missed points that affect the odds - firstly, the mutations are occurring in a whole population, not in just one individual; and secondly, and more importantly, it's not a question of waiting for an unlikely sequence of specific mutations to achieve a particular result - there is no goal being aimed for, and at any particular time there are many possible beneficial mutations that could occur and eventually become fixed in the population.

Looking at a particular existing trait and calculating the odds of the specific mutations required to get to that particular trait is a post-hoc fallacy. IOW, there are many different possible ways to many different possible advantageous traits, and evolution explores the landscape of possibilities at random, discarding the failures.

What are the assumptions in evolution?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'm dubious. Do you have a link to statements to that fact?

God and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Probability

 

[pitabread]

It's my gut feeling that I'm right (I have healthy guts).

That just means you believe what you believe for emotional reasons.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Where? - a link or quote would do. I suspect you've misunderstood something...

Your "no true Scotsman" comment.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That just means you believe what you believe for emotional reasons.

It's a considered opinion, although it does begin with intuition.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What are the assumptions in evolution?

I suppose the two basic assumptions are entities that can satisfy the requirements of evolution (reproduction, heredity, variation, and selection) and an environment that permits them to do so.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

At the time when people like Darwin and Wallace were presenting their well-researched ideas about evolution with copious supporting evidence, the bulk of the established scientific community accepted a static universe and the special creation of man. It took some time for this to change, with resistance from the old guard, so the upcoming younger scientists were quickest to take evolution on board, but to their credit, when the old guard heard the details of theory, saw the evidence, and had time to think it over, they found it too strong to deny, and (mostly) changed their minds.

Ignoring the fact that they don't know how life began. Evolution has to start somewhere, but has nowhere to start. This article is a good example of how parts necessary for either theory just appear out of thin air.

How Did Life Begin?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I suppose the two basic assumptions are entities that can satisfy the requirements of evolution (reproduction, heredity, variation, and selection) and an environment that permits them to do so.

Sounds like a perversion of reverse engineering to me.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Your "no true Scotsman" comment.

OK, that was in response to your suggestion that "Not all that call themselves Christian actually are...".

So I was suggesting that rather than accepting that Christians can have "a variety of conflicting moral views" (my comment about Christian interpretations of the bible), you were saying that only those that have moral views that accord with yours are actually Christian (hence the 'No True Scotsman Christian' comment.

So my comment was about the variety of Christian moral views, nothing to do with unbelief; it seems to me that it was your comment that implied that those with differing moral interpretations were unbelievers.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

OK, that was in response to your suggestion that "Not all that call themselves Christian actually are...".

So I was suggesting that rather than accepting that Christians can have "a variety of conflicting moral views" (my comment about Christian interpretations of the bible), you were saying that only those that have moral views that accord with yours are actually Christian (hence the 'No True Scotsman Christian' comment.

So my comment was about the variety of Christian moral views, nothing to do with unbelief; it seems to me that it was your comment that implied that those with differing moral interpretations were unbelievers.

Not all who call themselves Christians are actually Christians. There are tares among us, and not just a few.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ignoring the fact that they don't know how life began. Evolution has to start somewhere, but has nowhere to start. This article is a good example of how parts necessary for either theory just appear out of thin air.

As you should by now be well aware, the specific origin of life is irrelevant to the ToE, which is an explanation for the observed diversity of life, not its origins. That's why one of the assumptions is entities that can satisfy the requirements I gave earlier.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not all who call themselves Christians are actually Christians. There are tares among us, and not just a few.

So you said.

 

[pitabread]

Not all who call themselves Christians are actually Christians. There are tares among us, and not just a few.

As a non-believer, I have to take a person's claim at face value. If a person calls themselves a Christian, why would I otherwise doubt that?

 

[Speedwell]

As a non-believer, I have to take a person's claim at face value. If a person calls themselves a Christian, why would I otherwise doubt that?

You have to check with OWG first.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

As a non-believer, I have to take a person's claim at face value. If a person calls themselves a Christian, why would I otherwise doubt that?

"People lie." -Dr. Gregory House