Evolution is mathematically impossible

[OldWiseGuy]

One of the conceptual challenges re: evolution is trying to conceptualize the amount of time that life has been evolving on this planet. Humans are used to thinking in terms of minutes, hours or days. We have no concept for millions or billions of years.

Hence, trying to wrap one's head around how much change could occur over that length of time is going to be tough.

Sure, but all things considered I believe the weight of evidence is against evolution.

 

[pitabread]

The argument, imo, boils down to either common ancestor or common designer.

Why not multiple designers?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You've admitted you don't understand it though and seemingly have no desire to try to understand it.

I don't think it's possible to understand evolution, although it is possible to believe it.

 

[pitabread]

Sure, but all things considered I believe the weight of evidence is against evolution.

Except by your own admission you don't understand the evidence for evolution.

It's a little like saying, "I don't understand math, therefore algebra is wrong". Not exactly a statement chalk with meaning.

 

[pitabread]

I don't think it's possible to understand evolution, although it is possible to believe it.

Why? Just because you don't understand it therefore nobody else can either?

I don't know how to fly an airplane, but I'm not about to tell professional pilots that they don't know how either.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why not multiple designers?

Too many cooks spoil the broth.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution articles do the same thing. Very little is ever said about the process of evolution in these writings.

What "articles"? If you're talking about news articles (e.g. journalism), then of course you're not going to get much depth. Those are written for a lay audience. They aren't intended to be deep dives into how things work.

If you really want to learn about how evolution works you need to look for more academic sources. I pointed you to a university-level course on the very subject, but you declined to peruse it.

 

[pitabread]

Too many cooks spoil the broth.

Irrelevant catch-phrase that doesn't address the question.

If you allow for a single designer, why not allow for multiple designers?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why? Just because you don't understand it therefore nobody else can either?

I don't know how to fly an airplane, but I'm not about to tell professional pilots that they don't know how either.

What "articles"? If you're talking about news articles (e.g. journalism), then of course you're not going to get much depth. Those are written for a lay audience. They aren't intended to be deep dives into how things work.

If you really want to learn about how evolution works you need to look for more academic sources. I pointed you to a university-level course on the very subject, but you declined to peruse it.

I think I actually did, and my head began to hurt just a few paragraphs into it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Irrelevant catch-phrase that doesn't address the question.

If you allow for a single designer, why not allow for multiple designers?

Perhaps there were. Lucifer may have helped to design women.

 

[pitabread]

Perhaps there were. Lucifer may have helped to design women.

Ouch.

 

[Astrophile]

Sure, but all things considered I believe the weight of evidence is against evolution.

What evidence would convince you that the weight of the evidence is in favour of evolution?

 

[pitabread]

I think I actually did, and my head began to hurt just a few paragraphs into it.

The course I linked was a series of video lectures: Principles of Evolution, Ecology and Behavior | Open Yale Courses

And FWIW, nobody said necessarily that learning is easy. Evolution (and biology in general) are deep topics and it can be a challenge to learn. The question is simply whether we are willing to make the personal effort.

 

[VirOptimus]

Perhaps there were. Lucifer may have helped to design women.

How misogynic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution articles do the same thing. Very little is ever said about the process of evolution in these writings. It is assumed that the reader understands that the process is alive and well, even if only lurking in the shadows...or behind the curtain. It's like, by looking at the product we should be able to see the process. Sorry, I don't.

Evolution is not "lurking in the shadows". Yes, it is assumed in any scientific article that one's audience has at least a certain level of scientific literacy. Can you image how long an article would be if they tried to educate everyone from zero ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no evidence of evolution, as I understand it.

That only tells us that you clearly have no understanding of what is and what is not evidence. Since you do not understand the concept how about discussing it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did that recently.

Where? Link please.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Evolution is not "lurking in the shadows". Yes, it is assumed in any scientific article that one's audience has at least a certain level of scientific literacy. Can you image how long an article would be if they tried to educate everyone from zero ?

You've stumbled upon the biggest shortcoming in education: assumptions.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How misogynic.

So whoever designed women did so with hatred for them? I know they have some problems due to their design but...misogyny?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Except by your own admission you don't understand the evidence for evolution.

It's a little like saying, "I don't understand math, therefore algebra is wrong". Not exactly a statement chalk with meaning.

I don't understand how creatures that were evolving lived through the catastrophic events recorded in the geologic record. Especially if their 'population' was greatly reduced.