Evolution is mathematically impossible

[Subduction Zone]

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

Reasonable assumptions have to be made. One cannot always start from zero. For example when we discuss mattes here I make the assumption that those I am having a discussion with understand the English language. Is that an unreasonable assumption?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

This appears to be a rather strange statement. Evolution is always going on. The changes occur more rapidly at times of mass extinctions. Several things occur. One of them is a very strong selection force being applied to all species at those times. Many can't handle it and go extinct, as the non-avian dinosaurs did at the K-Pg boundary. They were already in decline and the asteroid strike finished them off. Large species were especially vulnerable to the changes brought about by that event. Small species survived and once the environment settled down there were all sorts of empty niches that allowed for rapid evolution. The pressure was off so once again bigger was better for many species.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Reasonable assumptions have to be made. One cannot always start from zero. For example when we discuss mattes here I make the assumption that those I am having a discussion with understand the English language. Is that an unreasonable assumption?

What are/is mattes?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Reasonable assumptions have to be made. One cannot always start from zero. For example when we discuss mattes here I make the assumption that those I am having a discussion with understand the English language. Is that an unreasonable assumption?

I meant more like the assumptions that the teachers are competent, the subject is interesting or valuable, or the students are paying attention.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I meant more like the assumptions that the teachers are competent, the subject is interesting or valuable, or the students are paying attention.

Some teachers are competent, some are not. The subject is interesting and valuable, but one cannot force students to learn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What are/is mattes?

Typo, "matters'. My keyboard might be getting old. When I just retyped it the "r" did not think that I hit it hard enough.

 

[VirOptimus]

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

Your atempt to save face only makes it worse.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Your atempt to save face only makes it worse.

You don't know what you, or I, am talking about.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Typo, "matters'. My keyboard might be getting old. When I just retyped it the "r" did not think that I hit it hard enough.

I have the same problem sometimes. Must be all the food crumbs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have the same problem sometimes. Must be all the food crumbs.

LOL! Could be. I just gave mine a good upside down whacking and close to a meal came out.

 

[VirOptimus]

You don't know what you, or I, am talking about.

I can only go by what you post and I stand by my comments.

 

[tas8831]

Just look at you own hand (it's right there, on the end of your arm).

Evidence for retained tetrapod developmental modules, yes. Evolution!

 

[tas8831]

No hard evidence, just the odds against it happening.

Then do show us how you calculated the odds, won't you?

 

[tas8831]

Given that my theory is so upsetting to you I think it best if you place me on ignore. Then you will have some rest from building all those straw men arguments.

Wouldn't dream of ignoring you - you are a constant source of entertainment and a great example of the hubris of ignorance in support of 'belief.'

Is this your way of acknowledging that I was right?


Since you ignored it in this other thread, allow me to school you yet again on you ' pipes' and routes and destinations...

Sorry, I was referring to chemical, not mechanical, neurons. That would be the 'smoke signals'.

"Mechanical" neurons? What are you ranting about?

The LRN 'sheds' tiny nerve fibers to the aortic arch as it passes beneath it. I theorize that this might be a pathway for communications from the heart to the larynx (many great discoveries begin with a theory).

Why "theorize" about something when the answers are already in hand?
I have already explained this to you before - the RLN carries motor (efferent) fibers OUT of the brain TO the larynx. It carries some sensory (afferent) fibers from the laryngeal mucosa (as well as to/from regions of the esophagus). But nothing from the arch to the larynx, or the heart to the larynx. I could find nothing about "'sheds' tiny nerve fibers to the aortic arch as it passes beneath it", even at your new agey website.

What is the purpose of the heart sending signals directly to the esophagus?

None, because it doesn't.

"The extrinsic cardiac ganglia, located in the thoracic cavity, have direct connections to organs such as the lungs and esophagus and are also indirectly connected via the spinal cord to many other organs, including the skin and arteries."

Does the heart have to communicate with the brain to both manage itself and the function of other organs?

Umm... This is sort of hilarious to me.

A cautionary tale on drawing conclusions after reading things in fields you have no demonstrable skill, education, or experience in.

You see, "cardiac" means 'pertaining to the heart', and in this context, refers to a region, i.e., 'near the heart'. Extrinsic means 'external to'. These ganglia are outside of the heart, and provide innervation to the heart AND to other organs. The heart does not use them to "manage itself and the function of other organs". Victoria Station, for example, does not allow only Victoria to get on trains...
The stomach has a 'cardiac region' (aka, 'cardia') - do you think this means that the stomach has its own heart?

Weird that you apparently stopped reading that webpage after you found your quote - a bit later, we see:

"The “afferent” (flowing to the brain) parasympathetic information travels from the heart to the brain through the vagus nerve to the medulla, after passing through the nodose ganglion. The sympathetic afferent nerves first connect to the extrinsic cardiac ganglia (also a processing center), then to the dorsal root ganglion and the spinal cord. Once afferent signals reach the medulla, they travel to the subcortical areas (thalamus, amygdala, etc.) and then to the cortical areas."​

Nothing about stopping off at other organs. Or sending motor impulses to the larynx. Tell us - did you really just stop reading that when you got the quote you wanted, or did you read the whole thing and not understand it? or not think it mattered? Or hoped that nobody would be able to find it? I don;t understand how you operate. It seems rather self-defeating.

Many articles about the "mind of the heart" state that the heart sends more signals to the brain than it receives from the brain, and that in many cases the brain is subservient to the 'wishes' of the heart.

First part, makes sense, second part, loony nonsense.

The heart/aorta is monitored for things like stretch, O2 levels, CO2 levels, etc - this goes to the brain for processing. To 'adjust' these things, the brain tells the heart to do one of two things - speed up, slow down. No 'need' for an excessive bunch of inputs for that.

The notion that the brain is subservient to the heart is just.... creationist.

It is also elsewhere suggested that the 'gut' has much the same powers.

I'm sure it is.

I found this on your HeartMath Institute website:

After deep reflection, McCraty’s continuously evolving vision took the concept of coherence and energetic fields to the macro level of the planet—and the very edge of science. “Coherence,” he says, “is a state of energetic alignment and cooperation between heart, mind, body, and spirit. In coherence, energy is accumulated, not wasted, leaving you more energy to manifest intention and harmonious outcomes.”​

Ooooh - energy...
The main 'science' guy at HeartMath (McCraty) is also involved with Gwyneth Paltrow's "Goop" nonsense. Kind of a weird group (HeartMath) for a creationist like you to be fond of.


The Global Coherence Initiative: Woo on a global scale - RESPECTFUL INSOLENCE

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/energy-medicine-noise-based-pseudoscience/

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/17/heartmath-considered-incoherent/​

Golly - I went through all that explainin' and you totally ignored it. Almost like it was.. on purpose...

I mean, if that is any indication of your 'exploring' and 'theorizing', then no wonder your head is stuck in the ancient middle east...




I get that it is hard to admit error - especially when your errors make you look sad and foolish - but I thought Christianity taught humility? Guess not when it comes to propping up that very Christianity....

 

[tas8831]

I just finished reading about the genome. I can't fathom how long that took to evolve (there was nothing in the article about that either). It would take quantum leaps of evolution to accomplish all that. I just don't think there's enough time even given millions of years, and, evolution doesn't operate in quantum leaps, like God does.

How sad....

 

[tas8831]

Design is in the eye of the beholder. There is no scientific definition. I could show you 'God's blueprint' and you still wouldn't see design. So there really is no point.

Cool admission that your opposition to evolution and your sad devotion to ancient middle eastern myths is totally subjective and lacking any kind of reasoned, rational, evidence-backed argument.

 

[tas8831]

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

That is because, as you have repeatedly admitted, you do not understand it.

 

[tas8831]

The problem may lie in the definition of evolution.

The argument, imo, boils down to either common ancestor or common designer. As I see common design I go with common designer.

How special. I see evolution, and I do not have to just go with that, I can look at the evidence.

 

[tas8831]

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

But you just wrote:

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

So which is it? And why can't you discuss the evidence?

All you do is toss out child-like 'theorizing' premised on cherry-picked quotes and an admitted ignorance.

 

[tas8831]

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

Well then obviously creation is true...