Evolution is mathematically impossible

xianghua · Feb 25, 2019

sfs said:
and highly different molecular solutions to produce the same result are easy to find

base on what? an electric organ (like that we see in some fishes) for instance is coded by about 30 different genes. and yet scientists believe that this organ evolved about 6 times. can you show a calculation for such convergent evolution?

sfs said:
We are clearly related genetically to the great apes, that is, we clearly share a genetic common ancestor with chimpanzees

a mere assumption. we are only similar to them. not related.

sfs said:
the insertion of a virus into the DNA -- the same insertion found in multiple species will be found in ones that could have inherited it from a common ancestor, and will not be found in more distantly related species

im sure that you heard about these cases. right?:

Mosaic retroposon insertion patterns in placental mammals

A HERV-K provirus in chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas, but not humans. - PubMed - NCBI

tas8831 · Feb 25, 2019

xianghua said:
the claim that all creature share a common descent for instance. this isnt a fact.

Robot penguin disagrees.

inquiring mind · Feb 25, 2019

sfs said:
A reasonable question. As @46AND2 says, it's the patterns of similarities and differences that are very hard to explain except by common descent. Picking up their example, when we see a particular gene that has been disabled by an identical mutation in several species, the odds are overwhelming that the species will cluster together on the phylogenetic tree, because the mutation happened only once and was inherited by closely related species. Ditto for the insertion of a virus into the DNA -- the same insertion found in multiple species will be found in ones that could have inherited it from a common ancestor, and will not be found in more distantly related species.

We can also look at genetic differences that have no effect on the organism, like "synonymous mutations", that is, changes to the DNA that don't affect the protein produced by a gene. These typically have minimal effect on the organism. We find that closely related species have very few synonymous differences, while more distant species have a lot. There is no functional reason for this patter. If we look at differences overall, we can also see that they look exactly the way we would expect if they had been caused by lots of mutations. I've written up this piece of evidence in more detail here.

‘Shared genetics = shared ancestry = shared predictions’ certainly make a compelling case for macroevolution; I’ve understood this for quite some time. But, to be perfectly honest, (1) I just do not believe the so-called humans of 6 million - 200,000 years ago were actually human at all. If the Bible had said man was created before animals, this would pose a problem in my line of thinking. Granted, similar genetics is hard to explain, but I believe there is another explanation, even if there is no convincing ‘scientific evidence’ to support one in the molecular arena at this time. (2) I believe the only evolution going on in the >200K year time-frame was micro or adaptation related. I know we disagree on this, but I think the archaeological record is lacking in support of macroevolution. (3) I do not believe the first modern humans of the <200K year time-frame macro-evolved either, but were created just as the Bible says. The short of it is that it’s much easier for me to side-step biology & genetics, no matter how convincing, than it is my interpretation of God’s Word, as He has revealed it to me. Obviously, He has revealed it to Christian evolutionists differently. It would stand to reason that one of us is interpreting wrong... that’s why I keep looking, questioning and challenging. Kind of like an old man said to me once, “I saw a bird the other day that acted just like a crow, it was feeding with them and even set on a fence with them, it looked sort of like a crow, and it flew like a crow too, but I know it wasn’t a crow – I don’t know what it was.” Try not to make fun of my homespun yarn.

tas8831 · Feb 25, 2019

inquiring mind said:
I just do not believe

'Inquiring mind'

inquiring mind · Feb 25, 2019

tas8831 said:
'Inquiring mind'

'I just do not think' will work too.

OldWiseGuy · Feb 25, 2019

pitabread said:
Sure. Good thing evolution doesn't work purely by random mutations. And this is the problem: you're not actually modeling real-world evolution.

So, real world evolution works by design? If so it must be reproducible in the lab.

VirOptimus · Feb 25, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
So, real world evolution works by design? If so it must be reproducible in the lab.

Nope. Ever heard of natural selection?

OldWiseGuy · Feb 25, 2019

VirOptimus said:
Nope. Ever heard of natural selection?

Yes I have heard of that magical process.

46AND2 · Feb 25, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
Yes I have heard of that magical process.

lol. And you say that as if you don't believe in magic.

OldWiseGuy · Feb 25, 2019

46AND2 said:
lol. And you say that as if you don't believe in magic.

Au contraire. You have your magic, we have ours.

pitabread · Feb 25, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
So, real world evolution works by design? If so it must be reproducible in the lab.

*sigh*

OldWiseGuy · Feb 25, 2019

pitabread said:
*sigh*

Ok, on paper then?

VirOptimus · Feb 25, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
Yes I have heard of that magical process.

No, the magic is all on your side.

Natural selection is incredibly wellsupported by data and observations.

VirOptimus · Feb 25, 2019

pitabread said:
*sigh*

The ignorance is staggering sometimes.

OldWiseGuy · Feb 25, 2019

VirOptimus said:
The ignorance is staggering sometimes.

Ignorance is bliss (we need more bliss).

VirOptimus · Feb 25, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
Ignorance is bliss (we need more bliss).

Ignorance is curable by studying.

pitabread · Feb 25, 2019

VirOptimus said:
Ignorance is curable by studying.

Education is the anathema of creationism.

tas8831 · Feb 26, 2019

xianghua said:
the claim that all creature share a common descent for instance. this isnt a fact.

From a now closed thread - you never replied to this:

If you find a watch, 'the designer dun it' is simply a proclamation.

Which designer? And how do you know? What about the multitude of other watch types - digital, for example? Was it the same designer? How would you know?

At the very best, if you find a watch on earth, you could conclude that a human made it.

Which human? And how would you know? And how did this human design and make the watch? Did this human make all the pieces him or herself? All the gears, springs, etc? Or were there other humans involved?

So you can (but likely won't) see that merely positing a Designer or Creator without providing any evidence for whom the designer was, how the designer operated, etc., is something a child might do?

tas8831 · Feb 26, 2019

pitabread said:
Education is the anathema of creationism.

But not for creationists that boast of having high IQs and had well-paying jobs - because just being smart and thinking about things in a YEC mindset turns your biased, uninformed musings into facts, as if they were poofed into a living, fully-formed adult human male from mere dust of the ground.

tas8831 · Feb 26, 2019

inquiring mind said:
'I just do not think' will work too.

For your handle, yes.

I note that you are still making false claims about evidence and the like. Pity that your 'inquiring' seems to stop when it comes to your middle eastern myths.

Evolution is mathematically impossible

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

and a discerning heart

Well-Known Member

and a discerning heart

Wake me when it's soup.

A nihilist who cares.

Wake me when it's soup.

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

A nihilist who cares.

A nihilist who cares.

Wake me when it's soup.

A nihilist who cares.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency