Evolution is mathematically impossible

[Subduction Zone]

Mechanisms: the processes of evolution

Oh! You edited. I can't even see your link right now since I see your original but my quote shows your edited post.

EDIT: Okay you replaced your question mark with the article that you did not understand. My previous comment stands. That article makes sense. You can't allow yourself to understand it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No. Evolution begins with first life. Life has to be self reproducing. Self reproducing is not perfect, therefore variation was "built in".

The problem with first life is the same as the problem of the first mammal. There is no hard line between mammals and their predecessors just as there is no hard line between life and non-life. How many traits must a cell have to be called "alive"?

How complex was the first life form? No circular reasoning please, no 'must have been'. Or do you believe that complex organisms appeared first then some 'devolved' into simpler ones? And isn't even the simplest life form we know of highly developed and very complicated?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Oh! You edited. I can't even see your link right now since I see your original but my quote shows your edited post.

EDIT: Okay you replaced your question mark with the article that you did not understand. My previous comment stands. That article makes sense. You can't allow yourself to understand it.

What changes during evolution? And how did the thing that changes come to be without evolution?

Did you ever notice that many writings about evolution begin with, "This should help you better understand..."? If evolution is so simple why hundreds of 'examples' to help us understand? It seems to me that the key to 'understanding' evolution is...belief in evolution.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The word evolution describes the change ... it is the name for the change. It doesn't "enable" change; it is the change.

 

[pitabread]

It seems to me that the key to 'understanding' evolution is...belief in evolution.

Understanding evolution involves being able to conceptualize the concepts of evolution properly. But that doesn't necessitate one needs "believe" in it.

Knowledge and belief are two different things.

 

[Ophiolite]

How complex was the first life form?

We do not know. It is possible we shall never know. It is an interesting question. Several scientists are seeking to provide an answer. Provisional answers have already been found.

However, the question is irrelevant. I'll grant you the possibility that the first life form was created by a god, or deposited here by aliens, or transported back in time from our own future, or any other mechanism you care to specify, or imagine. Guess what! Once it is in place its origin is irrelevant. Evolution proceeds exactly as we have determined it works.

To repeat, the origin of the first lifeform is irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

All that said, the first life form capable of replication, would not have replicated perfectly. And there you have that portion of evolution responsible for variation, on which natural selection and other mechanisms can then act.

Or do you believe that complex organisms appeared first then some 'devolved' into simpler ones?

No.

? And isn't even the simplest life form we know of highly developed and very complicated?

Certainly. But the simplest lifeform is much more complicated than the very first life form. There have been three and a half billion years for the initial life form to evolve to that condition. That is roughly 3 x 10^13 generations.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

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...

I don't think the impossibility (overall, as well as so many things like this one) can be refuted. Not honestly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How complex was the first life form? No circular reasoning please, no 'must have been'. Or do you believe that complex organisms appeared first then some 'devolved' into simpler ones? And isn't even the simplest life form we know of highly developed and very complicated?

Some questions have not been answered yet. The proper answer at this time is "We do not know yet". That is not evidence against evolution. We don't know is never an excuse to invoke a God.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

God is always present. We don't need to know anything to invoke Yahweh.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What changes during evolution? And how did the thing that changes come to be without evolution?

Did you ever notice that many writings about evolution begin with, "This should help you better understand..."? If evolution is so simple why hundreds of 'examples' to help us understand? It seems to me that the key to 'understanding' evolution is...belief in evolution.

The allele frequency of the genome.

Abiogenesis is how life probably came to be, but that is still in the hypothetical stage. There is quite a bit of evidence for natural abiogenesis. There is no evidence for your beliefs.

And no, the key to understanding evolution is dropping a belief in a myth that was shown to be wrong over 100 years ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God is always present. We don't need to know anything to invoke Yahweh.

If you want to claim certain things that he did then the burden of proof is upon you. In fact to even claim that he exists you are taking on a huge burden of proof.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If you want to claim certain things that he did then the burden of proof is upon you. In fact to even claim that he exists you are taking on a huge burden of proof.

No worries.

He Himself already provided all the proof that is needed. (available for everyone )

 

[Subduction Zone]

No worries.

He Himself already provided all the proof that is needed. (available for everyone )

If that was the case we would not be having this discussion. And whether a god exists or not does not really enter into the discussion. Many Christians accept the fact that life is the product of evolution. Evolution does not disprove the Christian God, it only changes how Genesis is interpreted.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If that was the case we would not be having this discussion.

It is the case, for it is impossible for God to lie. (and I have not lied, btw)

The discussion is only because of unbelief. That is not God's Problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is the case, for it is impossible for God to lie. (and I have not lied, btw)

The discussion is only because of unbelief. That is not God's Problem.

Again you put a huge burden of proof upon yourself. Your word is not good enough for this clam, just as if I said that God did not exist that would put a huge burden of proof upon me. If you claim that there is "proof" then as a Christian you should give it. Now it is a mistake to interpret the Bible literally since as you said God cannot lie. The problem with a literal interpretation is that can only be done if God did lie and cover up his acts. I do agree with you that if a God exists he would almost certainly be honest. That is why no matter what I cannot take the first book of the Bible literally.

 

[Ophiolite]

God is always present. We don't need to know anything to invoke Yahweh.

It is equally true that one doesn't need to know anything to talk nonsense. Indeed, it is a positive advantage.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If that was the case we would not be having this discussion. And whether a god exists or not does not really enter into the discussion. Many Christians accept the fact that life is the product of evolution. Evolution does not disprove the Christian God, it only changes how Genesis is interpreted.

The creation account in Genesis cannot be interpreted to mean the continuation of evolution of air breathing species, including man, as the 'dry land' part of the earth was under water.

 

[bhsmte]

It is the case, for it is impossible for God to lie. (and I have not lied, btw)

The discussion is only because of unbelief. That is not God's Problem.

What god?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

That is why no matter what I cannot take the first book of the Bible literally.

....hmmm.....
"no matter what"......

even if truth ? ..... or perhaps it is true, but not supposed to be taken literally (however you define "literally") ......

I think most argument against believing the Bible is just because of rebellion, not fact.

The rebellion might be mostly because of what little children were taught by their mommy and daddy.

 

[pitabread]

I think most argument against believing the Bible is just because of rebellion, not fact.

Nah, there is an even simpler reason: some people just don't find the Bible that compelling.