Math Logic Disproves Evoution

[Assyrian]

You know Jesus saw a lot of analogies between the kingdom of God and farming or fishing. It doesn't mean the kingdom of God is an offshoot of agriculture or fisheries. Just because you think you see similarities between evolution and Christianity, it doesn't mean that is where Darwin got his ideas or that evolution is an offshoot of Christianity.

Be careful as well, when trying to understand a new subject it is easy to fall into the trap of simply seeing it in terms of another subject you do understand. Christians can understand faith and worship, so you often find people claiming scientists 'worship' Darwin or evolution or that accepting scientific evidence is 'faith'. They see an analogy for something they don't understand and think the analogy is the true understanding. As you point out yourself, life is often a lot more complex.

 

[no1nose]

What is the problem with recognizing the parallels between Christianity and Evolution?

In the most general sense they both follow the “Redeemer Scenario” which is the most prevalent myth in the world. The idea of a redeemer is as old as mankind. And it can be found in many cultures. There were many people before Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah and there have been many since. Entertainment in our society is so saturated with this idea of a saviour that we take the whole thing for granted. The Western movie is famous for the lone hero who rides into town to save people from a gang of villains. But there are also many adventure, war, action or drama movies feature a hero who suffers and then rescues the innocent. Often in movies a hero appears to die only to have to somehow have escaped death and reappears to everyone’s joy. The fact saviour myths existed before the time of Christ doesn’t disprove the validity of Christianity. Far from it, if anything they show that in the heart of mankind there has always been the need for a saviour. All Darwin did was adapt this senario to the natural world.

 

[Mallon]

All Darwin did was adapt this senario to the natural world.

No. He didn't. Your saying so really makes me wonder whether you've ever read On the Origin of Species because your version of evolution does not match up with his version of evolution.

 

[no1nose]

No. He didn't

Ok what was the root source for Darwin's ideas?

 

[Assyrian]

What is the problem with recognizing the parallels between Christianity and Evolution?

The problem is the word 'recognising' it suggests the similarities you think you see are the result of a real connection. Did you ever see the shape of bunny rabbits and dogs in clouds? Faces in flowery wallpaper or curtains? Mother Teresa on a cinnamon bun? Seeing similarities does not mean they are real.

In the most general sense they both follow the “Redeemer Scenario” which is the most prevalent myth in the world. The idea of a redeemer is as old as mankind. And it can be found in many cultures. There were many people before Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah and there have been many since. Entertainment in our society is so saturated with this idea of a saviour that we take the whole thing for granted. The Western movie is famous for the lone hero who rides into town to save people from a gang of villains. But there are also many adventure, war, action or drama movies feature a hero who suffers and then rescues the innocent. Often in movies a hero appears to die only to have to somehow have escaped death and reappears to everyone’s joy. The fact saviour myths existed before the time of Christ doesn’t disprove the validity of Christianity. Far from it, if anything they show that in the heart of mankind there has always been the need for a saviour. All Darwin did was adapt this senario to the natural world.

Given that redeemer/hero is such universal idea, isn't it possible you are simply reading the hero myth into evolution rather than actually identifying evolution's real source? After all with such a prevalent myth, anything that gives any sort benefit can be read as a hero myth. Fire brigades, the discovery of aspirin, seat belts, prozac, they could all be interpreted in a hero myth framework, that does not mean you have uncovered their true nature, or that they are a heretical version of Christ the Redeemer.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What is the problem with recognizing the parallels between Christianity and Evolution?

There isn't one. The problem comes when you butcher Christianity, evolution, evolutionary theory, and common descent, in order to find parallels. You ended up with strawmen of each concept.

In the most general sense they both follow the “Redeemer Scenario” which is the most prevalent myth in the world. The idea of a redeemer is as old as mankind. And it can be found in many cultures. There were many people before Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah and there have been many since.

Source? I'm not aware of any 'Messiah' claims before Jesus.

Entertainment in our society is so saturated with this idea of a saviour that we take the whole thing for granted. The Western movie is famous for the lone hero who rides into town to save people from a gang of villains.

Is that any surprise? Western cinema arose in a Christianised civilisation. Even the English language has hallmarks of Christianity. But that's just a historical curio. What does it have to do with anything?

But there are also many adventure, war, action or drama movies feature a hero who suffers and then rescues the innocent. Often in movies a hero appears to die only to have to somehow have escaped death and reappears to everyone’s joy. The fact saviour myths existed before the time of Christ doesn’t disprove the validity of Christianity. Far from it, if anything they show that in the heart of mankind there has always been the need for a saviour.

Not really. The concept of a 'hero' is both vague and ancient, and arises from the fact that suffering exists in the world. Heroes emerged first as ledgendary warriors, then as divinities. It has nothing to do with Christianity. Indeed,

All Darwin did was adapt this senario to the natural world.

Except, he didn't: there is nothing in evolutionary theory that involves a 'saviour'. It is simply an explanation for biodiversity using evolution by natural seletion.

Ok what was the root source for Darwin's ideas?

Evolutionary theory has existed since antiquity. The Greek philosophers Anaximander and Empedocles proposed non-supernatural origins of life (the former even suggested that life existed in the oceans, and only later emerged on land). This sentiment is echoed in Chinese and Roman thinkers. Indeed, Lamarck's ideas were the first 'modern' ideas as to how species changed.
Darwin is remarkable among these philosophers and scientists for two reasons. First, his work on the subject was far more popular than those of his predecessors. Second, his theory was accurate enough to kickstart modern evolutionary theory. Indeed, a mere two years after the publication of On the Origin of Species, Archaeopteryx was uncovered in Germany.

There is rarely a root source for any major scientific idea.

 

[Mallon]

Ok what was the root source for Darwin's ideas?

The best way to figure this out would be to pick up Darwin's book On the Origin of Species and check out his sources.
And if you're unwilling to do that, you might start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Species#Background

 

[no1nose]

The redeemer senario is the model that Darwin used as an outline for his theory. Darwin used this archtype from the subconscious to fill in the blanks. The theory of evolution presents itself as complete but I don't believe that this can be true of any human theory. And this itself is an indicator that it is something that exists in our minds and not out there.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems
Quote:In mathematical logic, Gödel's incompleteness theorems, proved by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are two theorems stating inherent limitations of all but the most trivial formal systems for arithmetic of mathematical interest.

The theorems are of considerable importance to the philosophy of mathematics. They are widely regarded as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics is impossible, thus giving a negative answer to Hilbert's second problem. Authors such as J. R. Lucas have argued that the theorems have implications in wider areas of philosophy and even cognitive science as well as preventing any complete theory of everything from being found in physics, but these claims are less generally accepted.

 

[Melethiel]

You still haven't answered the question of what exactly is this "redeemer scenario" that the ToE proposes. Who or what is being redeemed, by whom, to what end, by what means? Your assertions without any supporting evidence are meaningless.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The redeemer senario is the model that Darwin used as an outline for his theory.

Please, show us where Darwin did this.

Darwin used this archtype from the subconscious to fill in the blanks. The theory of evolution presents itself as complete but I don't believe that this can be true of any human theory. And this itself is an indicator that it is something that exists in our minds and not out there.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems
Quote:In mathematical logic, Gödel's incompleteness theorems, proved by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are two theorems stating inherent limitations of all but the most trivial formal systems for arithmetic of mathematical interest.

The theorems are of considerable importance to the philosophy of mathematics. They are widely regarded as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics is impossible, thus giving a negative answer to Hilbert's second problem. Authors such as J. R. Lucas have argued that the theorems have implications in wider areas of philosophy and even cognitive science as well as preventing any complete theory of everything from being found in physics, but these claims are less generally accepted.

You shoot yourself in the foot. Godel's Incompleteness theorem is for formal systems that perform arithmetic. Unless I'm very much mistaken, Darwin's theory of common descent is not a formal set of axioms by which one derives arithmetic.

As ever, you show that you have only heard these terms. YOu have no understanding of what they mean. You even cite Wikipedia, whichcontradicts your claims! You equivocate Godel's meaning of 'complete' with that meant when scientists say a theory is 'complete'. Indeed, I have never heard a scientist say common descent is complete; that would imply it's a known fact.

Good gods .

 

[Gareth]

Ave, Assyrian! On a slightly different tack, how about this: evolution is sometimes the "survival of the fittest." Yet we show and receive love and affection, display justice and other things that have no place in a survival of the fittest. Yet we have and use these things. What is the math on that?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ave, Assyrian! On a slightly different tack, how about this: evolution is sometimes the "survival of the fittest." Yet we show and receive love and affection, display justice and other things that have no place in a survival of the fittest. Yet we have and use these things. What is the math on that?

"Survival of the fittest" is a bit misleading, as is the claim that love, affection, justice, etc, have no place in such a competition.

It is more accurately described as "survival of those with traits that give them a reproductive advantage". It's not necessarily the individual that has to reproduce, just the traits; more specifically, it is the genes that code for those traits. In a social species, one's genetic code is very similar to those of one's kin (siblings, cousins, etc). Thus, by protecting them at the expense of one's own life, you are indirectly improving your genetic code's chances of survival: through your kin. This is called kin selection.

Evolution by natural selection leads, upon the evolution of social species, to the second order evolution by kin selection. Kin selection allows for the evolution of a variety of seemingly anti-survival behaviour : altruism, homosexuality, senses of justice, morality, beauty, etc.

I don't think I have to explain the advantage offered to a species by the capacity for its members to love their kith and kin.

 

[Assyrian]

Hi woden have you met Wiccan Child..? Wiccan Child this is woden.

If you think of it some of the most successful species on earth are highly altruistic, ants and bees, wolf packs, creatures that are willing to lay down their lives for their pack mates or nest. If evolution is God's idea, it is actually a very power way of creating creatures capable of amazing acts of sacrificial love, made in his image as it were.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Hi woden have you met Wiccan Child..? Wiccan Child this is woden.

If you think of it some of the most successful species on earth are highly altruistic, ants and bees, wolf packs, creatures that are willing to lay down their lives for their pack mates or nest. If evolution is God's idea, it is actually a very power way of creating creatures capable of amazing acts of sacrificial love, made in his image as it were.

Even amoeba have displayed a startlingly complex morality. Linky:

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=901

 

[juvenissun]

wolf packs, creatures that are willing to lay down their lives for their pack mates

Would wolf do this? I am not surprised insects will do. They are hardwired to do that. But if the animal is slightly intelligent, I would doubt it.

 

[no1nose]

Originally Posted by no1nose

The redeemer senario is the model that Darwin used as an outline for his theory.
​

Please, show us where Darwin did this.

Incompleteness Thought Experiment. (please try this yourselves)

Sitting on the table before me is a coffee cup. I now close my eyes and try to picture the cup. As I try to picture the cup within my mind I notice that I can only hold the image of the cup for a short time and that the image that I imagine is different than what I see when I look at the cup. The image of the cup that I imagine is static in time and more two dimensional than three. I cannot imagine the whole cup but only a view of it. Clearly the cup that exists in my mind is a distorted representation of the cup on the table. The cup in my mind is made up from my observations of the cup on the table. But the cup in my mind is not the same as the cup on the table. The cup on the table exists in real time and space while the cup in my mind exists in an entirely different way that is not a true representation.

I now take a pen and paper and attempt to describe the cup. However, hard I try my description will be of the cup that is in my imagination and not the actual cup itself. This then is the problem with any description of nature based on observations. With the aid on mathematics we can describe some aspects of the cup and make predications based on laws of nature. But in the case of Evolution there are no mathematical measures inherit in its theory. This being the case we are left with only the distorted images in our minds to use as a basis for a written description of the natural world and how it works.

This was what Darwin faced when he set out to describe nature with the Theory of Evolution. Besides working with observations based on distorted images he needed a scenario or outline that would make sense of his observations. This is where he turned to Christian beliefs. In Christianity there is the idea that some survive and some become “extinct”. There is also the idea that changing one’s nature is the key to survival. This fit well with his observations and with a few adaptations became the Theory of Evolution.

The redeemer senario is the model that Darwin used as an outline for his theory. The theory presents itself as complete but I don't believe that this can be true of any human theory. And this itself is an indicator that it is something that exists in our minds and not out there.

Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems

​

In mathematical logic, Gödel's incompleteness theorems, proved by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are two theorems stating inherent limitations of all but the most trivial formal systems for arithmetic of mathematical interest.

The theorems are of considerable importance to the philosophy of mathematics. They are widely regarded as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics is impossible, thus giving a negative answer to Hilbert's second problem. Authors such as J. R. Lucas have argued that the theorems have implications in wider areas of philosophy and even cognitive science as well as preventing any complete theory of everything from being found in physics, but these claims are less generally accepted.
​

 

[Melethiel]

You keep avoiding the question of how, exactly, evolution proposes a redeemer scenario. Who is being redeemed? Who is the redeemer? Means, purpose? I'm beginning to think you can't answer the question.

Sitting on the table before me is a coffee cup. I now close my eyes and try to picture the cup. As I try to picture the cup within my mind I notice that I can only hold the image of the cup for a short time and that the image that I imagine is different than what I see when I look at the cup. The image of the cup that I imagine is static in time and more two dimensional than three. I cannot imagine the whole cup but only a view of it.

Speak for yourself...I myself have excellent 3D memory and projection (quite helpful in studying chemistry and physics). I know people who have photographic memory - they can literally "snapshot" pages from a textbook and "read" off this memory during exams. (I can also do this to a limited extent.)

In Christianity there is the idea that some survive and some become “extinct”. There is also the idea that changing one’s nature is the key to survival.

Which version of Christianity is this? It is nothing like the Christianity that I have been taught.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Incompleteness Thought Experiment. (please try this yourselves)

Sitting on the table before me is a coffee cup. I now close my eyes and try to picture the cup. As I try to picture the cup within my mind I notice that I can only hold the image of the cup for a short time and that the image that I imagine is different than what I see when I look at the cup. The image of the cup that I imagine is static in time and more two dimensional than three. I cannot imagine the whole cup but only a view of it. Clearly the cup that exists in my mind is a distorted representation of the cup on the table. The cup in my mind is made up from my observations of the cup on the table. But the cup in my mind is not the same as the cup on the table. The cup on the table exists in real time and space while the cup in my mind exists in an entirely different way that is not a true representation.

I now take a pen and paper and attempt to describe the cup. However, hard I try my description will be of the cup that is in my imagination and not the actual cup itself.

Actually, you could write an enourmous volume detailing the complete subatomic strucutre of the cup. That would completely describe the object.

This then is the problem with any description of nature based on observations. With the aid on mathematics we can describe some aspects of the cup and make predications based on laws of nature. But in the case of Evolution there are no mathematical measures inherit in its theory. This being the case we are left with only the distorted images in our minds to use as a basis for a written description of the natural world and how it works.

No. Darwin's explanation for the origin of biodiversity does not make approximations or guesstimations: it states that all life on Earth is descended from a single common ancestor, and long-term evolution by natural selection has resulted in the biodiversity we see today.

So please, show us distorted image in this proposed explanation.

This was what Darwin faced when he set out to describe nature with the Theory of Evolution. Besides working with observations based on distorted images he needed a scenario or outline that would make sense of his observations. This is where he turned to Christian beliefs. In Christianity there is the idea that some survive and some become “extinct”. There is also the idea that changing one’s nature is the key to survival. This fit well with his observations and with a few adaptations became the Theory of Evolution.

... no. The theory of evolution emphasises that populations of organisms change, but organisms themselves stay the same. So much for that.

The redeemer senario is the model that Darwin used as an outline for his theory. The theory presents itself as complete but I don't believe that this can be true of any human theory. And this itself is an indicator that it is something that exists in our minds and not out there.

Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems

In mathematical logic, Gödel's incompleteness theorems, proved by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are two theorems stating inherent limitations of all but the most trivial formal systems for arithmetic of mathematical interest.

The theorems are of considerable importance to the philosophy of mathematics. They are widely regarded as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics is impossible, thus giving a negative answer to Hilbert's second problem. Authors such as J. R. Lucas have argued that the theorems have implications in wider areas of philosophy and even cognitive science as well as preventing any complete theory of everything from being found in physics, but these claims are less generally accepted.
​

To repeat myself:

You shoot yourself in the foot. Godel's Incompleteness theorem is for formal systems that perform arithmetic. Unless I'm very much mistaken, Darwin's theory of common descent is not a formal set of axioms by which one derives arithmetic.

As ever, you show that you have only heard these terms. YOu have no understanding of what they mean. You even cite Wikipedia, whichcontradicts your claims! You equivocate Godel's meaning of 'complete' with that meant when scientists say a theory is 'complete'. Indeed, I have never heard a scientist say common descent is complete; that would imply it's a known fact.

Good gods .

 

[Mallon]

This was what Darwin faced when he set out to describe nature with the Theory of Evolution.

You seem quite hung up over Darwin's inability to completely capture the intricate details of nature. But I have to ask: how is Darwin's theory any different or less complete than any other human theory? We're all humans, and limited as such. Why are you specifically picking on Darwin and not the practice of science as a whole?

And as I asked before, if evolution is so wrong, why does it work? Why has it not been falsified?

 

[no1nose]

You shoot yourself in the foot. Godel's Incompleteness theorem is for formal systems that perform arithmetic. Unless I'm very much mistaken, Darwin's theory of common descent is not a formal set of axioms by which one derives arithmetic

“Incompleteness” for want of a better world is evident throughout nature. For example in physics there is the uncertainty principle. And in the natural world life is organized in way a way that prevents conscious life from being in direct contact with its ultimate source of life

Light flows to the green plants, which use light to make the food that flows to the animals. It would be an advantage for an animal to be able to make food from light the way that plants do. But there are no animals that can make food from light the way plants do.

Plants that receive their food from this ultimate source are unconscious and unseeing. There are no plants with eyes that can see or minds that can know. Life, it seems, is shielded from ever coming face to face and knowing where its life comes from. Life is divided in two. The living things that receive their “food” as light are unconscious and unseeing. And the animals that can see and think receive the “light as food” only indirectly from the food that the plants produce for them.

Incompleteness is very important because it means that we can never really know the ultimate nature of the world around us. Its like a bank statement that doesn't show the final balance and has some entries missing - it tells us some but in the end the balance could be anything.

You keep avoiding the question of how, exactly, evolution proposes a redeemer scenario. Who is being redeemed? Who is the redeemer? Means, purpose? I'm beginning to think you can't answer the question.

I honestly don't know how to explain it to you any better than I have. If you are really interested it may help if you tell me what you think that I am saying and from that I may be able to explain better.