Why Darwinian Evolutionists Hate Mathematicians

[Carl]

Kinda.  He's not saying or posting anything that TNO hadn't already.

And which had already been refuted as well I might add.

I am disappointed...really though from his words that he would clear this all up in a matter of a few posts.

[Carl]

True, but I can't help notice that he has others wasting a lot of bandwidth by responding to him.

I don`t know one thing about bandwidth Rich but have to say it is still fun.

[Darwinist]

But but but I thought that theory was the same as fact where science is concerened?

Punctuated equilibrium is a fact in that the fossil record does show sporadic periods of evolutionary acceleration and near-stasis. Gould and Eldredge were trying to work out a physical mechanism for the pattern. The jury is still out on whether they compellingly succeeded. Most biologists believe the answer to the question is actually of little importance because punk-eek is really not much more than an observation of rate, like someone observing that a hiker walks faster over some portions of the trail and slower on others. The reason why he does that isn't necessarily important. Might be, but not necessarily.

You mean they speculated and conjectured?

No, they studied the fossil record and noted a discernible pattern of change with regard to biotic diversity over time.

The actual meaning of "theory" that is.

That ship has sailed, and you were left standing on the dock waving a hanky, and with a sad little tear in your eye. Back to your little shack on the beach now....

[Chris_]

And yet they still have no explanation for the Cambrian period.

They have no way of explaining how in a span of 5-10 million years (the Cambrian period) nearly every animal phyla we have today suddenly appeared over 500 million years ago.

It's something not even Darwin could explain.

Here lies the crux of my problem with evolution per se........as I mentioned in the OP, during this period, roughly 100 new phyla emerged..........over the eons, all but 30 have become extinct........and no new phyla (NOT SPECIES) have emerged.

Why?  If evolution is a continuous process.

Therefore in the broadest sense, evolution, with the exception of minor environmental adaptations.......simply stopped......500 million years ago.....

Why?

doc

[TheSarge]

True, but I can't help notice that he has others wasting a lot of bandwidth by responding to him.

LOL! I guess.  But I'm on a four day weekend...trying to rest up before I get really busy with all things deployment...it's a fun to stretch the mental muscles and debate with people who think that the lack of evidence to prove what they are saying...actually proves their theory.

[Darwinist]

The easy questions we hand out to shallow thinkers like you and TNO.

Tex, I've forgotten more about evolutionary biology than you've ever learned or are ever likely to be motivated to learn.

Just to let you know....

[MrsSmith]

Considering that Tetrapod fossils have been found all over the world, it should come as no surprise that fossils of their predecessors are being found all over the world.

I'm guessing that you, like Mrs. Smith, are under the impression that evolution is a ladder.

Fossils of their PREdecessors??    PREdecessors, by definition, must come BEFORE, not after.  

As it is, the tetrapods are now "proven" to have shown up several million years BEFORE their PREdecessors.  

Just like branches hang around in the air for years before the tree trunk reaches them, right, TNO??  

Maybe you need to drag out your little dictionary and look up the definition of before.

[Carl]

Punctuated equilibrium is a fact in that the fossil record does show sporadic periods of evolutionary acceleration and near-stasis. Gould and Eldredge were trying to work out a physical mechanism for the pattern. The jury is still out on whether they compellingly succeeded. Most biologists believe the answer to the question is actually of little importance because punk-eek is really not much more than an observation of rate, like someone observing that a hiker walks faster over some portions of the trail and slower on others. The reason why he does that isn't necessarily important. Might be, but not necessarily.
No, they studied the fossil record and noted a discernible pattern of change with regard to biotic diversity over time.
That ship has sailed, and you were left standing on the dock waving a hanky, and with a sad little tear in your eye. Back to your little shack on the beach now....

If it is a fact as you say then explain the trigger and the means please?
Then tell me what causes it to stop.
Unless you can do that then it is not a fact..it is a conjecture.
Sorry if you don`t like it but it is so.

Most biologists believe the answer to the question is actually of little importance

Nice attempt to dodge what is a critical element of the theory...you can`t answer it and no one else can so lets just say it doesn`t matter.

That ship has sailed, and you were left standing on the dock waving a hanky, and with a sad little tear in your eye. Back to your little shack on the beach now....

Sorry again but not good enough..declaring that a word means something different then it does is not an intellectually viable argument.

The old joke that supposedly goes back to President Lincoln.

"If I point to a dog and say that its tail is a leg then how many legs does it have?"

"Why 5 then"

"No,just because I call it a leg does not make it a leg...it is still a tail".

[Carl]

Tex, I've forgotten more about evolutionary biology than you've ever learned or are ever likely to be motivated to learn.

Just to let you know....

You have yet to demonstrate that in any way...more big talk.

[TheSarge]

Tex, I've forgotten more about evolutionary biology than you've ever learned or are ever likely to be motivated to learn.

Arrogance much?

You make that claim...yet I've learned enough to be able to refute every thing you and your buddy TNO have tried make us believe.

So please...if you're keeping anything in reserve as some kind of final coup de gras....bring it.

Just to let you know....

Just to let YOU know...your bloviating arrogance and repetition of all the favorite Evo fairy tales has so far amounted to about as much proof that you know what you're talking about as Darwin.

Which is to say very little.

[Carl]

Interesting that the expert (who of course has never claimed himself to be   ) avoided this thread like the plague until forced to.

[rich_t]

 

[Darwinist]

More speculation and hypothesis devoid of facts.

Nevertheless, evolution focuses on how life diversified not on how it came into existence. Obviously evolutionary biology and abiogenesis are related fields. So are the studies of star and black hole formation, as fields within the main science of astronomy. However the two fields obviously have very different focuses, just as evolution and abiogenesis do.

What caused that first genetic transcription?  What triggered the need for that cell division?

Unknown. ...By the way, "Unknown" is not a response science tries to avoid.

More leaps of faith that this is how it's supposed to work.  Yet there is nothing in the fossil record to back up what you claim.

A fossil record for genetic transcription errors? ...Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?

If they are out there then why are you not able to list any of them?

What part of "every individual organism" did you not understand?

And yet they still have no explanation for the Cambrian period.

What explanation do you believe is required, just out of curiosity?

They have no way of explaining how in a span of 5-10 million years (the Cambrian period) nearly every animal phyla we have today suddenly appeared over 500 million years ago.

The Cambrian Explosion actually lasted about 40 million years, FYI. A long time, 40 million years. Relatively brief in geologic terms; but still nothing to sneeze at. It does represent, after all, roughly 1/100 of the earth's history.

It's something not even Darwin could explain.

Out of curiosity, what explanation do you think is required?

Yet we're supposed to believe two cultists like Gould and Eldridge like what they say is holy writ.

Cultists? What makes them cultists?

If evolution never stops...then why aren't we still inundated with the same species that walked the earth millions of years ago?

Because extinction never stops either.  

WOuldn't they have evolved and adapted to the current version of "earth" in order to survive and continue?

That depends on contingent factors like rate of environmental change (it's so much easier to just run from a lava flow, for example, than try to evolve an adaptation to it...) and natural selection through differential success in competition, among other things.

[Carl]

Quote from Darwinist..

If natural selection is the means then why did the "hopeful monster" have or be postulated? - Natural selection does not preclude saltation any more than the gradual burning out of stars below the Chandrasekhar limit precludes the extremely rare (given the number of stars in the universe) supernova. Saltation events among animals are extremely rare but not unheard of. They are far more common among plants and typically occur through polyploidization, during which the orignal number of genes doubles or even quadruples, rendering a new species in a single generation which is gentically distinct and reproductively incompatible with even its immediate parent. Most polyploidal events are lethal, but not all of them. Most surviving polyploids are sterile, but, again, not all of them (review the earlier note concerning the Maidenhair fern).

A question then...

You have stated that most are sterile,which does more to disprove evolution then prop it up,so what do you think of human hybridization...The mixing of races?

One element of Darwinisim has been extrapolating and extending it to social society.
Is natural selection applicable as far as it relates to evolving a human race and if so what sub species should be left off to die out?

[Darwinist]

Arrogance much?

You make that claim...yet I've learned enough to be able to refute every thing you and your buddy TNO have tried make us believe.

Is that what you call that little delusion of yours? "Refutation??" ;D

[Carl]

Nevertheless, evolution focuses on how life diversified not on how it came into existence. Obviously evolutionary biology and abiogenesis are related fields. So are the studies of star and black hole formation, as fields within the main science of astronomy. However the two fields obviously have very different focuses, just as evolution and abiogenesis do.
Unknown. ...By the way, "Unknown" is not a response science tries to avoid.
A fossil record for genetic transcription errors? ...Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?
What part of "every individual organism" did you not understand?
What explanation do you believe is required, just out of curiosity?
The Cambrian Explosion actually lasted about 40 million years, FYI. A long time, 40 million years. Relatively brief in geologic terms; but still nothing to sneeze at. It does represent, after all, roughly 1/100 of the earth's history.
Out of curiosity, what explanation do you think is required?
Cultists? What makes them cultists?
Because extinction never stops either.  
That depends on contingent factors like rate of environmental change (it's so much easier to just run from a lava flow, for example, than try to evolve an adaptation to it...) and natural selection through differential success in competition, among other things.

Then how can it be declared to be settled fact?

[Carl]

Is that what you call that little delusion of yours? "Refutation??" ;D

Show where you have proved any point you make short of saying that it is something you believe.

[Carl]

Just in case this was missed...

A question then...

You have stated that most are sterile,which does more to disprove evolution then prop it up,so what do you think of human hybridization...The mixing of races?

One element of Darwinisim has been extrapolating and extending it to social society.
Is natural selection applicable as far as it relates to evolving a human race and if so what sub species should be left off to die out?

[TheSarge]

Is that what you call that little delusion of yours? "Refutation??" ;D

Then show me where I'm factually wrong.

If Evolution is settled science as you and the rest of the cultists claim that should be pretty easy right?

[rich_t]

Then show me where I'm factually wrong.

If Evolution is settled science as you and the rest of the cultists claim that should be pretty easy right?

Evolution is indeed an interesting scientific theory.

But still a theory none the less.

[TheSarge]

But still a theory none the less.

You and I agree on that.  But don't tell that to the Darwinists.

[Oceander]

Why, pray tell, is this pointless discussion even necessary?

[Darwinist]

Quote from Darwinist..

A question then...

You have stated that most are sterile,which does more to disprove evolution then prop it up

How do you figure that? That no more acts to "disprove" evolution than to observe that based on the diversification of species we see in the fossil record 95-99% of all the species that have ever evolved are now extinct. ...But if you have some logical connection there, please, by all means, trot it out.

so what do you think of human hybridization...The mixing of races?

I think nothing of it because the "races" are social constructs not biological classifications. There is less variability in the human genome worldwide than there is among chimpanzee troops occupying neighboring valleys. (By the way, that indicates that sometime in the remote past humanity was very nearly made extinct: the entire human population was probably reduced to no more than a few dozen individuals - a "genetic bottleneck" we call that. Same thing happened to cheetahs, the African hunting cat that's the fastest land animal; except their population was crushed down to probably 5 - 8 individuals ...which is why all cheetahs are virtually clones of one another: because their variability as a species is almost nil.)

One element of Darwinisim has been extrapolating and extending it to social society.

Tread carefully there. Social darwinism is a facile perversion of darwinistic principles because it has no evidence supporting it. On the other hand the field of sociobiology, which observes that human behavior is affected on a darwinian level in that we have (and are affected by) more instincts than we suppose, does have direct and circumstantial evidentiary support; although much of it is hotly disputed among sociobiologists and their field-related detractors. Moreover social darwinism and sociobiology draw dissimilar conclusions regarding their respective specifics.

Is natural selection applicable as far as it relates to evolving a human race and if so what sub species should be left off to die out?

Once again, "race" is a social designation not a biological or taxonomic classification.

[rich_t]

Why, pray tell, is this pointless discussion even necessary?

IMHO it's not.

But folks seem to enjoy partaking in it.

So I say let them.

[Darwinist]

Then how can it be declared to be settled fact?

Continued research, of course.