Why Darwinian Evolutionists Hate Mathematicians

[Carl]

That sums up pretty much everyone I've encountred on the internet who believe they are morally superior to everyone else because they buy into the Evolution Cult.

There are a few that are civil.

But most are like the Evo Cultists we've been dealing with here.

As I stated before...the inevitable line of defense becomes something to the nature of "You`re too stupid to understand".
Constant redefining of words and terms with goalposts set up on wheels is the basis for evolutionary argument as has been demonstrated often on this thread.

They can`t admit for a second that it is a matter of faith and belief even though they can never provide the answer to the basic questions that must be answered..how did life begin,why did evolution start,why so many unexplained yet assumed as fact (punctuated equilibrium) theories and so on.

I personally don`t care what anyone believes but to declare nothing more then guesses as being hard fact is dishonest and indicating a motive (denial of God) beyond any scientific interests.

[Oceander]

I think you're rather understating the basis for evolution, and in a similarly ideological manner.

[Carl]

I think you're rather understating the basis for evolution, and in a similarly ideological manner.

I don`t believe I have as far as the crux of it and have never once proclaimed to believe anything other then creation or that I can prove as fact it happened either.

[rubliw]

As I stated before...the inevitable line of defense becomes something to the nature of "You`re too stupid to understand".
Constant redefining of words and terms with goalposts set up on wheels is the basis for evolutionary argument as has been demonstrated often on this thread.

Well, let me just share my experience - there is  a metric ****ton of ideologically driven misinformation regarding evolution.  Whether intentional or not, the inevitable consequence is that folks read and believe it... then when, say a trained scientist, comes along and uses terms correctly or says something contrary to the misinformation - it appears to the unwashed that he's being dishonest and the "goalposts have moved", or that he's frantically redefining terms to "keep his faith intact".   Admittedly too, inexperienced or naive evolution amateurs use terms imprecisely or have flawed understandings of basic concepts as well.  However, most of the err generally resides in the person who uncritically accepts bad information.

Don't even get me started on the terms "transitional form", or "junk DNA".

They can`t admit for a second that it is a matter of faith and belief even though they can never provide the answer to the basic questions that must be answered..how did life begin,why did evolution start,why so many unexplained yet assumed as fact (punctuated equilibrium) theories and so on.

First off, there isn't a wide consensus over PE to my knowledge, so its hardly an assumed fact.  Richard Dawkins, for example, is a famous and notable example of one who does not endorse it.  Evolution/abiogenesis is actually answering the questions "how did life begin", and "how did evolution get started".  They havent been throroughly answered yet, but so what?  

I personally don`t care what anyone believes but to declare nothing more then guesses as being hard fact is dishonest and indicating a motive (denial of God) beyond any scientific interests.

There are plenty of evolution believing Christians - evolution does not entail atheism.   There are several notable Christian biologists who not only strongly advocate the idea that Christianity is compatible with evolution through many books and foundations, but also actively fight creationism and intelligent design - like Ken Miller and Francis Collins.

[Carl]

First off, there isn't a wide consensus over PE to my knowledge, so its hardly an assumed fact.  Richard Dawkins, for example, is a famous and notable example of one who does not endorse it.  Evolution/abiogenesis is actually answering the questions "how did life begin", and "how did evolution get started".  They havent been throroughly answered yet, but so what? 

Thank you for making my point.

You don`t know but you say it is fact...that is faith.

[rubliw]

Thank you for making my point.

You don`t know but you say it is fact...that is faith.

Huh?  I have never said PE is fact, nor would I. 

[Carl]

Huh?  I have never said PE is fact, nor would I.  

No,that there is much that hasn`t been answered and you don`t care..you still call it (evolution) an unequivical fact.

That is a matter of faith...you don`t know how it is but you believe it.
Fine,I have no grudge against that but be honest about the whole proposition and admit it is still an unproven and unprovable theory that requires blind faith to accept.

For some reason that very simple and logical premise is like a cross to a vampire.
Why is that?

[rubliw]

No,that there is much that hasn`t been answered and you don`t care..you still call it (evolution) an unequivical fact.

That is a matter of faith...you don`t know how it is but you believe it.
Fine,I have no grudge against that but be honest about the whole proposition and admit it is still an unproven and unprovable theory that requires blind faith to accept.

For some reason that very simple and logical premise is like a cross to a vampire.
Why is that?

Because its false.  So to any cautious respecter of truth, its bound to offend.

Evolution is quite simply the best explanation for the diversity of species.  It has so much supporting evidence, that cannot be reasonably predicted or explained any other way, that even without the fossil record, it would still be the most well supported explanation for the diversity of species.

Its not faith - its called inference to the best explanation.

[Carl]

Because its false.  So to any cautious respecter of truth, its bound to offend.

Evolution is quite simply the best explanation for the diversity of species.  It has so much supporting evidence, that cannot be reasonably predicted or explained any other way, that even without the fossil record, it would still be the most well supported explanation for the diversity of species.

Its not faith - its called inference to the best explanation.

To me creation does that just fine,so we disagree.

Once more you make a statement full of faith and deny it is such..oh well I guess.
If you think that somehow life spontaneously generated and new genetic material from time to time also does (where did hair/fur genes come from well into any evolutionary time frame) and that doesn`t require faith then so be it.

[rubliw]

To me creation does that just fine,so we disagree.

In order for creation to work as an explanation, every well-established major natural science would have to be uprooted and gutted - to their most basic fundamentals.  Based on that fact alone,  creation is an immensely poorly supported explanation - it contradicts nearly everything we have learned about the natural world.  Chemistry, physics, biology, geology, cosmology, etc.  Pretty much nothing remains intact.  Evolution, on the other hand, sits right in comfortably, with little disruption.

Its really easy to underestimate just how much stuff creation theories contradict.  In that light, its amusing to look back at the OP, and chuckle a little.

Once more you make a statement full of faith and deny it is such..oh well I guess.
If you think that somehow life spontaneously generated and new genetic material from time to time also does (where did hair/fur genes come from well into any evolutionary time frame) and that doesn`t require faith then so be it.

Just because you are incredulous over the idea that life could spontaneously arise, in a gradual fashion, from non-living matter, it doest mean there are no good or no plausible explanations.  There are.

Scientists are continually posing plausible pathways that could have led to life, then they attempt to confirm or disprove their ideas through experimentation.  Many have been experiencing marked success.  

[Carl]

In order for creation to work as an explanation, every well-established major natural science would have to be uprooted and gutted - to their most basic fundamentals.  Based on that fact alone,  creation is an immensely poorly supported explanation - it contradicts nearly everything we have learned about the natural world.  Chemistry, physics, biology, geology, cosmology, etc.  Pretty much nothing remains intact.  Evolution, on the other hand, sits right in comfortably, with little disruption.

Its really easy to underestimate just how much stuff creation theories contradict.  In that light, its amusing to look back at the OP, and chuckle a little.

Just because you are incredulous over the idea that life could spontaneously arise, in a gradual fashion, from non-living matter, it doest mean there are no good or no plausible explanations.  There are.

Scientists are continually posing plausible pathways that could have led to life, then they attempt to confirm or disprove their ideas through experimentation.  Many have been experiencing marked success.  

I care little if by your thinking it doesn`t make sense,to me it is a satisfactory explanantion of the unknown and the continuing unknown..pretty much your take on evolution.
I can admit it is faith,you can`t...it is that simple.
If you were to admit you are accepting the unknown as true,which is what faith is then we have no disagreement in principle.
You refuse because it would throw your belief system into turmoil which you can`t accept.

We can go back and forth all day but you have illustrated my points and the point of the OP completely.

[rubliw]

I care little if by your thinking it doesn`t make sense,to me it is a satisfactory explanantion of the unknown and the continuing unknown..pretty much your take on evolution.
I can admit it is faith,you can`t...it is that simple.
If you were to admit you are accepting the unknown as true,which is what faith is then we have no disagreement in principle.
You refuse because it would throw your belief system into turmoil which you can`t accept.

We can go back and forth all day but you have illustrated my points and the point of the OP completely.

My dedication is to the best, most probable explanation, not evolution per se.  Its not faith based, its evidence based.  If the evidence turns on evolution, so will my belief.

There is a definite distinction between faith, and inference to the best explanation.   

[Doc]

My dedication is to the best, most probable explanation, not evolution per se.  Its not faith based, its evidence based.  If the evidence turns on evolution, so will my belief.

There is a definite distinction between faith, and inference to the best explanation.  

I think you guys are down to arguing the semantics of "faith" vis-a-vis evolutionary science.

I have stated a couple of times that I really don't have a dog in this fight, but in a way, you are both correct in your arguments from my perspective. "rubliw" is correct so far as the present state of science on the subject indicates that available evidence points to an "evolutionary process" involved in life as we know it on earth.......how it started, where it is going, and why there are gaping inconsistancies, science can only speculate, and speculation is not science.......it can be broadly defined (as "Carl" does) as "faith".  Evolutionists shun that word, but in order to arrive at conclusions where there is no evidence, it is an apt way to describe it.

"Carls" perspective from a creationist position accepts the "process" on faith without the evidence........

Therefore, we end up debating the meaning of "faith".........and inasmuch as the overview is concerned, Carl is also essentially correct........both positions rely on "faith".  If evolutionists want to use another term for it that makes them feel better, so be it, but it is there, none the less.

As I stated in the OP, in my years in the hard sciences, I never found a conflict between my faith, and science, because I have always taken a larger view of the universe, and all that is in it as an "entity", and not as a process........therefore never falling into the trap of having to view any part of scientific study as conflicting with what for my faith, I accept as a "given"........

doc

[TheSarge]

Well, let me just share my experience - there is  a metric ****ton of ideologically driven misinformation regarding evolution.  Whether intentional or not, the inevitable consequence is that folks read and believe it... then when, say a trained scientist, comes along and uses terms correctly or says something contrary to the misinformation - it appears to the unwashed that he's being dishonest and the "goalposts have moved", or that he's frantically redefining terms to "keep his faith intact".   Admittedly too, inexperienced or naive evolution amateurs use terms imprecisely or have flawed understandings of basic concepts as well.  However, most of the err generally resides in the person who uncritically accepts bad information.

Don't even get me started on the terms "transitional form", or "junk DNA".

First off, there isn't a wide consensus over PE to my knowledge, so its hardly an assumed fact.  Richard Dawkins, for example, is a famous and notable example of one who does not endorse it.  Evolution/abiogenesis is actually answering the questions "how did life begin", and "how did evolution get started".  They havent been throroughly answered yet, but so what?  

There are plenty of evolution believing Christians - evolution does not entail atheism.   There are several notable Christian biologists who not only strongly advocate the idea that Christianity is compatible with evolution through many books and foundations, but also actively fight creationism and intelligent design - like Ken Miller and Francis Collins.

*yawn*

Keep believing your fractured fairy tale.  It's got more holes in it than a Krispy Kreme at 6 in the morning.

[rubliw]

*yawn*

Keep believing your fractured fairy tale.  It's got more holes in it than a Krispy Kreme at 6 in the morning.

Translation: "I got nuthin".

[MrsSmith]

MrsSmith - perhaps you should make an earnest attempt to learn about evolution from people who accurately represent it.  Not Discovery Institute knuckleheads or AIG.   So no.. tetrapods certainly have not been shown to be on earth, before any of their predecessors. 

Here is how the footprint discovery has affected the phylogenetic tree, and Tiktaalik (Tik in the picture) in particular.   The top tree is before the footprints - the bottom tree is after.  Notice how all the relationships remain the same, before and after, and all that gets changed is the timeline.   

Before:


After:


Please also note this curious fact - Tik is considered a transitional, yet it has no descendants.  Marinate on that for a second.

Yep. They just changed the dates...and now they'll search frantically and either find or invent some sort of evidence to back up their currently unsupported assumptions.  Same old...after all, the alternative to evolution is to admit God made it all...and we can't have them breaking the first rule, the one that demands they find ANY explanation, no matter how contrived, to explain everything without Him. 

[TheSarge]

Translation: "I got nuthin".

Ummm no.  I had 15 pages worth of something in this thread.

Between two of your fellow cultists I debunked every Evolution myth they tried to trot out.

[rubliw]

Yep. They just changed the dates.

Right.  They changed the dates to correspond with new evidence.  That generally happens when one discovers evidence that pushes back previous estimations or first known occurrences of something.  Thats how its supposed to work!  Its supposed to work that way!!  That is what is supposed to happen!!!

But...

It seems you have forgotten the core objection that you were raising quite strenuously earlier (and with much conceit).   I believe it was something like:

"Tetrapods have now been shown to exist before their predecessors!".

However, notice that Tik doesn't have any descendants in the tree.  It has no descendants because it wasn't ever considered a predecessor to anything.  So not only was the original implied assumption flat out false - that Tiktaalik was a predecessor to tetrapods (presumably you assumed so, because it is a transitional), but the assessment that followed was just as wrong - that tetrapods existed prior to their predecessors.

[rubliw]

Ummm no.  I had 15 pages worth of something in this thread.

Between two of your fellow cultists I debunked every Evolution myth they tried to trot out.

You congratulate yourself unduly.  From the random sampling I have seen, you have mostly just propagated myths and misunderstandings of your own, such as in the brief exchange about Miller-Urey - the significance of which you don't seem to have grasped.

[franzmazur]

Hi, I'm new here. I came across this thread by accident, and was excited about this debate. There are so many very intelligent people here, it baffles me. Doc and Night Owl... you guys seem to know your stuff. I haven't read everything on here, but you two are great.

I'm in a biology class, and we're learning about all of the things discussed here. I feel like I've been given sufficient fuel for discussion in that class. Thank you all! I know this thread is kind of done, but still... thanks.

The only thing that didn't set well with me was the initial post out of which this thread began. It began with Doc talking with a mathematician friend about evolution, then Doc paraphrased his friend's viewpoint. As I read it, I found it to be a very interesting argument. I had many questions, because from what little I know about Darwinian Evolution, I cannot say much with certainty. One question, however, rose above them all, and this question I direct to TVDOC...

Have you ever read "Breathless" by Dean Koontz? I actually just finished it.

[Doc]

I direct to TVDOC...

Have you ever read "Breathless" by Dean Koontz? I actually just finished it.

Actually I have, and a conversation in that book (mentioned in the OP, albeit not by title or author) is what brought my discussion with my friend back from the depths of my memory, and thus inspired the thread.  There is a nearly identical discussion in the book "Mathematics and Earth Sciences, a Practical Analysis" by Willard Z Kosmovski, pub. 1939, which my friend referred to in his discussions with me (and may have also have inspired Koontz)......I like Koontz's work. Since Stephen King went down the drain (figuratively) he is about the only one left of that genre that is readable.....

Welcome to CC......you might want to go to our "Welcomes and Introductions" forum, and introduce yourself to the membership.

doc

[dred37]

I read this mathematicians statement word for word including the italics in Dean Koontz' book BREATHLESS.  It begins on page 348 and continues through page 353 all imbeded in dialogue.  So: who is quoting Whom?

[Mike220]

Holy necro thread.

[Michael David Rawlings]

So they studied one family, found a total of 4 unnoticeable mutations to the DNA sequencing that resulted in no significant change over 13 generations.  

I don't think anybody questions whether DNA can change and mutate, the question is whether those mutations can actually be significant enough to create a new species.  I think the original point still stands.  To evolve from a single celled organism to a complex multi-celled organism requires frequent huge evolutionary changes. To produce the vast range of life that exists on earth would require extreme, near constant mutations, and we should be able to still see huge evolutionary leaps.

And of course we haven't seen them, certainly not since the Cambrian period.  Another major and related problem for evolutionary theory that is glossed over is the very obvious fact that a Darwinian common ancestry necessarily entails a tautologically stochastic and, subsequently, transitionally unquantifiable process.  There is no way to predict what mutations would need to be conserved or even the number of transitory forms that might be required to affect the transformation of one species into an entirely new species.