Why Darwinian Evolutionists Hate Mathematicians

[rich_t]

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

If you make 13 more posts you will be eligible to particpate in the fight club threads.

 

[TheSarge]

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

No not really.

[Oceander]

IMHO it's not.

But folks seem to enjoy partaking in it.

So I say let them.

In which way is it "not necessary" then?

[Chris_]

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

Have you read the entire thread?

Agreed that it has wandered into "micro", rather than "macro", however, its point is to determine whether there is validity to evolution (from member's perspective) or whether much more needs to be learned about "The Origion of the Species".........

In light of thiis explanation, do you still think it pointless?

doc

[Darwinist]

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

I gave the specific prediction, based on evolutionary principles and the state of the fossil record, and 20 years in the waiting for confirmation, of the transitional form named Diarthrognathus.

The existence of just one confirmed prediction is sufficient to confirm the general principle. How many more individual examples do you need?

[rich_t]

Continued research, of course.

So...

It will become an established FACT, only after more scientific research?

Awesome.

Then you admit that it is not yet fact.

So we are back to it being nothing more than an interesting scientific theory.

[Darwinist]

No not really.

Back it up then, sport.

[rich_t]

The existence of just one confirmed prediction is sufficient to confirm the general principle.

Ummm...

Nope.

That's like saying that just because I won the lottery one time, my method of picking the numbers is sufficient to confirm my method as scientifically valid.

[Oceander]

Have you read the entire thread?

Agreed that it has wandered into "micro", rather than "macro", however, its point is to determine whether there is validity to evolution (from member's perspective) or whether much more needs to be learned about "The Origion of the Species".........

In light of thiis explanation, do you still think it pointless?

doc

Yup.  It's a matter of working out the details of how God created the world as it is using such wonderfully indirect mechanisms as evolution, and in a universe that has indeterminacy built in at the root level, with quantum mechanics.  There is utterly nothing inconsistent with the existence of God, Jesus, and the rather well-developed theory of evolution.

[Carl]

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

The fact that most mutations are sterile proves only that evolution would take an impossibly long time to realize.

As to social Darwinisim how does that differ from any other theory (the actual definition) of natural selection.
Are humans now exempt from the process?
If so explain why and how.

If not then what races of the human species are not equipped to make it to the next level of evolutionary process?

[Darwinist]

So...

It will become an established FACT, only after more scientific research?

No. It may never become established fact. Obviously one must ascertain fact before establishing it. To ascertain one must first find and confirm evidence. No evidence, no ascertainment

Awesome.

Why, yes, in fact science is.

Then you admit that it is not yet fact. So we are back to it being nothing more than an interesting scientific theory.

The particular answer to the particular question "When did the first transcription error take place?" No. No factual answer yet. But ask yourself - and I mean ponder this: what makes that an important question in light of the confirmed fact that transcription errors happen in every cell division? Why is it important to know when the "first one" happened?

[Darwinist]

Ummm...

Nope.

That's like saying that just because I won the lottery one time, my method of picking the numbers is sufficient to confirm my method as scientifically valid.

Not even close. The better lottery metaphor is that when one person wins the lottery it proves the lottery is winnable.

[rich_t]

So we are back to it being nothing more than an interesting scientific theory.

We never left that point.

As the theory of evolution is still just that...  a theory.

Will we learn more in years to come on the subject?  Perhaps.

Will it ever become a hard scientific fact?  I rather doubt it.

[Carl]

I gave the specific prediction, based on evolutionary principles and the state of the fossil record, and 20 years in the waiting for confirmation, of the transitional form named Diarthrognathus.

The existence of just one confirmed prediction is sufficient to confirm the general principle. How many more individual examples do you need?

Then you would say that Mayan prophesy is scientifically valid or the writings of Nostradamus are too because dedicated believers can say their predictions are accurate?

[Chris_]

Yup.  It's a matter of working out the details of how God created the world as it is using such wonderfully indirect mechanisms as evolution, and in a universe that has indeterminacy built in at the root level, with quantum mechanics.  There is utterly nothing inconsistent with the existence of God, Jesus, and the rather well-developed theory of evolution.

That's very inspiring, and this IS the "Religious Discussions" forum, however man, in his eternal quest for truth sometimes requires a bit more........after all, where did our magnificent intellect come from in the first place?

doc

[rich_t]

Not even close. The better lottery metaphor is that when one person wins the lottery it proves the lottery is winnable.

Nice try but no dice.

[Carl]

No. It may never become established fact. Obviously one must ascertain fact before establishing it. To ascertain one must first find and confirm evidence. No evidence, no ascertainment
Why, yes, in fact science is.
The particular answer to the particular question "When did the first transcription error take place?" No. No factual answer yet. But ask yourself - and I mean ponder this: what makes that an important question in light of the confirmed fact that transcription errors happen in every cell division? Why is it important to know when the "first one" happened?

Your whole theory relies on it even though you will jump through fire to deny it.

[Carl]

I have asked and am looking for an answer.

If natural selection is the mechanism of evolution then how does 2010 man fit into that?
Who among the human species are likely not to survive and why as evolution takes its natural course?

[TheSarge]

I gave the specific prediction, based on evolutionary principles and the state of the fossil record, and 20 years in the waiting for confirmation, of the transitional form named Diarthrognathus.

Funny you should mention that.

Diarthrognathus lacks the dental specialization of the tritylodonts; thus, its transitional status can be questioned.


The skeletal remains of many "transitional" forms, such as Diarthrognathus, are fragmentary. Furthermore, the demarcation between the reptilian [92] and mammalian structures is becoming blurred as knowledge about each group increases. The diagnostic characteristics of the class Mammalia essentially reside in the soft anatomy and physiology that cannot be determined from skeletal remains. Therefore, the classification of mammalian fossil according to skeletal features is tentative. In addition, the almost simultaneous appearance of Diarthrognathus (late Triassic era) and the first known mammal fossil (Triassic-Jurassic boundary) leaves little time for the evolution of mammals from this presumed transitional form.

http://www.ibri.org/Books/Pun_Evolution/Chapter2/2.2.htm

The existence of just one confirmed prediction is sufficient to confirm the general principle. How many more individual examples do you need?

I and any person with more than two brian cells to rub together need an example that can't be shot down in less than five minutes and one internet search.

[Oceander]

That's very inspiring, and this IS the "Religious Discussions" forum, however man, in his eternal quest for truth sometimes requires a bit more........after all, where did our magnificent intellect come from in the first place?

doc

No doubt it is an epiphenomenon of the material biology - as God knew such would eventually, and inevitably, develop out of the materials contained within the nascent/growing/dying/reborn universe (as God knows no Time in the sense that we do, the universe must, in some senses, be doing all of these things at once as far as He is concerned).

No doubt the actual mechanisms underlying that epiphenomenon will, in due course, be discovered by us humans.

[TheSarge]

Back it up then, sport.

You want it on an individual or population level?  There are genetic differences between twins that develop from a single zygote.

How specific do you want to get?

It would seem to me that an Evolution Cultist like yourself would understand this.  Especially when it comes to things like natural selection and survival of the fittest.

At some point for a species to evolve and survive...a species for sake of this particular point I'm making being the human species...that it would have to naturally cross pollinate so to speak so that by combining the best quality of two variations of the same species...one single stronger species would emerge.

Do you disagree?

[Carl]

Funny you should mention that.

Diarthrognathus lacks the dental specialization of the tritylodonts; thus, its transitional status can be questioned.


The skeletal remains of many "transitional" forms, such as Diarthrognathus, are fragmentary. Furthermore, the demarcation between the reptilian [92] and mammalian structures is becoming blurred as knowledge about each group increases. The diagnostic characteristics of the class Mammalia essentially reside in the soft anatomy and physiology that cannot be determined from skeletal remains. Therefore, the classification of mammalian fossil according to skeletal features is tentative. In addition, the almost simultaneous appearance of Diarthrognathus (late Triassic era) and the first known mammal fossil (Triassic-Jurassic boundary) leaves little time for the evolution of mammals from this presumed transitional form.

http://www.ibri.org/Books/Pun_Evolution/Chapter2/2.2.htm


I and any person with more than two brian cells to rub together need an example that can't be shot down in less than five minutes and one internet search.

Not to mention that the assertion that just one of anything is sufficient proof of anything or even an arguable point.

I stand by my previous statement that Darwinist is a disappointment in his ability to make a argument or make a debate.

Again Darwinist...tell me how the human species will be subject to natural selection as evolutionists declare must be.

How will we carry on and what races will be preserved?
Don`t like social darwinisim?
Tough shit..it is another way of explaining why and how the theory (general accepted definition) works.

Speak up on the issue.

[TheSarge]

That's very inspiring, and this IS the "Religious Discussions" forum, however man, in his eternal quest for truth sometimes requires a bit more........after all, where did our magnificent intellect come from in the first place?

doc

That is a question an Evolutionist will never give you a straight answer on.

For it requires an answer that would totally shatter their whole belief system

[Carl]

[Sun 09:32] <Darwinist> Say TxR, what makes you think you can? I've been cutting off creationists and IDers at their shoetops for almost 20 years now: what makes you special?

Just when is that going to happen genius...wrote a check with your mouth that your ass can`t keep?

You disappoint me to no end and that TNO would think you are his best hope speaks volumes about his judgment and intellect.

[Carl]

Figure out yet educated one how to change your AV here?