Why Darwinian Evolutionists Hate Mathematicians

[The Night Owl]

It's called "The Origin of Species" not "The Origin of Variations Within Pre-Existing Species".

Fail.

Main Entry: species
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: class, variety
Synonyms: breed, category, collection, description, division, group, kind, likes, lot, nature, number, order, sort, stripe, type  
Notes: species is a subgroup of genus and you capitalize a genus, but not a species (which is properly pronounced SPEE-sheez)

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/species

Charles Darwin's book was titled The Origin of Species because it was intended to explain the existence of species, which can be defined as variety. Had Darwin intended for his book to explain the origin of life itself he would have titled it The Origin of Life.

[Doc]

On the basis then that climate change isn`t a change in the definition of terms to suit the need to ignore the flaws and Goulds punctuated equillibrium is?

Go ahead.

Post deleted by moderator.......TNO, you were warned.

If you wish to discuss the definition of these terms, please do it here:
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/board,53.0.html

[The Night Owl]

Not in this thread, TNO.......lest you risk me splitting the topic.........AGW (farce that it is) is discussed in another forum.

Carl merely brought it up as a descriptive analogy to what I stated in the OP, regarding "scientists" becoming so invested in a flawed theory that they spend their resources defending an error in thought, rather than searching for the truth......

Stay on topic.......

doc

Fine.

[The Night Owl]

On the basis then that climate change isn`t a change in the definition of terms to suit the need to ignore the flaws and Goulds punctuated equillibrium is?

Go ahead.

An explanation of the difference between global warming and climate change: http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,39210.0.html

[Chris_]

An explanation of the difference between global warming and climate change: http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,39210.0.html

Thank you......

doc

[Chris_]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1

After attempting to wade through most of that, it seems to focus on "probabilities", and not actual biological events........I therefore must assume that it still does not answer the question of why no new phyla have evolved for nearly half a billion years.

To digress, when we address the issue of the fossil record, there are two specific examples that evolutionists like to display.......one is the evolutionary development of horses, and another involving whales.  However, we are attempting to find factual evidence here, and it is impossible to make an accurate aging of fossilized remains, therefore in these cases, we cannot actually, with any degree of certanty determine if these fossilized remains are displayed by their advocates in the correct chronological order.......or whether or not (in the absence of DNA evidence) they are even biologically related.......we can only theorize.

It should be noted that Carbon-14 dating of fossilized remains will not provide a scientist with the accurate age of the remains.......only the rock........so we are really seeing only anecdotal, not actual evidence of an evolutionary process.

For a "Theory" that has consumed its advocates for a century and a half, there are an awful lot of "holes" and assumptions...........

doc

[Chris_]

Your friend was talking about Haldane's Dilemma, which isn't really a dilemma at all but rather a conclusion based on a mathematical blunder:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/haldane1.html

Conclusion

Remember, Haldane's 1957 paper was a theoretical treatise on the cost of natural selection. Here is Haldane's conclusion, which is correct in both points:

"To conclude, I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision. But I am convinced that quantitative arguments of the kind here put forward should play a part in all future discussions of evolution."

Actually no.......he was not referring to Haldane's Dillema at all......you are making his thoughts far more complicated than they actually were.  He was thinking of evolutionary theory strictly in terms of the arithmetic involved.......it is really simple:

On one hand you break the time available for evolution to occur down into the smallest realistically measurable increment.......and on the other hand you break the biological end result (today's phyla proliferation) down into the number of mutations that would be required to achieve that end result, assuming evolution, as a theory to be accurate........

Compare the two numbers, and either they add up or they don't.......his arithmetic says that they don't.

doc

[Thor]

I don't believe Darwin for one bit. If one reads the Torah, the Bible or the Qur'An, the way man came to be is described there. That said, that sure seems like genetic manipulation/ cloning from some higher power. Call it God, Allah, an alien or whatever you choose. I also believe that the Earth was terra-formed, to some extent. That concept could be argued, though. I find it a little coincidental that the dinosaurs had conveniently died off right before mankind came into the picture.

[The Night Owl]

That concept could be argued, though. I find it a little coincidental that the dinosaurs had conveniently died off right before mankind came into the picture.

Dinosaurs died off over 60 million years before humans emerged.

[TheSarge]

I'm always amazed that despite time after time when all of the things that supposedly prove that Evolution is real are shown to be frauds...the defenders of this religion continue to insist we aren't seeing what is clearly before our very eyes.

[The Night Owl]

After attempting to wade through most of that, it seems to focus on "probabilities", and not actual biological events........I therefore must assume that it still does not answer the question of why no new phyla have evolved for nearly half a billion years.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you wanted recent examples of speciation. Here are a few: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

[Thor]

Dinosaurs died off over 60 million years before humans emerged.

If you'd like to believe that, OK.........

I DO know that they allegedly died off some 65 Million years ago. That said, I think that mankind has been around MUCH longer than what the scientists believe. I have a suspicion that some day, we will discover that carbon dating wasn't all that accurate......

[TheSarge]

If Evolution is "fact"...then why is it that there isn't one single observable example on record of a of one species evolving into another by Darwin's belief in variation and selection?

[Chris_]

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you wanted recent examples of speciation. Here are a few: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

Your link lists several species that have been created in a lab, modified themselves as a result of some dramatic environmental change, or been recently discovered with no proof that they did not pre-exist......

My question was, and still is......why have no new phyla emerged?

doc

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Fail.

Charles Darwin's book was titled The Origin of Species because it was intended to explain the existence of species, which can be defined as variety. Had Darwin intended for his book to explain the origin of life itself he would have titled it The Origin of Life.

So when scientists discuss variations within a species they're being redundant?

You can argue semantics all you want but the fact remains every atheist uses evolution as THE argument to buttress their allegiance to naturalistic materialism and the non-theistic origin of life (except for some who occasionally likes little green men more than God). To argue otherwise is absurd on its face.

[The Village Idiot]

Dinosaurs died off over 60 million years before humans emerged.

and humans emerged how? a trillion mutations in how many years?

[The Night Owl]

So when scientists discuss variations within a species they're being redundant?

Not at all. When scientists talk of variation within a species they're simply talking of a subset within a subset.

You can argue semantics all you want but the fact remains every atheist uses evolution as THE argument to buttress their allegiance to naturalistic materialism and the non-theistic origin of life (except for some who occasionally likes little green men more than God). To argue otherwise is absurd on its face.

The only atheist I've ever encountered who is confused about what The Origin of Species is intended to explain is you.

[The Night Owl]

and humans emerged how? a trillion mutations in how many years?

Consider...

A Pessimistic Estimate of the Time Required for an Eye to Evolve

Nilsson, Dan-E.; Pelger, Susanne
Proceedings: Biological Sciences, Volume 256, Issue 1345, pp. 53-58

Theoretical considerations of eye design allow us to find routes along which the optical structures of eyes may have evolved. If selection constantly favours an increase in the amount of detectable spatial information, a light-sensitive patch will gradually turn into a focused lens eye through continuous small improvements of design. An upper limit for the number of generations required for the complete transformation can be calculated with a minimum of assumptions. Even with a consistently pessimistic approach the time required becomes amazingly short: only a few hundred thousand years.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994RSPSB.256...53N

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

The only atheist I've ever encountered who is confused about what The Origin of Species is intended to explain is you.

OoS is practically the atheist Bible.

I repeat for the deliberately obtuse: The fact remains every atheist uses evolution as THE argument to buttress their allegiance to naturalistic materialism and the non-theistic origin of life. To argue otherwise is absurd on its face.

[The Night Owl]

I repeat for the deliberately obtuse: The fact remains every atheist uses evolution as THE argument to buttress their allegiance to naturalistic materialism and the non-theistic origin of life. To argue otherwise is absurd on its face.

Can you name some of these atheists who think that TOoS explains the origin of life and what they've said to give you that impression?

[The Village Idiot]

Consider...

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994RSPSB.256...53N

SO I assume they have done this in a laboratory?

[Carl]

Can you name some of these atheists who think that TOoS explains the origin of life and what they've said to give you that impression?

What is then the origin of life?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Can you name some of these atheists who think that TOoS explains the origin of life and what they've said to give you that impression?

At least TRY to make this interesting for me:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/23/dawkins.darwin.atheism/

[The Night Owl]

What is then the origin of life?

Unknown. My money is on abiogensis.

[The Night Owl]

At least TRY to make this interesting for me:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/23/dawkins.darwin.atheism/

Talk about being obtuse. Nothing in the CNN piece you provided a link to indicates that Richard Dawkins thinks The Origin of Species explains how life began.