Why Darwinian Evolutionists Hate Mathematicians

[The Night Owl]

OK, I'll say it very slowly.  The tetrapods left fossils behind that are older than those of their ancestors...the fish that were supposed to become tetrapods.  Your position at this time is that there is no problem with a fossil line-up that puts you several millions years before your many-times great grandparents.  There.  Was that slow enough?  Did you somehow miss that fact in the posted article?  

Just as I thought. You incorrectly view evolution as a ladder rather than a tree.

[The Night Owl]

Observed Evolution?

We have "observed" an animal becoming a totally different animal?

Yes.

[The Night Owl]

I have the luxury of long ago having ceased to concern myself with origins.

You're announcing your lack of intellectual curiosity as though it's an admirable quality? Um, okay.

It's nonsensical thinking arrogantly pawned off in tones of self-satisfying elitism that chafe my cottontail.

So, which hypothesis on the origin of life would you describe as sensical thinking? The God-Did-It hypothesis?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

White noise.

Your every argument from your subjective morality you keep pushing on to others while looking down your crooked little beak at them to your faith in abiogenesis to your dismissal of anything that challenges your preconceptions is "white noise."

We have watched you denigrate others for religion yet every time your belief system cannot provide an answer you throw your stock into some dreamy future discovery or pointless word games.

Worse still, your politics are the antithesis of a world carved by tooth and claw. You suckle weakness and weep over strength. You would steal from the fit to give to the unfit. In more rational days you and they would be beaten and made to serve your betters.

You're announcing your lack of intellectual curiosity as though it's an admirable quality? Um, okay.

I don't consider my personal qualities to be admirable or risible; simply are.

I don't see myself going to Heaven so what does it matter if the world is miserable little mud ball of evolution or the fallen paradise of theists. The end result, at least as far as I am concerned, is the same: NOTHING.

So, which hypothesis on the origin of life would you describe as sensical thinking? The God-Did-It hypothesis?

Your mother never really loved you. It was merely a biological mechanism which, if not present but for the sake of a series of bio-molecular happenstances, she would not have been motivated to propagate her species. What you thought was affection was merely molecules rearranging themselves according to chemical law.

THAT is evolution. That is dispensing with fairy tales. If anyone wants to believe in "love" they might as well believe in God.

Do you believe in love?

[Carl]

Yes.

Examples of a complex animal that we have observed and documented in transition to a completely different one please?

[MrsSmith]

Quote from: FGL on January 16, 2010, 10:47:17 pm
Observed Evolution?

We have "observed" an animal becoming a totally different animal?

Yes.

 

[MrsSmith]

Quote from: MrsSmith on January 16, 2010, 05:55:36 pm
OK, I'll say it very slowly.  The tetrapods left fossils behind that are older than those of their ancestors...the fish that were supposed to become tetrapods.  Your position at this time is that there is no problem with a fossil line-up that puts you several millions years before your many-times great grandparents.  There.  Was that slow enough?  Did you somehow miss that fact in the posted article?

Just as I thought. You incorrectly view evolution as a ladder rather than a tree.

So, calling it a tree excuses the fact that the origin of the tetrapod actually showed up AFTER tetrapods walked the earth...just as we see in trees...the branches show up before the trunk.  I see.   

[TheSarge]

Can you name the geochemists who supposedly overturned the Miller-Urey experiment or am I just supposed to take your word for it?

Sydney Fox and Klaus Dose 1977.

Also....for further proof:

“The likelihood of life having occurred through a chemical accident is, for all intents and purposes, zero.”
Robert Gange, Ph.D., Origins and Destiny, 1986, p. 77.

"Since Miller’s beguiling picture of a pond full of dissolved
amino acids under a reducing atmosphere has been discredited, a new beguiling picture has come to take its place. The new picture has life originating in a hot, deep, dark little hole on the ocean floor.
Freeman Dyson, Origins of Life, 1999, pp. 25-26. (Dyson is a Professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton and a member
of NAS.)

[TheSarge]

Yes.

Where and when?  You don't expect me to just take your word for it do you?

[The Night Owl]

So, calling it a tree excuses the fact that the origin of the tetrapod actually showed up AFTER tetrapods walked the earth...just as we see in trees...the branches show up before the trunk.  I see.  

Our good friend Tiktaalik is one of perhaps several branches which led to tetrapods.

[TheSarge]

Our good friend Tiktaalik is one of perhaps several branches which led to tetrapods.

Ummm...not quite.  Because your outdated BS doesn't take into fact that footprints of a full-tetrapod that were made about 20 million years before Tiktaalik have been discovered in Poland.

Philippe Janvier & Gaël Clément, "Muddy tetrapod origins," Nature Vol. 463:40-41 (January 7, 2010)


Sorry TNO...you failed again.

[The Night Owl]

Sydney Fox and Klaus Dose 1977.

Also....for further proof:

“The likelihood of life having occurred through a chemical accident is, for all intents and purposes, zero.”
Robert Gange, Ph.D., Origins and Destiny, 1986, p. 77.

"Since Miller’s beguiling picture of a pond full of dissolved
amino acids under a reducing atmosphere has been discredited, a new beguiling picture has come to take its place. The new picture has life originating in a hot, deep, dark little hole on the ocean floor.
Freeman Dyson, Origins of Life, 1999, pp. 25-26. (Dyson is a Professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton and a member
of NAS.)

Two points:

1. Rober Gange is not a geochemist (his background is in engineering). Freeman Dyson is not a geochemist (his background is in physics and mathematics).

2. Origins and Destiny is not peer reviewed scientific literature. It's creationist literature.

So far, all you have is a creationist engineer who wrote a creationist book.

[The Night Owl]

Do you believe in love?

Yes.

Do you believe in a god exists? I still can't figure out if you're a theist, an agnostic, or an atheist.

I don't see myself going to Heaven so what does it matter if the world is miserable little mud ball of evolution or the fallen paradise of theists. The end result, at least as far as I am concerned, is the same: NOTHING.

Do you believe Heaven exists?

[The Night Owl]

Where and when?  You don't expect me to just take your word for it do you?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

[TheSarge]

Two points:

1. Robert Gange is not a geochemist (his background is in engineering). Freeman Dyson is not a geochemist (his background is in physics and mathematics).

And that makes them any LESS qualified than the Biologists that continually present fraudulent and made up proof that evolution supposedly exists?

Please explain.

2. Origins and Destiny is not peer reviewed scientific literature. It's creationist literature.

 Typical knee jerk dismissal from shallow thinking people like yourself when presented with facts.

So far, all you have is a creationist engineer who wrote a creationist book.

So far all you've done is cherry pick he parts of what I posted that you can dismiss with some lame "it's not peer reviewed" crap.

Nice of you to completely avoid the fact that I gave you the names of the people that completely debunked the Miller-Urey experiment.

Never mind the fact that Miller and Urey themselves have called their own experiment into question.

The best...the BEST you can come up with when faced with factual evidence that calls your beloved religion of Evolution into question is that a particular paper "isn't peer reviewed".

You sit there and demand others provide factual evidence that you yourself won't provide.

The best you can do is cut and paste what you find within the first five lines of a Google search.

You aren't good for much deep discussion in things like this TNO...but at least you're good for a good laugh.

[TheSarge]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

You should really read the links you have saved for your cut and pasted discussions of evolution.

You rely too much on hoping people won't click the links.

Neither link you provided shows what you were asked to prove.

It fails to show where what you claim has actually happened.

Oh and by your standard...they aren't peer reviewed.

[TheSarge]

Any theory that cannot be conceivably refuted is not science - Karl Popper

[The Night Owl]

Ummm...not quite.  Because your outdated BS doesn't take into fact that footprints of a full-tetrapod that were made about 20 million years before Tiktaalik have been discovered in Poland.

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.

[The Night Owl]

Oh and by your standard...they aren't peer reviewed.

All Talk Origins articles are based on published scientific studies which are listed at the bottom of the page.

[TheSarge]

If evolution and it's cultists are to be believed...how do you explain the Canbrian Period have no Darwinian antecedents or is Richard Sternbergs peer reviewed 2004 article just another one of those annoying factual articles the Church of Darwin tries to ignore?

[The Night Owl]

Nice of you to completely avoid the fact that I gave you the names of the people that completely debunked the Miller-Urey experiment.

All you provided are two opinions printed in creationist literature. Show me a peer reviewed scientific study debunking the Miller-Urey experiment or bow out.

[TheSarge]

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

Way to totally bypass skip and flat out avoid what I pointed out about the graphic you posted.  The fact that the footprints found in 2006 and reported on last week...completely shred the pretty little picture you posted.

You are displaying the intellectual depth of a mud puddle on this.

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

No from everything from what I was taught in school to my own readings on the theory...I'm of the view that it's a load of crap with too many unexplainable gaps and leaps of faith...and a healthy dose of lies and fraudulent "proof" tossed in for good measure.

It's not a ladder...it's not a tree...it's a crock.

[TheSarge]

All Talk Origins articles are based on published scientific studies which are listed at the bottom of the page.

So were the ones I posted.

But you tried to discredit what I posted as not being "peer reviewed"...thus worthless in the discussion.

Sauce for the Goose...

[TheSarge]

All you provided are two opinions printed in creationist literature. Show me a peer reviewed scientific study debunking the Miller-Urey experiment or bow out.

Don't blame me if I gave you the answer you didn't expect me to find.

I listed the scientists that conducted the experiment.  THAT is what you asked for.

Now you're trying to move the goalposts.

[TheSarge]

To show how amino acids--life’s building-blocks--could have formed on the early Earth, the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment used a simulated hydrogen-rich atmosphere of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vapor. By 1970, though, most geochemists were convinced that the Earth’s primitive atmosphere was nothing like this, but instead consisted of gasses emitted from volcanoes--mainly carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapor. [2]

Sidney Fox and Klaus Dose reported in 1977 that no amino acids are produced by sparking a carbon dioxide-nitrogen-water vapor mixture. In 1983, Miller himself reported that he could produce no more than a small amount of the simplest amino acid (glycine) by sparking an atmosphere containing carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, and then only if free hydrogen was added. And Miller conceded that glycine was the best he could do in the absence of methane. In 1984, Heinrich Holland confirmed that mixtures of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapor yield no amino acids at all. [3] Perhaps Ussery was ignorant of these facts.



Footnotes:

[2] On the probable composition of the Earth’s early atmosphere, see Heinrich D. Holland, “Model for the Evolution of the Earth’s Atmosphere,” pp. 447-477 in A. E. J. Engel, Harold L. James & B. F. Leonard (editors), Petrologic Studies: A Volume in Honor of A. F. Buddington (Geological Society of America, 1962); Philip H. Abelson, “Chemical Events on the Primitive Earth,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 55 (1966): 1365-1372; Marcel Florkin, “Ideas and Experiments in the Field of Prebiological Chemical Evolution,” Comprehensive Biochemistry 29B (1975): 231-260; Sidney W. Fox & Klaus Dose, Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life, Revised Edition (New York: Marcel Dekker, 1977).


[3] On the inability of a Miller-Urey-type experiment to produce amino acids under realistic early Earth conditions, see Sidney W. Fox & Klaus Dose, Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life, pp. 43, 74-76; Heinrich D. Holland, The Chemical Evolution of the Atmosphere and Oceans (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), pp. 99-100; Gordon Schlesinger & Stanley L. Miller, “Prebiotic Synthesis in Atmospheres Containing CH4, CO, and CO2: I. Amino Acids,” Journal of Molecular Evolution 19 (1983): 376-382, p. 376. See also John Horgan, “In the Beginning...,” Scientific American (February, 1991): 116-126, p. 121.