Why Darwinian Evolutionists Hate Mathematicians

[Carl]

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

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

You have to be kidding if you think that adaptation to an environment equals evolution.
Show me where a dog or cat has morphed into a completely different form of life with no similarities to the original.
What those articles talk about is hybridization.

One of your examples from the first link..

5.6 Flour Beetles (Tribolium castaneum)

Halliburton and Gall (1981) established a population of flour beetles collected in Davis, California. In each generation they selected the 8 lightest and the 8 heaviest pupae of each sex. When these 32 beetles had emerged, they were placed together and allowed to mate for 24 hours. Eggs were collected for 48 hours. The pupae that developed from these eggs were weighed at 19 days. This was repeated for 15 generations. The results of mate choice tests between heavy and light beetles was compared to tests among control lines derived from randomly chosen pupae. Positive assortative mating on the basis of size was found in 2 out of 4 experimental lines.

Tell me how this proves evolution please?
Even in the most convoluted thinking that somehow it does it still only showed a 50 % "success" rate.
That would bring us back to the first problem with evolution through natural selection..the time required.
For evolution to "work" Goulds punctuated equilibrium almost has to be applied but that raises the unanswerable question as to why?
Why has evolution taken off in hyperactive spurts to accomplish what we see around us within a time frame that can correlate with evolutionists own geological dating.
Why does it stop and then let natural selection thin the new evolutionary herd so to speak.

There are no answers for this but it is just brushed aside as being "fact" and not investigated.
That makes it a religion not a science.

[Carl]

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.

Dude..one of your own links from a few pages back pretty much did that.

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.

[The Night Owl]

Dude..one of your own links from a few pages back pretty much did that.

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

Origin-Of-Life Chemistry RevisitedReanalysis of famous spark-discharge experiments reveals a richer collection of amino acids were formed

Stephen K. Ritter

In the quest to understand how life on Earth became possible, Stanley L. Miller conducted a set of "primordial soup" experiments in the early 1950s to synthesize amino acids, the basic building blocks of peptides, proteins, and nucleic acids. The famous experiments, part of his doctoral thesis at the University of Chicago, mimicked possible stormy atmospheric conditions on ancient Earth.

In a new twist involving the experiments, a team including Adam P. Johnson of Indiana University, Jeffrey L. Bada of Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and Antonio Lazcano of the National Autonomous University of Mexico uncovered some of Miller's original samples and reanalyzed them. They found that one particular variation of the spark-flask apparatus experiments produced a wider variety of amino acids—research that Miller never published (Science 2008, 322, 404).

...

Miller identified five amino acids and detected others in his reported experiments. But with modern liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry techniques at their disposal, Bada and coworkers identified 14 amino acids and five amines in those samples and a richer collection of 22 amino acids and the five amines from the unpublished volcanic experiments.

"The volcanic apparatus experiment suggests that, even if the overall atmosphere was not reducing, localized prebiotic synthesis could have been effective," the researchers write. They speculate that amino acids formed in volcanic island systems could have been polymerized by carbonyl sulfide— volcanic gas—to form peptides leading to proteins.

...

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/86/i42/8642notw4.html

[TheSarge]

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/86/i42/8642notw4.html

Hmmm...guess you missed/ignored this:

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.

[Carl]

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/86/i42/8642notw4.html

The conclusion of that article...

"The volcanic apparatus experiment suggests that, even if the overall atmosphere was not reducing, localized prebiotic synthesis could have been effective," the researchers write. They speculate that amino acids formed in volcanic island systems could have been polymerized by carbonyl sulfide— volcanic gas—to form peptides leading to proteins.

Why did I bolden those words?
Simple,it shows that it is all theory and speculation..I have no issue with that.
I do have an issue with taking those things and then declaring it to be fact.

Once more your own link argues the point I am making,that evolution is a belief system and not a proven or provable fact.

[The Night Owl]

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.

Your creationist literature is behind the times. New experiments using the current model of early Earth conditions have produced even more amino acids than the Miller-Urey experiment produced.

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/86/i42/8642notw4.html

[Darwinist]

That is the point the "hopeful monster" comes into play (was that Stephan Goulds theory,too lazy to look it up) which suggests evolution occurred in enormous leaps.

May as well begin here.

It's not the "hopeful monster" theory (which is not a theory at all); it's punctuated equilibrium. "Hopeful monsters" are saltationary leaps within species; PE is merely accelerated evolution in response to external stimuli; but the acceleration is not saltationary in nature but is more like a changing of gears from low to high. In terms of time you'd still be talking about periods of no less than tens of thousands of years (an eyeblink of geological time) as opposed to a true saltation event such as a cat being hatched from a hen's egg.

It disregards the provable facts that mutations are almost always detrimental and usually non reproducible as the "victim" is sterile.

No, in fact mutations follow a classic bell-curve distribution, with the vast majority being neutral in character and about the same number of detrimental/lethal mutations versus advantageous ones. There are two types of advantageous mutations, though: the kind that's passed along in reproduction (which only happens when it's a germ cell - that is, a sperm or egg) which receives the mutation; and the kind which doesn't get passed, for example any mutation that isn't heritable. The first sort represents something which can affect a species evolutionarily; the second doesn't, because only populations evolve not individuals.

It does however provide a basis for the magic of faith that they claim they don`t have as no longer is the inconvenience of the fossil record troubling.

What's inconvenient about the fossil record?

[Darwinist]

The conclusion of that article...

Why did I bolden those words?
Simple,it shows that it is all theory and speculation..

You are using the word "theory" in a nonscientific sense - a heartbreakingly common layman's mistake. Scientific theories are not "speculations." Theories are assemblages of available factual data which, when interpreted in a coherent form, lead inexorably to one explanation for some particular phenomenon or suite of phenomena. That theories are always provisional (rather than speculative) is the nature of their assembly: they must incorporate only data which is currently known and confirmed. It would be nice to be able to incorporate data from the future, but unfortunately science eschews crystal balls and entrail-reading.

[djones520]

The conclusion of that article...

Why did I bolden those words?
Simple,it shows that it is all theory and speculation..I have no issue with that.
I do have an issue with taking those things and then declaring it to be fact.

Once more your own link argues the point I am making,that evolution is a belief system and not a proven or provable fact.

Yet.  But the same can be said for your line of thinking as well, hence being faith based.  No?

[Carl]

You are using the word "theory" in a nonscientific sense - a heartbreakingly common layman's mistake. Scientific theories are not "speculations." Theories are assemblages of available factual data which, when interpreted in a coherent form, lead inexorably to one explanation for some particular phenomenon or suite of phenomena. That theories are always provisional (rather than speculative) is the nature of their assembly: they must incorporate only data which is currently known and confirmed. It would be nice to be able to incorporate data from the future, but unfortunately science eschews crystal balls and entrail-reading.

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date: 1592

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonyms see hypothesis
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

theâ‹…oâ‹…ry  [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]  Show IPA
Use theory in a Sentence
–noun, plural -ries. 1.   a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2.   a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3.   Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4.   the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5.   a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6.   contemplation or speculation.
7.   guess or conjecture


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

A nice try to redefine a word to suit your purpose but an epic fail.

[Carl]

Yet.  But the same can be said for your line of thinking as well, hence being faith based.  No?

I have no problem with that and that is the difference.

I believe God created all we see,I can not "prove" it nor will I attempt to though there is evidence to suggest it is far more then just random mutations can accomplish.

My point is just that..evolution is just as much a matter of faith but it is not honest about it.
I think this thread has shown that.

[djones520]

I have no problem with that and that is the difference.

I believe God created all we see,I can not "prove" it nor will I attempt to though there is evidence to suggest it is far more then just random mutations can accomplish.

My point is just that..evolution is just as much a matter of faith but it is not honest about it.
I think this thread has shown that.

And if we just accepted that we lived by inhaling and exhaling, then we wouldn't know a thing about atmospheric dynamics today.  Learning how the universe was created, or how life began, is not about proving God does not exist.  One simply cannot do that.  It's about learning.  Which should never be discouraged.

[Darwinist]

A nice try to redefine a word to suit your purpose but an epic fail.

Maybe you're not familiar with the concept of specialized jargon - you know, like the sort used by the credit industry, where a "deadbeat" is in fact someone who pays their credit card bills in full every month. Try finding that definition for deadbeat in a dictionary, though.

The meaning of scientific theory is an overarching explanation tying together the facts pertaining to a specific natural phenomenon or set of related phenomena.

I suggest you revise your definition: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scientific+theory

[The Night Owl]

Dawinist and Djones. Now it's a party.

[djones520]

Dawinist and Djones. Now it's a party.

I'm not here to support you.  I'm just here to show that not all Atheists are ass hats.  Something I learned long ago, is that arguing this is as pointless as trying to convince a DUmmie that George Bush is a decent guy.  It's not a topic where you can just point at an established fact and say there, you can't refute it.  It's an idealogical belief system, on both sides of the aisle, and neither side is ever going to give in.

[Carl]

And if we just accepted that we lived by inhaling and exhaling, then we wouldn't know a thing about atmospheric dynamics today.  Learning how the universe was created, or how life began, is not about proving God does not exist.  One simply cannot do that.  It's about learning.  Which should never be discouraged.

I certainly would agree,tell that to the evolutionist that is obsessed with proving God does not exist.

[Chris_]

Dawinist and Djones. Now it's a party.

And it mught be the shortest in recorded history.......

doc

[Darwinist]

And it mught be the shortest in recorded history.......

doc

Post deleted by moderator......stay on topic.....

[Carl]

Maybe you're not familiar with the concept of specialized jargon - you know, like the sort used by the credit industry, where a "deadbeat" is in fact someone who pays their credit card bills in full every month. Try finding that definition for deadbeat in a dictionary, though.

The meaning of scientific theory is an overarching explanation tying together the facts pertaining to a specific natural phenomenon or set of related phenomena.

I suggest you revise your definition: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scientific+theory

I suggest you try to accept what the word means and has always meant.
Now you are saying that "in my world a theory is not what a theory has always been but something different".

That is just about the weakest argument for evolution I have ever heard,just one small step above the "you just don`t understand because you are too stupid" one that you have already tried.

C`mon dude..I know you can do better, you have shared your credentials after all.

Btw..figured out the AV thing yet?

[Darwinist]

And it mught be the shortest in recorded history.......

doc

How does your post address the topic, Mr. Moderator?

[djones520]

How does your post address the topic, Mr. Moderator?

Stick to the topic Darwinist.  If you want to address personal issues not pertaining to this thread take it to the Fight Club.

Edit:  I see you can't yet...  PM inbound.

[Carl]

I'm not here to support you.  I'm just here to show that not all Atheists are ass hats.  Something I learned long ago, is that arguing this is as pointless as trying to convince a DUmmie that George Bush is a decent guy.  It's not a topic where you can just point at an established fact and say there, you can't refute it.  It's an idealogical belief system, on both sides of the aisle, and neither side is ever going to give in.

I am in full agreement and can respect that,however an evolutionist can`t.

[djones520]

I am in full agreement and can respect that,however an evolutionist can`t.

I'm an atheist who believes in an evolutionary system, and your agreeing with my statement.  Or are you trying to refer to someone specifically?

[Darwinist]

I suggest you try to accept what the word means and has always meant.
Now you are saying that "in my world a theory is not what a theory has always been but something different".

I do have so little patience with people who insist on remaining ignorant at all costs.... but, Christlike, I persevere. Once again: within the professional context of science the meaning of "theory" is different from common-usage meanings, and refers to a falsifiable fact-based explanation describing the physical mechanics of a phenomenon. It is not a guess, not a speculation, not a shot in the dark: it is a coherent collection of factual data that explains a phenomenon.

[Carl]

I'm an atheist who believes in an evolutionary system, and your agreeing with my statement.  Or are you trying to refer to someone specifically?

I am referring to your statement that it is a belief system,one that takes an enormous amount of faith in the unknown and unprovable.

I will not speak for anyone but myself and am happy to say I can not prove creation either.
I believe it by faith and it makes more sense to me then the disorganized,accidental path evolution dictates led to today.

It is that simple,if evolutionists would accept the same then I have no issue.
For as long as one proclaims it as irrefutable fact despite the obvious and well illustrated flaws from this thread I will challenge it on its face and on the presumption it is not a faith based belief system.