Why Darwinian Evolutionists Hate Mathematicians

[TheSarge]

Nonsense. Evolution is a fact-based historical biological science. Its conclusions are no more "faith-based" than the sort of forensic examinations you see on TV shows like CSI.

Except there is nothing out there that proves your alleged fact based "science".

Miller-Urey - disproven

Haeckels drawings - hoax

The Peppered Moth photos - fake

Piltdown Man - hoax (and it was peer reviewed too!)

Galapagos finches - same amount of different species now as there were when Darwin wrote his book.  No evolutionary process.

These changes that you Evolutionist Cultists insist  amount to your absolute proof are less remarkable than what happens every day at a Hollywood Plastic surgeons office.

There are great leaps of faith and need for one to suspend reality for evolution to make sense to normal people.

[Darwinist]

Except for the fact that there is no coherent collections of factual data to support the theory of evolution.

That's a claim 100% stuck in ignorance of the facts. Evolution, like any proper branch of science, makes predictions that are testable for accuracy against the theory. For example, based on an examination of the fossil record of mammallike reptiles (the gorgonopsids and their kin, for which the fossil record is remarkably complete) it was hypothesized that mammalian inner-ear bones evolved from processes on the mandible that grew thinner and smaller and eventually detached themselves from the jaw and migrated to the ear where they were exapted to perform their new "job." Hypothesize, I say, because there was a crucial gap in the fossil record at just the moment in evolutionary time where the critical detachment would occur. Of course this simply gave paleontologists an opportunity to predict the critical adaptation would be eventually discovered in the fossil record. And, 20 years later, so it was: the extremely well preserved skeleton of a species now known as Diarthrognathus (and several others since that first discovery) was uncovered, at the right moment in the fossil chronology, and it showed exactly the predicted critical adaptation to the jaw.

Don't believe me? Look it up.

Nothing in the fossils...nothing at the cellular level...or the molecular level.

That is a statement of pure faith on your part. I just demonstrated your ignorance concerning the fossil record as a confirmer of evolution. Wanna try for more? Give me a specific claim.

[Darwinist]

And evolution literature is specifically literature based on decades of attempts to duplicate a process yet never has.

Wrong again. Speciation - and therefore evolution - has been directly observed in nature. I direct you to two species of "nylon-eating bugs," Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Nylon, being an artificial fiber synthesized in 1935, could not have had species of bacteria that "grazed" on it prior to its invention. Speciation has also been compelled in the laboratory, with a reporducively viable tetraploid species of the Maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum) being at least one exemplar.

[TheSarge]

That's a claim 100% stuck in ignorance of the facts.

Facts?  Oh you mean those pesky facts I've been referring to and linking to that disprove the crap that you and TNO have ben babbling.

Gotcha.

Evolution, like any proper branch of science, makes predictions that are testable for accuracy against the theory.

No they haven't.  Einstein when he presented his theory of relativity presented a series of tests to try and prove it wrong.

No such tests exist for the theory of Evolution.

You and the rest of the cultists we are suppsoed to jsut accept it as fact and not question the actual science that went into the proclamation.

For example, based on an examination of the fossil record of mammallike reptiles (the gorgonopsids and their kin, for which the fossil record is remarkably complete) it was hypothesized that mammalian inner-ear bones evolved from processes on the mandible that grew thinner and smaller and eventually detached themselves from the jaw and migrated to the ear where they were exapted to perform their new "job." Hypothesize, I say, because there was a crucial gap in the fossil record at just the moment in evolutionary time where the critical detachment would occur. Of course this simply gave paleontologists an opportunity to predict the critical adaptation would be eventually discovered in the fossil record. And, 20 years later, so it was: the extremely well preserved skeleton of a species now known as Diarthrognathus (and several others since that first discovery) was uncovered, at the right moment in the fossil chronology, and it showed exactly the predicted critical adaptation to the jaw.

The jawbone theory...a favorite of the Evo crowd doesn't prove your theory.  Granted it's one of the areas of the fossil record that's not as out of whack with your theory as the rest...but it doesn't prove evolution.

It actually brings to mind even more questions.

How did those bones figure out just where to go?  What caused them to land just so and not say...end up on the spine?

What evidence do you have that in the reptile-to-mammal transition those bones would have ended up in any other place than what they did?

What is the process of natural selection that cause things to happen just like they did?

This scientific theory you preach and proclaim has as much hard science behind it as a Tarot card reading.


]quote]That is a staement of pure faith on your part. I just demonstrated your ignorance concerning the fossil record as a confirmer of evolution. Wanna try for more? Give me a specific claim.
[/quote]

Just one problem here sport.  In everything I'm citing there are definite yes and no answers with scientific facts and background to them.

Everything TNO and now you...his ringer...are posting has words like "speculation" "eventually"  lots of talk about "predictions" and some flat out gaps that have no explanation.

You're going after and cherry picking the usual easy targets for your type to attempt to shoot down and skipping the things that you and the alleged thinkers behind the Evolution fairy tale can't answer or explain.

[The Night Owl]

Except there is nothing out there that proves your alleged fact based "science".

Miller-Urey - disproven

For the sake of argument, let's pretend that Miller-Urey study has been overturned. Here are two more studies for your consideration:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/107640215/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31491

[rubliw]

Except there is nothing out there that proves your alleged fact based "science".

Miller-Urey - disproven

What about Miller-Urey is "disproved".  The experiments indisputably produced organic materials from ordinary matter, in a simulation of what were thought to be possible early Earth conditions.

Do you just think those conditions weren't indicative of the early earth?  Many agree with that assessment today.  But regardless of whether you think those conditions were a plausible simulation of some early earth conditions - they certainly could plausibly exist someplace.  In that sense, the experiments were powerful demonstrations of the thesis that biological matter can, in fact, come from non-biological matter in conditions that can naturally exist.

The science has hardly stood still in this area of research - abiogenesis is a fruitful and fast paced field of study, almost to the point where if you don't make an active habit of keeping up with it from day-to-day, you will be out of date.  We now have countless examples of organic building blocks being created under a huge variety of possible natural conditions.

[TheSarge]

Wrong again. Speciation - and therefore evolution - has been directly observed in nature. I direct you to two species of "nylon-eating bugs," Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Nylon, being an artificial fiber synthesized in 1935, could not have had species of bacteria that "grazed" on it prior to its invention. Speciation has also been compelled in the laboratory, with a reporducively viable tetraploid species of the Maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum) being at least one exemplar.

And what is to say that the ability for this kind of genetic mutation wasn't there all along?  

And things created or recreated in a lab provide way too many variables and requires much too much guessing (see Myers-Uher).

[TheSarge]

For the sake of argument, let's pretend that Miller-Urey study has been overturned. Here are two more studies for your consideration:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/107640215/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31491

Nothing concrete.  Nothing to back up the theory of evolution as anything more than a fairy tale.  Lots of speculation and hypothesis though.

Oh and TNO...possibilities of things that might be able to occur doesn't prove your point.

[Carl]

Wrong again. Speciation - and therefore evolution - has been directly observed in nature. I direct you to two species of "nylon-eating bugs," Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Nylon, being an artificial fiber synthesized in 1935, could not have had species of bacteria that "grazed" on it prior to its invention. Speciation has also been compelled in the laboratory, with a reporducively viable tetraploid species of the Maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum) being at least one exemplar.

The point being?

An invention of modern man that an existing species finds delectable?
That is a proof of evolution?

Compelled in the laboratory is a key statement..it doesn`t prove or suggest it can happen randomly in the wild.
In other words can introduced chemical or radiological events produce mutations?
Answer is yes but that still doesn`t prove it has happened randomly and to the benefit of any life form.

Still waiting for an answer to my questions btw.

[The Night Owl]

Nothing concrete.  Nothing to back up the theory of evolution as anything more than a fairy tale.  Lots of speculation and hypothesis though.

I'm not talking about evolution. I'm talking about abiogenesis.

Oh and TNO...possibilities of things that might be able to occur doesn't prove your point.

I've never suggested that the abiogensis hypothesis has been proven. The evidence is mounting though.

[Carl]

What about Miller-Urey is "disproved".  The experiments indisputably produced organic materials from ordinary matter, in a simulation of what were thought to be possible early Earth conditions.

Do you just think those conditions weren't indicative of the early earth?  Many agree with that assessment today.  But regardless of whether you think those conditions were a plausible simulation of some early earth conditions - they certainly could plausibly exist someplace.  In that sense, the experiments were powerful demonstrations of the thesis that biological matter can, in fact, come from non-biological matter in conditions that can naturally exist.

The science has hardly stood still in this area of research - abiogenesis is a fruitful and fast paced field of study, almost to the point where if you don't make an active habit of keeping up with it from day-to-day, you will be out of date.  We now have countless examples of organic building blocks being created under a huge variety of possible natural conditions.

Have they ever created organic life or shown the process that would?

[Carl]

Re posted for the new page.

Btw...once again you resort to the tired tactic of  "you are too ignorant to understand what I am saying".

You prove what I have said at every point.

Tell us person that has
Quote
[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?
how you plan to do that without creating new meanings to words.

What is the origin of life?

How did evolution get triggered?

How does new genetic material form (scales becoming feathers) ?

Why do we not have transitional animals among us?

If natural selection is the means then why did the "hopeful monster" have or be postulated?

Why did punctuated equilibrium have to enter the argument?

Why does it start and stop?

No more word games to waste time and divert attention,explain it and show the observable,duplicateable mechanism that does it.

[TheSarge]

What about Miller-Urey is "disproved".  The experiments indisputably produced organic materials from ordinary matter, in a simulation of what were thought to be possible early Earth conditions.

You mean how it was disproven by geochemists in the 1970's?

Or the admittance by Miller himself that he was wrong.

The type of atmosphere back in the day of the alleged "primordial ooze" couldn't support the building blocks of life as has been suggested.

Do you just think those conditions weren't indicative of the early earth?  Many agree with that assessment today.  But regardless of whether you think those conditions were a plausible simulation of some early earth conditions - they certainly could plausibly exist someplace.  In that sense, the experiments were powerful demonstrations of the thesis that biological matter can, in fact, come from non-biological matter in conditions that can naturally exist.

Do you hear yourself?  There's more wishful thinking and vague possibilities in that one paragraph than in everything I've posted here in two days.

You're not talking science...you're talking fantasy.

The science has hardly stood still in this area of research - abiogenesis is a fruitful and fast paced field of study, almost to the point where if you don't make an active habit of keeping up with it from day-to-day, you will be out of date.  We now have countless examples of organic building blocks being created under a huge variety of possible natural conditions.

Again you're pinning your hopes in what is the scientific equivalent of black magic.

This one doesn't even have a theory yet.  Just wishful thinking.

ETA:  Louis Pasteur, Stanley Miller, and many others have found many reasons why it cannot...but so far no one has found a way that  proves abiogenesis can work.

[Darwinist]

What is the origin of life? - Not a concern of evolution. Evolution is concerend strictly with species diversification not how life came to exist. That is the concern of a realtively new science called abiogenesis, which is more a division of molecular biology/organic chemistry than of classical biology and evolutionary study.

How did evolution get triggered? - Probably by the first genetic transcription error during cell division. ...And by the way, there are ZERO cell divisions without transcription errors.

How does new genetic material form (scales becoming feathers) ? - Through transcription errors which serendipitously are beneficial and subsequently conserved in the genome; and through beneficial mutations, also conserved.

Why do we not have transitional animals among us? - We do. Everywhere. Every individual organism is a potential transitional form. The biological lottery is this: will a given individual's genes spread through its population and eventually provoke or take advantage of a speciation event?

If natural selection is the means then why did the "hopeful monster" have or be postulated? - Natural selection does not preclude saltation any more than the gradual burning out of stars below the Chandrasekhar limit precludes the extremely rare (given the number of stars in the universe) supernova. Saltation events among animals are extremely rare but not unheard of. They are far more common among plants and typically occur through polyploidization, during which the orignal number of genes doubles or even quadruples, rendering a new species in a single generation which is gentically distinct and reproductively incompatible with even its immediate parent. Most polyploidal events are lethal, but not all of them. Most surviving polyploids are sterile, but, again, not all of them (review the earlier note concerning the Maidenhair fern).

Why did punctuated equilibrium have to enter the argument? - It was a pet project of Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge. All it does is theorize, based on the appearance of the fossil record, that due to environmental factors the rate evolution is inconstant, sometimes crawling along very slowly (periods during which little diversification occurs) and sometimes cracking along at an accelerated pace (periods during which diversification expands).

Why does it start and stop? - Evolution? It never stops ...or well, rather, it won't until life on earth is snuffed out. Why did it start? Because life isn't perfect ...fortunately for us.



... Is that all? Gee. For a moment I was afraid you were going to ask hard questions!

[The Night Owl]

What about Miller-Urey is "disproved".  The experiments indisputably produced organic materials from ordinary matter, in a simulation of what were thought to be possible early Earth conditions.

TRG read a book from 1986 which tries to present uncertainties regarding the composition of Earth's prebiotic atmosphere as a refutal of the Miller-Urey experiment.

[TheSarge]

What is the origin of life? - Not a concern of evolution. Evolution is concerend strictly with species diversification not how life came to exist. That is the concern of a realtively new science called abiogenesis, which is more a division of molecular biology/organic chemistry than of classical biology and evolutionary study.

How did evolution get triggered? - Probably by the first genetic transcription error during cell division. ...And by the way, there are ZERO cell divisions without transcription errors.

How does new genetic material form (scales becoming feathers) ? - Through transcription errors which serendipitously are beneficial and subsequently conserved in the genome; and through beneficial mutations, also conserved.

Why do we not have transitional animals among us? - We do. Everywhere. Every individual organism is a potential transitional form. The biological lottery is this: will a given individual's genes spread through its population and eventually provoke or take advantage of a speciation event?

If natural selection is the means then why did the "hopeful monster" have or be postulated? - Natural selection does not preclude saltation any more than the gradual burning out of stars below the Chandrasekhar limit precludes the extremely rare (given the number of stars in the universe) supernova. Saltation events among animals are extremely rare but not unheard of. They are far more common among plants and typically occur through polyploidization, during which the orignal number of genes doubles or even quadruples, rendering a new species in a single generation which is gentically distinct and reproductively incompatible with even its immediate parent. Most polyploidal events are lethal, but not all of them. Most surviving polyploids are sterile, but, again, not all of them (review the earlier note concerning the Maidenhair fern).

Why did punctuated equilibrium have to enter the argument? - It was a pet project of Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge. All it does is theorize, based on the appearance of the fossil record, that due to environmental factors the rate evolution is inconstant, sometimes crawling along very slowly (periods during which little diversification occurs) and sometimes cracking along at an accelerated pace (periods during which diversification expands).

Why does it start and stop? - Evolution? It never stops ...or well, rather, it won't until life on earth is snuffed out. Why did it start? Because life isn't perfect ...fortunately for us.



... Is that all? Gee. For a moment I was afraid you were going to ask hard questions!

Still nothing to prove your theory.  Just a log of long winded wishful thinking.

[rubliw]

Have they ever created organic life or shown the process that would?

They have processes for a heck of a lot - the major holy grail, I suppose, is to demonstrate RNA naturally forming.  Then there are additional problems after that, such as moving from RNA to DNA, or even getting RNA molecules to a sufficient size and complexity, etc.  As I said before, these are fruitful areas of research, and barriers are crossed practically daily.

But it clearly does not make sense to suggest that since they havent yet demonstrated the full process of abiogenesis, that abiogenesis is impossible or implausible.  The amount of discovery in that field of research that marches on, if anything, encourages the thought that abiogenesis is plausible - not the other way around.

[Carl]

What is the origin of life? - Not a concern of evolution. Evolution is concerend strictly with species diversification not how life came to exist. That is the concern of a realtively new science called abiogenesis, which is more a division of molecular biology/organic chemistry than of classical biology and evolutionary study.

How did evolution get triggered? - Probably by the first genetic transcription error during cell division. ...And by the way, there are ZERO cell divisions without transcription errors.

How does new genetic material form (scales becoming feathers) ? - Through transcription errors which serendipitously are beneficial and subsequently conserved in the genome; and through beneficial mutations, also conserved.

Why do we not have transitional animals among us? - We do. Everywhere. Every individual organism is a potential transitional form. The biological lottery is this: will a given individual's genes spread through its population and eventually provoke or take advantage of a speciation event?

If natural selection is the means then why did the "hopeful monster" have or be postulated? - Natural selection does not preclude saltation any more than the gradual burning out of stars below the Chandrasekhar limit precludes the extremely rare (given the number of stars in the universe) supernova. Saltation events among animals are extremely rare but not unheard of. They are far more common among plants and typically occur through polyploidization, during which the orignal number of genes doubles or even quadruples, rendering a new species in a single generation which is gentically distinct and reproductively incompatible with even its immediate parent. Most polyploidal events are lethal, but not all of them. Most surviving polyploids are sterile, but, again, not all of them (review the earlier note concerning the Maidenhair fern).

Why did punctuated equilibrium have to enter the argument? - It was a pet project of Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge. All it does is theorize, based on the appearance of the fossil record, that due to environmental factors the rate evolution is inconstant, sometimes crawling along very slowly (periods during which little diversification occurs) and sometimes cracking along at an accelerated pace (periods during which diversification expands).

Why does it start and stop? - Evolution? It never stops ...or well, rather, it won't until life on earth is snuffed out. Why did it start? Because life isn't perfect ...fortunately for us.



... Is that all? Gee. For a moment I was afraid you were going to ask hard questions!

You answered nothing and was even laughable in the attempt

Evolution without a regard to origin is simply coffee shop prattle.

The rest of your answers amount to writing words without thought...

Natural selection does not preclude saltation any more than the gradual burning out of stars below the Chandrasekhar limit precludes the extremely rare (given the number of stars in the universe) supernova. Saltation events among animals are extremely rare but not unheard of. They are far more common among plants and typically occur through polyploidization, during which the orignal number of genes doubles or even quadruples, rendering a new species in a single generation which is gentically distinct and reproductively incompatible with even its immediate parent. Most polyploidal events are lethal, but not all of them. Most surviving polyploids are sterile, but, again, not all of them (review the earlier note concerning the Maidenhair fern).

Pretty much says "it happens but I don`t know why or how and as far as it being beneficial well..uhhh.

Evolution? It never stops ...or well, rather, it won't until life on earth is snuffed out. Why did it start? Because life isn't perfect ...fortunately for us.

Another non reply but one that shows evolution is a matter of faith and a belief system.

You make my point for me.

[Carl]

They have processes for a heck of a lot - the major holy grail, I suppose, is to demonstrate RNA naturally forming.  Then there are additional problems after that, such as moving from RNA to DNA, or even getting RNA molecules to a sufficient size and complexity, etc.  As I said before, these are fruitful areas of research, and barriers are crossed practically daily.

But it clearly does not make sense to suggest that since they havent yet demonstrated the full process of abiogenesis, that abiogenesis is impossible or implausible.  The amount of discovery in that field of research that marches on, if anything, encourages the thought that abiogenesis is plausible - not the other way around.

I won`t argue that but at the same time will say your words can easily apply to creation as well.

[TheSarge]

What is the origin of life? - Not a concern of evolution. Evolution is concerend strictly with species diversification not how life came to exist. That is the concern of a realtively new science called abiogenesis, which is more a division of molecular biology/organic chemistry than of classical biology and evolutionary study.

More speculation and hypothesis devoid of facts.

How did evolution get triggered? - Probably by the first genetic transcription error during cell division. ...And by the way, there are ZERO cell divisions without transcription errors.

What caused that first genetic transcription?  What triggered the need for that cell division?

Through transcription errors which serendipitously are beneficial and subsequently conserved in the genome; and through beneficial mutations, also conserved.

More leaps of faith that this is how it's supposed to work.  Yet there is nothing in the fossil record to back up what you claim.

We do. Everywhere. Every individual organism is a potential transitional form. The biological lottery is this: will a given individual's genes spread through its population and eventually provoke or take advantage of a speciation event?

If they are out there then why are you not able to list any of them?

It was a pet project of Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge. All it does is theorize, based on the appearance of the fossil record, that due to environmental factors the rate evolution is inconstant, sometimes crawling along very slowly (periods during which little diversification occurs) and sometimes cracking along at an accelerated pace (periods during which diversification expands).

And yet they still have no explanation for the Cambrian period.

They have no way of explaining how in a span of 5-10 million years (the Cambrian period) nearly every animal phyla we have today suddenly appeared over 500 million years ago.

It's something not even Darwin could explain.

Yet we're supposed to believe two cultists like Gould and Eldridge like what they say is holy writ.

Why does it start and stop? - Evolution? It never stops ...or well, rather, it won't until life on earth is snuffed out. Why did it start? Because life isn't perfect ...fortunately for us.

If evolution never stops...then why aren't we still inundated with the same species that walked the earth millions of years ago?  WOuldn't they have evolved and adapted to the current version of "earth" in order to survive and continue?

... Is that all? Gee. For a moment I was afraid you were going to ask hard questions!

We save the hard questions for people who do more than cut and paste answers from Evolution websites.

The easy questions we hand out to shallow thinkers like you and TNO.

[TheSarge]

TRG read a book from 1986 which tries to present uncertainties regarding the composition of Earth's prebiotic atmosphere as a refutal of the Miller-Urey experiment.

Which is more than you have done.

[Carl]

It was a pet project of Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge. All it does is theorize, based on the appearance of the fossil record, that due to environmental factors the rate evolution is inconstant, sometimes crawling along very slowly (periods during which little diversification occurs) and sometimes cracking along at an accelerated pace (periods during which diversification expands).

But but but I thought that theory was the same as fact where science is concerened?

You mean they speculated and conjectured?
The actual meaning of "theory" that is.

[rich_t]

I see that the new troll sure has the wheels spinning here.

 

[TheSarge]

I see that the new troll sure has the wheels spinning here.

 

Kinda.  He's not saying or posting anything that TNO hadn't already.

And which had already been refuted as well I might add.

[rich_t]

Kinda.  He's not saying or posting anything that TNO hadn't already.

And which had already been refuted as well I might add.

True, but I can't help notice that he has others wasting a lot of bandwidth by responding to him.