Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution with Berlinski, Meyer, and Gelernter
Hoover Institution - Uncommon Knowledge ^ | 7/22/2019 | Stephen Meyer, David Berlinski, David Gelernter, Peter Robinson

Posted on 07/28/2019 10:50:40 AM PDT by Tennessean4Bush

Recorded on June 6, 2019 in Italy.

Based on new evidence and knowledge that functioning proteins are extremely rare, should Darwin’s theory of evolution be dismissed, dissected, developed or replaced with a theory of intelligent design?

Has Darwinism really failed? Peter Robinson discusses it with David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer, who have raised doubts about Darwin’s theory in their two books and essay, respectively The Deniable Darwin, Darwin’s Doubt, and “Giving Up Darwin” (published in the Claremont Review of Books).

(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: belongsinreligion; biology; darwinism; davidberlinski; davidgelernter; evolution; intelligentdesign; math; mathematics; notanewstopic; notasciencetopic; peterrobinson; stephenmeyer; texasgatortroll; zzzzzzz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-120 next last
I just watched this and thought it was fascinating. Peter Robinson does a really good job interviewing and getting each scientist engaged and speaking in a way that is understandable about an abstract but extremely important subject.
1 posted on 07/28/2019 10:50:40 AM PDT by Tennessean4Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LS

Have you seen this interview? I thought it was very informative and fascinating.


2 posted on 07/28/2019 10:51:32 AM PDT by Tennessean4Bush (An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist fears this is true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush

LOL. I literally just finished listening to this 5 minutes ago. Before seeing this thread. Fascinating.


3 posted on 07/28/2019 10:52:46 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

quick play the lottery lol- coincidence? I think not- it’s a sign lol


4 posted on 07/28/2019 10:53:46 AM PDT by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

Are you my doppelganger, or am I yours?


5 posted on 07/28/2019 10:57:38 AM PDT by Tennessean4Bush (An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist fears this is true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush

BTTT...good stuff.


6 posted on 07/28/2019 11:00:13 AM PDT by I got the rope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush
William Demski also has shown the mathematical impossibility of macroevolution- It's so far above the upper limits of probability that it renders it impossible- Back in the 70's i think it was- there was also a symposium of the top scientists and mathematicians of the time who also concluded it was mathematically impossible- and we're not talking just 'sort of impossible' it's totally impossible- A ZERO PROBABILITY of happening- and htis is just for even one mutation to occur to even begin to move a species beyond it's own kind by adding new non species specific information in order to so alter the species kind that it starts to becoem another kind altogether- ad in reality, this would have had to happen billions of times- not just once, or a few times- if everything originated from one species, or from single cells-

Here is a bit more info on the impossibility:

http://creationdesign.org/english/chances.html

An occurrence that has more than one chance in 1050, it has a statistically zero chance of actually occurring.

"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence."

I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (New York: NW Research Publications, Inc., 1984), p. 205 (as quoted in Vance Ferrell, The Evolution Handbook (Evolution Facts, Inc., Altamont TN, 2001) p. 260

In order to circumvent the problem of statistical zero, evolutionists often argue that "Given enough time, anything can happen." This is not a rational argument. It proves nothing. It is a reference to practically infinite periods of time that lie beyond statistical zero.

"A further aspect I should like to discuss is what I call the practice of avoiding the conclusion that the probability of a self-producing state is zero ... When for practical purposes the condition of infinite time and matter has to be invoked, the concept of probability is annulled. By such logic we can prove anything ... "

P.T. Mora, The Folly of Probability, as quoted in Origins 13(2):98-104 (1986) Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Lind University, 1986. Emphasis supplied.

In fact the chances of the chance formation of just DNA - much less all of the applications of DNA - are so remote, they are far beyond statistical zero.

"This means that 1089190 DNA molecules, on average, must form to provide the one chance of forming the specific DNA sequence necessary to code 124 proteins. 1089190 DNAs would weigh 1089147 more than the earth ... A quantity of DNA this colossal could never have been formed.

R.L. Wysong, The Creation Evolution Controversy, (Inquiry Press, Midland MI, 1976) p.115, as quoted in The Evolution Handbook (Evolution Facts, Inc., Altamont TN, 2001) p. 261. Same Website as above

 

7 posted on 07/28/2019 11:02:10 AM PDT by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush

“Based on new evidence and knowledge that functioning proteins are extremely rare, should Darwin’s theory of evolution be dismissed, dissected, developed or replaced with a theory of intelligent design? “

Intelligent design merely says a higher being directed evolution. It does not replace evolution.


8 posted on 07/28/2019 11:02:28 AM PDT by TexasGator (Z1z)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush

Peter Robinson is an excellent interviewer.


9 posted on 07/28/2019 11:04:20 AM PDT by Kalamata (BIBLE RESEARCH TOOLS: http://bibleresearchtools.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob434

Playing the lottery does not raise you chance of winning by more than a minuscule amount.

Still, some people do win the lottery.


10 posted on 07/28/2019 11:06:32 AM PDT by null and void (Without the 3 laws, "I, Robot" becomes "Terminator".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush
Watching it now.

Kinda odd it's posted about while it's up on the TV.

11 posted on 07/28/2019 11:07:51 AM PDT by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush

Ping


12 posted on 07/28/2019 11:08:26 AM PDT by woweeitsme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator

Yeah, I merely copied the intro text to the youtube video. I think the discussion came to center around this question: “While we see evolution in adaptation traits over time within species, does Darwin’s Theory of Evolution adequately explain the origin of new species?”


13 posted on 07/28/2019 11:08:58 AM PDT by Tennessean4Bush (An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist fears this is true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush

Darwin’s theory is the original bad science big theory in America.


14 posted on 07/28/2019 11:09:28 AM PDT by Grampa Dave ( Lose the demographic war! You lose your country! Illegals are winning that war across the world!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void

The issue then is your definition of minuscule, and your timeframe allowance for playing enough lotteries.


15 posted on 07/28/2019 11:16:55 AM PDT by Tennessean4Bush (An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist fears this is true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: null and void

They win the lottery because the odds not exceed the upper probability limits of possibility- not even close-


16 posted on 07/28/2019 11:31:51 AM PDT by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator

Please read post 8. There is a difference between mutations and evolution


17 posted on 07/28/2019 11:32:11 AM PDT by Nifster (I see puppy dogs in the clouds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bob434

Are those figures assuming that atoms can combine higgledy-piggledy in totally random ways, or did they take the valences into account, did they assume that one could get a molecule of a hundred hydrogen atoms all strung together, or a carbon bonded to 12 other atoms?

That assumption vastly simplifies the calculation, but in no way reflects reality, and hugely inflates the final number over what is chemically possible.


18 posted on 07/28/2019 11:32:53 AM PDT by null and void (Without the 3 laws, "I, Robot" becomes "Terminator".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: null and void

with the lottery- you have a chance, with evolution, there is no chance-


19 posted on 07/28/2019 11:33:12 AM PDT by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: null and void

I’m sure they have taken everything into consideration- These were secular scientists coming to these conclusions- I’m sure they were fully away of variances and took those into account- Again- the possibility so exceeds the upper probability limit, for even just one mutation, let alone billions needed to move a species kind beyond it’;s own kind, that it’s impossible- just one is impossible- extremely impossible- not just a little- and again for emphasis- we’re talking about bucking the impossibility odds billions of times-


20 posted on 07/28/2019 11:39:07 AM PDT by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-120 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson