The Official Death of the Theory of Evolution – 2/25/2006

PowerBASIC Forums ^ | 2/25/2006 | SDurham

[highlander_UW]

I was about to respond, but looks like someone already addressed it. There were problems with the peppered moth studies...I wouldn't lean too heavily upon it to prove evolution.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Now to be fair, the Peppered Moth study was found to be bogus years ago."

Not at all. There was nothing wrong with the studies at all.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Note: If something is wrong with the math, please show me."

That's good, because everything is wrong with the math. It isn't based on anything approaching biological reality. Not even close.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/demise.html

[Tribune7]

There is a huge group of equally credible scientists who oppose TTOE.>> No they aren't credible. The fact that they oppose reality doesn't make them the least bit credible.

There is a glaring fallacy in your syllogism.

[wallcrawlr]

ping

Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info

[Phil Connors]

Look, the whole evolution-is-false thing is nothing more than fundamentalist Christians trying to defend the objectively false heresy of biblical inerrancy. There is no contradiction whatsoever between true Christian belief and Darwinism--the reason why so many fundies barf when they encounter the theory is that it threatens the basis of their favorite delusion, that is, that the Bible is somehow "inerrant". It ain't, when discussing the physical sciences, otherwise Pi would = 3.0.

[GrandEagle]

Now THIS should be fun!

[Tribune7]

It ain't, when discussing the physical sciences, otherwise Pi would = 3.0.

But that's the point. Evolution isn't Pi. It can't be calculated to 4.2 billion decimal places in a verifiable fashion. And not all critics are funadmentalist Christians. Fred Hoyle, notably, was an atheist was he expressed doubts. Behe is a Catholic who basically accepts common descent.

[Tax Government]

Something is wrong when evolution and Christianity are fighting. The outcome it known: Christianity will evolve.

[TOWER]

AoU – age of the Universe. (1)
AvRpdCyc - average reproductive life cycle generation (2)(3)
TotalRpdCyc – total reproductive cycles in the age of the Universe.

AoU = 10 billion = 10,000,000,000 years
AvRpdCyc = 100 per year (2)(3)
TotalRpdCyc = AoU * AvRpdCyc = 1,000,000,000,000 = 1 Trillion


Obvious flaws:
1) Are we talking about the theory of evolution or abiogenesis? Those are two different things. Evolution doesn't care how life got started.
2) Current estimates put the universe at a bit older than 10 billion years.
3)AvRpdCyc - average reproductive life cycle generation: What does this mean? It is never defined. Are you saying that cells only divide 100 times every year? Isn't that a bit laughable.
4) There is no variable for the number of organisms in the universe.

Given these flaws, your calculation should look more like this: AoU x AvRpdCyc x Number of Organisms
Which equals: 13,000,000,000 x (some really high number) x (another really high number)
Thus the TotalRpdCyc is actually much higher than 1 Trillion by several factors (like billions or trillions).

[metmom]

And how is belief in Biblcal inerrancy a delusion? What evidence do you have to back up your statement? This indicates that you think that you have some corner on the truth and can sit in judgement on it. Who's to decide at that point what is true and what isn't? Everyone would then have a different opinion which would render the whole Bible useless. One can't pick and choose what to believe out of the Bible. It's either true or not.

As far as pi=3, you apparently missed the discussion on this thread that addresses the issue.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1582069/posts?page=1933#1933
Also post 1970, 2033, and 2156 on the same thread.

[Dimensio]

Now to be fair, the Peppered Moth study was found to be bogus years ago.

This is a common creationist misconception. It is based in the fact that a few of the photographs were "staged", however the staging of the photographs was not, as many creationists seem to believe, an attempt to twist facts to suit evidence, but rather simply a means of creating a sufficient colour contrast between two differently coloured insects who normally do not pose in the most effective of positions.

[Dimensio]

While another poster has tackled the inherent problems with the mathematical formula and values used, I noticed a factual error in one of your qualifying statements:

This is overly fair. Evolution has been intently studied for over 100 years and there is no evidence of anything evolving in the last 100 years.

This statement is demonstratably false. It would appear that your claims that the theory of evolution is "dead" are based both upon faulty variables in mathematical equations and basic factual errors in starting assumptions. Perhaps you should rethink your reasoning before presenting such a conclusive claim.

[BuglerTex]

You are rignt; the math is way wrong. This is not a linear thing, it is parallel, and exponential, and factorial, Either a superfactorial or exponential factorial, since we are discussing organisms, not numbers. The answer is off by a power of immense size. Take away his slide rule.

But this reinfoces my position that the improbability of it all refutes random selection. Stochastic learning. Superstitious conclusions.

[Dimensio]

It should also be noted that the author is using a fundamental flaw in probability argument to make his claim. Even if his numbers are accurate, he is claiming that the high improbability of evolution leading to life exactly as it is today are so high as to be impossible. The problem with this reasoning is that he has not demonstrated that any other particular outcome is any more probable. If are one trillion possible outcomes for an event, and each possible outcome is equally likely, then it is inevitable, not impossible, that an event with one in one-trillion odds will occur.

This argument against evolution is fatally flawed on multiple levels.

[Dimensio]

But this reinfoces my position that the improbability of it all refutes random selection.

I do not follow your reasoning. How does a fundamentally flawed mathematical probability argument reinforce your opinion of the probability of an event? How, exactly, is natural selection refuted by an invalid argument with false premises?

[BuglerTex]

Well, basically my belief is based on the chronology of the geologic sequence, and of the number of organisms and their variety at different points in time. We have only been writing for a few millenia. Why now? I happen to believe in evolution as a divine mechanism, so I really do not fit into any camp I see identified. But so many arguments are not reasonable.

Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. That does not prevent me from being a scientist.

[RightWhale]

This is probably what Watson was referring to. Buy gold!

[BuglerTex]

And to be fair, this argument really refutes nothing, and my position is regarding random, not natural selection.