Posted on 02/26/2006 9:12:24 PM PST by ibme
The Official Death of the Theory of Evolution – 2/25/2006
Theorem Name: The Illusion of Evolution DOA Theorem Note: This Theorem looks at the Theory of Evolution from a completely abstract point of view. The formulas and discussion are presented from an Evolutionist point of view. This doesn’t necessarily represent the view of the author. AoU – age of the Universe. (1) AoU = 10 billion = 10,000,000,000 years In the whole age of the Universe, there are only about 1 Trillion opportunities for something to evolve to a different state – eventually Man. (this is very generous)(3) MM - Mega Millions Jackpot Odds In order to believe the Theory of Evolution, you have to believe the odds of going from Rock to Man are only 5,691 times greater than winning the Mega Millions Jackpot.
Note: If something is wrong with the math, please show me. The numbers are not presumed to be absolutely correct. You can play with the numbers. Throw in a few million here and there. No matter what numbers you consider, there aren’t enough reproductive life cycles in the projected age of the Universe to produce the simplest form of life.
Theorem: There are not enough reproductive life cycle generations available in the projected age of the Universe to allow even the most basic form of evolution.
AvRpdCyc - average reproductive life cycle generation (2)(3)
TotalRpdCyc – total reproductive cycles in the age of the Universe.
AvRpdCyc = 100 per year (2)(3)
TotalRpdCyc = AoU * AvRpdCyc = 1,000,000,000,000 = 1 Trillion
MM = 175,711,536
TotalRpdCyc / MM = 1,000,000,000,000/175,711,536 = 5,691
I’m taking into consideration that the Theory of Evolution is based on things moving from simple states to more complex. Some cells reproduce quickly. Mankind would be around 12 years at the best. (3)
generally, a species is "a population of organisms which are genetically similar enough to successfully interbreed and produce fertile offspring." there are a few hedges to that, of which I am not personally fond, but it is a good general working definition.
note: the species is defined by the fact of genetic compatability, not by human descriptors of that genetic compatability.
just as the color range of red would still be 650nanometers (+/-50nm), whether we called it "red" or "shub-nggrath"
high-order saltation is proscribed by the ToE, and would scientifically falsify the ToE if ever observed to occur.
*all* species are transitional.
*every* individual within a species is a deviant from the nominal species baseline.
learn some population dynamics and genetics.
abandon your strawmen.
learn.
I figured as much, but... again: read my tagline :)
Why the sarcasm? Would you prefer that I leave gross errors and distortions uncorrected? Perhaps you would prefer that falsehoods which falsely *appear* to bolster your own position be left to mislead readers into a mistaken sense that you might be right and we might be wrong? Do you enjoy lies in the service of your agenda, as opposed to truth which might in some way weaken it?
The real reason he, and others, expend such time and energy convincing themselves is rooted in the dire implications for them of the truth of the contrary.
Here, as in past threads, you haven't a clue what we're actually about, but you confidently spread your bizarrely paranoid conspiracy theories and post the most disgusting slanders about us. Is this, then, the behavior of one who dares present himself as one of God's supporters?
It's not what is true. It's what do I wish to be true.
No, this is your mode of operation, not ours. You post whatever fantasy about us pops into your head, and the more scurrilous, the better it fits your prejudices about us, and the more certain you are of its truth. Honestly, seek help.
The fact such a large body of respected men, driven by this desire (read summaries of their biographies), makes it that much easier.
Still unable to debate the issue on the facts and evidence and research, I see, so you continue to try to slander its adherents. This is, of course, the lowest of the low when it comes to dishonest discussion techniques.
There's no reason I can't take the most absurd theory - that the earth is made of cheese - and interpret all incoming evidence to support that postulate.
Only if one decides to be grossly dishonest, not to just others, but to his own integrity as well. This, perhaps, is why anti-evolutionist creationists are such inveterate tellers of falsehoods and distortions (see my earlier post for many examples of documentation).
But make no mistake -- such willful distortion of the facts does not remain unrecognized by most, which is why the dishonesty of anti-evolution creationists is recognized far and wide, and why no reputable science organization is taken in by their falsehoods.
Furthermore, your admission that there you would find no impediment to your own distortion of the evidence in such a manner overlooks one of the requirements of science which the anti-evolutionists keep failing to even attempt to meet (for obvious reasons), much less acknowledge: Science requires that before any such conclusion is to be given credence, it must make testable predictions which distinguish it from alternative possibilities, and then those predictions must be tested and pass such tests, and all subsequent testing and attempts and independent replication.
So yes, you could lie about the meaning of the evidence all day long if you really wished to delude yourself in such a manner, but it wouldn't fool scientists for a moment, because they would note that you had either run away from actually making predictions based on your bizarre beliefs, and/or that others had filled in for your failure and tested the predictions of your claim, and found it to be lacking when tested against the real world.
In short, while it's extremely common for the anti-evolutionists to distort and misrepresent the evidence, and/or to be dishonest (often with themselves) about the implications of the evidence (again, see my previous posts for all too many examples of anti-evolutionist falsehoods), the fact remains that their attempts at twisting reality to fit their own prejudices repeatedly come crashing down when tested against that reality by the scientific method. Meanwhile, evolutionary biology has repeatedly passed these continuous tests with flying colors.
Deal with it. Or don't, feel free to go living in your own fantasy world. But I'll thank you to stop posting false slander about people and subjects you know next to nothing about, but have many disgusting emotional hangups about which lead you to mistake your paranoid prejudices for actual facts.
This one - biological macroevolution - just happens to fill, if true, a common desire among many: to obviate final accountability to a supreme and righteous Diety. That is the real reason for its popularity, and why it has become the dominant hermeneutic for interpretation of natural evidence.
This is, in a word, idiotic. It reveals a complete ignorance of the actual reasons for the success of evolutionary biology, and for the fact that the *majority* of American evolutionists are *Christians*. So once again, your overemotional fantasies are found to clash with that pesky "reality" thing -- but of course, as before, this will bounce off your forehead with a sharp "ping", and you will continue to post your rantings again shortly as if nothing had ever happened to point out the flaws in them.
I didn't read it, I don't have the time.
And yet, you're going to try to slander it anyway:
But massive data dumps are normally reserved for those that are afraid they're losing the argument.
No, they're not, but thanks for childishly trying a pathetic slur when you are unable to deal with the material on its merits. Chalk up another excellent example of an anti-evolutionist engaging in cheap propaganda instead of honest discussion. Buh-bye.
No one has actually observed a main sequence star turning into a red giant.
No one has actually observed Proto-Indoeuropean being spoken or written.
So by your criteria, stellar astronomy and historical linguistics are not really sciences?
Has anyone actually seen an ice sheet covering Canada and the northern USA?
No, I used language, you might look into it sometime. As for your lame attempt at baiting an irrelevant argument, maybe someone else will fall for it.
Welcome, Ma'am ;)
[Ichneumon:] This is a lie. I don't care whether it's your own lie or just someone else's lie you have made the mistake of repeating in misguided good faith, but it's still a lie. Come back when you have something resembling reality to add to the conversation.
[salexander, quoting an article:] The researchers used phylogenetic tree reconstruction -- a method that uses mitochondrial DNA to place individual groups in relative relationship -- to check the results of their pair- wise DNA comparisons. The trees show that the Neanderthal sequence branches before the divergence of the various human mitochondrial DNA lineages, but after the split from chimpanzees.
[salexander, speaking for himself:] In other words, a glorified ape, "glorified" here meaning a little bit better than a chimpanzee. You can be a lot better than a chimpanzee and still be messed up.
Thank you for demonstrating the truth of my statement, that your original claim was a gross falsehood. The astute reader will note that salexander is grossly misrepresenting what the article passage actually says.
Whether he does so out of utter dishonesty or pure incompetence is left as an exercise for the reader.
Nowhere does it say anything remotely resembling his claim that "DNA studies on neanderthals show them to have been glorified apes". Anyone capable of basic reading comprehension can see that at most it says that Neandertals branched from the modern human lineage at some (unspecified) time between the split between humans/chimps (5 million years ago) and the genetic divergences found within modern humans. The passage says nothing whatsoever about Neandertals therefore being "a little bit better than a chimpanzee" -- that's salexander's own "contribution", which he desperately tries to claim is supported by the DNA analysis, when it actually says nothing of the kind, and even salexander's hand-picked quote doesn't say what he tries to grossly misrepresent it as.
The magnitude of his misrepresentation of what the passage actually does and does not say is apparent on its face (just compare the passage he himself quoted versus his own false claim about what it says), but to really put the nail in the coffin, let's look at what the Neandertal DNA research papers *actually* say about whether Neandertals are still considered human, shall we?
Neandertal evolutionary genetics: mitochondrial DNA data from the iberian peninsula...and so on. These are all published papers which discuss the findings of the Neandertal DNA analysis, and yet they have no problem labeling Neandertals as "human", contrary to salexander's false claim."A high level of polymorphism at sequence position 16258 reflects deeply rooted mtDNA lineages, with the time to the most recent common ancestor at ca. 250,000 years ago. This coincides with the full emergence of the "classical" Neandertal morphology and fits chronologically with a proposed speciation event of Homo neanderthalensis." (Hint for the latin-impaired: "homo" is the genus name given to HUMAN species.)A late Neandertal femur from Les Rochers-de-Villeneuve, France
"In 2002, a Neandertal partial femoral diaphysis was discovered at Les Rochers-de-Villeneuve (Vienne, France). Radiocarbon dated to 40,700 14C years before present, this specimen is one of the most recent Middle Paleolithic Neandertals. The diaphysis derives from an archeological level indicating alternating human and carnivore (mostly hyena) occupation of the cave, reinforcing the close proximity and probable competition of Middle Paleolithic humans with large carnivores for resources and space. [...] Most of the archeological remains and the human femur came from level J."THE ACCRETION MODEL OF NEANDERTAL EVOLUTION
"The Neandertals were the Late Pleistocene human populations living in Europe and parts of Western Asia until approximately 30,000 years ago, more or less."No Evidence of Neandertal mtDNA Contribution to Early Modern Humans
"Despite intense research efforts, no consensus has been reached about the genetic relationship between early modern humans and archaic human forms such as the Neandertals.""The mtDNA sequence from a second Neandertal individual (NN 1), also directly dated to ¡Ö40,000 14C years ago, makes the Neandertal site the first Pleistocene locality to yield sequences from more than one human."
Most papers on the subject take pains to describe non-Neandertal type humans as "contemporary humans", "modern humans", or in the case of Neandertal's own human contemporaries, "early modern humans" (because Neandertals are also "early humans", albeit not of the modern type).
On rare occasion a paper will slip and just use the term "human" in opposition to "Neandertal", but in these cases the meaning is clearly "modern human", because the paper will have consistently made the distinction elsewhere in the paper. But aside from those few ambiguous use of terms which a creationist could misuse out of context, in my review of 20+ papers on the Neandertal DNA analysis, I have found NOT A SINGLE ONE which IN ANY WAY says ANYTHING which could be even remotely construed as a statement that Neandertals were either "nonhuman" nor "a glorified ape". Period. Salexander is grossly misrepresenting the studies.
The degree of his "error" can be seen by looking at the various findings contained in the DNA analysis papers themselves. For example, the DNA analysis indicates that modern humans and Neandertals last shared a common ancestor around 500,000 years ago, which is only 1/10th of the time since the last human/ape common ancestor roughly 5,000,000 years ago. So the DNA indicates that Neandertals are ten times more closely related to modern humans than to any extant ape species, in direct opposition to salexander's misrepresentation about those findings.
Even more interestingly:
Oh, look -- the (modern) human and Neandertal DNA are both equally distant from the chimpanzee DNA (about 94 sequence differences), while pretty close to each other. In fact, there are modern humans which differ genetically from each other to a greater degree than the Neandertal DNA different from that of some modern humans (35 sequence differences between one modern human and another, versus only 29 sequence differences between the Neandertal and one or more modern humans... This in no way supports salexander's falsehood about the Neandertal DNA analysis supposedly showing them "to have been glorified apes". Quite the contrary, in fact.
Do any apes have tails?
Shhh, don't interrupt him when he's making a fool of himself and demonstrating his ignorance of even the most basic biology.
[Thunderous applause!]
How can those evolutionary believing people be Christians? When the Bible states that God created the world in a literal 6 days. 6 (24hr periods) days.... not millions of years.
And I'm not being sarcastic, I don't practice Churchdom, and I believed in creation as the Bible states it before I ever even understood the evolutionary avenue of how this world and it's people came into existance.
The number one answer I give people daily, when they say, " You must believe in Creationism, since you're a Christian? My responses are always this: " I thought that according to the evolution theory, people are the "greater" intelligence evolved from primates, from animal like organisms? If this is true, then the evolving must have stopped at us, cause I look around our world and we surely aren't getting any smarter when it comes down to it! Sure we have technology, but what was wrong with simplicity? Sure we have millions and success, but what about the economy now? The environment now? The depletion of creatures due to our inerrancy? I can't believe in evolution theory to explain away this world.. it's not consistant with mankinds habits and consistancies?
Ichneumon, we were individually created just like the Bible says.... and it was so scientific, no man today could recreate a person from scratch without out stealing/using already made dna/embryo cells. Can't you see the consistancy of mankind, we create things:
Lies, meals, buildings, artwork, clothing, ideas, laws, scientific theories,, etc M\
If we really evolved from our fellow primates,, there is absolutely no consistant link to explain where we gained the knowledge for intelligence. That, is why I can't and won't believe or accept evolution. It doesn't properly provide a foundation for my existance.
:)
Here's a total refutation of your "in depth treatment".
You're kidding, right?
Sigh, you're probably not.
Look, son, I realize that when you find yourself lacking any sort of background necessary to actually respond to the material with your own thoughts or analysis, it's tempting to just desperately Google for a creationist page which claims to "refute" it and has enough fancy words that it seems like it might do the trick, then fling it into the thread hoping someone buys it. I won't begrudge you that, since you have so little else to contribute in the way of actual knowledge, analysis, or personal insight.
But what I *will* object to is your blustering claim that your creationist cut-and-paste is a "total refutation", when a) it isn't, and b) you clearly have no ability to actually judge the strength of the material through your own understanding of the alleged problem, its rebuttal, or the rebuttal to that rebuttal, so you're just outright bluffing, which is inexcusably childish of you, and not at all honest.
Furthermore, you clearly didn't even bother to *read* the page you linked, since if you had you'd have noticed that the author admits that it's in rebuttal to an OLDER, significantly different version of Robert Williams's discussion of "Haldane's Dilemma". This alone makes ludicrous your claim that it's a "total refutation" of VadeRetro's linked material. Oops! Made a fool of yourself again.
But tell you what, feel free to make a fool of yourself some more: You tell us, in your own words, what "Haldane's Dilemma" is and why it's allegedly a "killer problem" for evolution, and then I'll tell you in my own words why you're wrong. Go for it. Or barring that, spare us your bluffs about how your empty-headed parroting of a creationist site is "total refutation" of anything, especially things you don't even understand in the first place.
Sure I do.
How can those evolutionary believing people be Christians?
The usual way, by believing in the divinity of Christ.
If you're still confused on the matter, take it up with these folks -- I'll take the opinion of 10,000+ Christian clergy over yours:
The "Clergy Letter Project": An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science
"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.
[As of 29 January 2006, there are 10,230 signatures collected to date]
Click the links that follow to see the alphabetical lists of clergy members who have endorsed this letter
A to E - F to J - K to O - P to S - T to Z
Listing by States
if what you say here is true, that one species can not become another in a single speciation event doesn't that hang you on the hook of needing transitory forms from one species to another which evolution has a problem finding?
What have *you* been smoking? Oh, right, creationist pamphlets. So evolution "has a problem finding" what you call "transitory forms", eh? Look, would it be a "problem" for you to actually READ A FREAKING SCIENCE JOURNAL just once in your life before you gallops off on your donkey tilting at windmills? The breathtaking ignorance of anti-creationists isn't what astounds me, it's their *arrogance* in the way they're so cocksure about subjects they know so damned little about.
Here, try to freaking LEARN something for a change before you spout off again...
Not only is there not an "absence" of transitional fossils, there are THOUSANDS:
Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CC200: There are no transitional fossils.And that's just the barest tip of the iceberg. Then of course there are literally gigabytes of DNA analyses which clearly establish common ancestry, not to mention scores of other lines of evidence cross-validating the same findings, and so on, and so on...Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record
On Creation Science and "Transitional Fossils"
The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"
No transitional fossils? Here's a challenge...
Paleontology: The Fossil Record of Life
What Is A Transitional Fossil?
More Evidence for Transitional Fossils
The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
PALAEOS: The Trace of Life on Earth
Transitional Fossil Species And Modes of Speciation
Evolution and the Fossil Record
Smooth Change in the Fossil Record
Transitional fossil sequence from dinosaur to bird
Um, excuse me, you have that exactly backwards. *YOU* have "neglected" to address in any way *MY* long list of reading material for you which explains to you exactly how and why your notions about the Second Law of Thermodynamics are completely and utterly wrong.
The Second Law of Thermo Dynamics blows away any chance that increasing complexity is possible.
This is entirely idiotic -- if your description were accurate, it would be impossible for snowflakes to form, and impossible for a fertilized egg cell to become a baby.
Isn't it true that as genes are transfered from one generation to the next that there is a loss of data?
No, and you'd know that if you had bothered to actually read the material I posted for you.
Has anyone ever observed an infusion of new data to one generation that didn't already exist in the generation that preceded it?
Yes, and you'd know that if you had bothered to actually read the material I posted for you.
Is it really possible to make something out of nothing? Is it really possible for EVERYTHING to spring from NOTHING as the Big Bang would have us believe.
Is there any particular reason you are REPEATING this falsehood after I have already explained to you that it's false, and provided you with additional reading material so that you could learn exactly how and why you're wrong on this point, and exactly what physicists *acutally* say about the Big Bang?
I eagerly await your answer.
*I* eagerly await your answer for why you have completely ignored the answers you've already been given, and why you pretend you haven't gotten any.
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.