DMZ, mathematics IS science. It’s patently clear why evolutionists ignore probability. Just imagine the odds of three incredibly complex tissues within a body, muscles, bones and tendons, “evolving” at the same time in such a way that all three became functional to an organism. Obviously, unless all three vital cogs were randomly “completed” concurrently, the entire mechanism collapses! Do you *really* imagine that there existed a time when organisms flopped around gelatinously, like fish in a frying pan? C’mon! Bob
No, mathematics is not science.
Mathematics can be applied to science, and to the extent that it models the variables correctly, it can produce useful results. But that's the key--did that mathematical model use the correct variables correctly, and did it weight them correctly? Mathematicians are good at math, but not necessarily at biology.
Here is a counter example, a biologist who is pretty good at math. And he comes up with entirely different results:
Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design SufficesHow are you going to deal with that?
Online lecture by Professor Garrett Odellhttp://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=2513
Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.
Do you *really* imagine that there existed a time when organisms flopped around gelatinously, like fish in a frying pan? C’mon! Bob
_____
You mean like jellyfish do today?