Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

[Hollie]

I have it right. It is the atheists and their scientists who believe in potential infinities as actual infinities in the natural world. They do not understand potential infinities and actual infinities. Actual infinities exist ONLY in the supernatural world. It is potential infinities that exist in the natural world. For example, we can have a set of counting numbers. Cosmologists may disagree, but the universe has to be bounded or else we can have an infinite past and other crazy things. Scientists believed in an infinite universe before the big bang theory and it was disproven.

No, James, you don't have it right, and I don't need you to explain to me what potential and actual infinities are, and, subsequently, what the distinction between potential and actual infinities. is. I grasp these thing. What you don't grasp is what an actual infinite is.

You keep saying that "[a]ctual infinities exist ONLY in the supernatural world."

False! The supernatural world has nothing to do with the price of beans in China.

They exist in both the natural and supernatural world, albeit, as mathematical concepts in minds ONLY. They conceptually exist in the minds of man, angels and God. An actual infinite is the concept of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things or a a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something. The place where actual infinities do not have existentiality is outside of minds. Period.

You're on your own and getting beaten up in this thread.

Even Aristotle agrees with me -- Potential Infinite v. Actual Infinite | Aristotle.

So did you lose?

Don't even try to throw shade on me, James. Of course I'm winning. No one on this thread has or can refute the potentiality of the following:

The essence of evodelusion is that all of biological history is a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry by natural means. That notion is scientifically unobservable and is predicated on the metaphysical apriority of naturalism. Further, the observable evidence does not falsify the potentiality that all of biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared, and systematically altered and transcribed genetic motif of common design over geological time.​

​

While adaptive radiation and the mechanisms thereof are observable, we do and cannot observe a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry, and the apriority on which this notion is predicated is scientifically unfalsifiable. I hold that the mechanisms of adaptive radiation cannot affect the transformation of a species into an entirely different species beyond the taxonomic level of family, and no such thing above that level has ever been observed, let alone accounted for in terms of information.​

​

The mutations required to affect the kind of change and variation among species we see today from a unicellular organism would involve incalculably extraordinary additions of new information, and that information would have to be present at the very beginning of any significant transmorphic development. Not only does natural selection select from already existing information, it causes a loss of information since unfavorable genes are eventually removed from environmentally separated populations, and the differences in groups of similar organisms that are isolated from one another may eventually become great enough so that the populations no longer interbreed in the wild. Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.​

​

​

Your ID’iot creationer nonsense about mutations is right out of the Henry Morris Academy for the Slow. It is nothing more than the silly ID’iot creationer “what are the odds”, slogans.

These nonsensical “the odds are too great” are stereotypical blathering that ooze from all of the fundamentalist creation ministries.

Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that proteins and the building blocks of life formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.

Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions occurring simultaneously.


To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School for the Silly.

 

[Hollie]

Your fantasies of guys in red union suits with horns and pitchforks, well, I believe should stay away from those.

I think it is God's revelation for you. The truth was right in front of your eyes, but you chose the other. I can't explain how everything in the Bible is contradicted. I tried to point it out here, but soon realized it wasn't a winning argument. The main man in the red union suit is too powerful and wants to remain hidden. He has my respect.

Well, thanks, but if any of the gods want to reveal themselves to me they can do so at any time.

Your fascination with men in red onion suits is fascinating. Carry on.

 

[ding]

We know Darwin got transference wrong. So what's wrong with questioning the origin of species? It's pretty obvious that natural selection is a reasonable explanation for the evolution of species. But it seems a fair point to investigate the origin as that is not so obvious.

Natural selection is a mechanism of adaptive radiation alright, but macroevolution is wholly based on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism.

ID’iot creationers often get confused with terms of science due to their lack of training in the subject matter. Using terms you don't understand does nothing to support ID'iot / creationism.

There is the FACT that species change. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. ID’iot creationers admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can change into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They give no reason for this fabricated limitation. They just can't accept "macroevolution", because it contradicts the "truth" of the bible. But there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species. The process (simply stated) involves the potential of many different types of individuals within a species, the birth of a great many individual organisms, and the deaths of those individuals whose characteristics are not as well suited to the total environment as other individuals of the same species. The deaths of these less well suited individuals allows for the increased reproduction of the better suited ones, and initiates a shift in the appearance and function of the species. Without limitation.

I don't doubt it. I just don't take it on faith like you do.

 

[ding]

I'm a degreed engineer.

So not a scientist. But we knew that already. I am not a scientist, either.

Engineering is the commercial application of science.

Working at Wally World isn't.

 

[ding]

Re: abiogensis

We don't know exactly how it happened. We just know that it did. Once there was no life, then there was. What connects the two states is abiogenesis. It's a foregone conclusion.

So you take it on faith. Like a religion. <giggle>

 

[ding]

Re: abiogensis

We don't know exactly how it happened. We just know that it did. Once there was no life, then there was. What connects the two states is abiogenesis. It's a foregone conclusion.

Can you tell me how you think it happened? Paint me a picture. Ball park estimate.

 

[ding]

You cannot tell me why there are no transitional fossils (I can).

Not only is this ridiculously false, every fossil is a transitional fossil. Make your claim to a biologist. Report back, when the laughter subsides.

Do you not know what is meant by transitional fossils? I learned about the absence of transitional fossils by reading a book written by the paleontologist who worked on Peking Man. Are you laughing at him too?

The reality is you only have a superficial understanding of transitional fossils. Which is why you tried to bluff your way through this.

So let me ask you again, and this time please put some effort into researching the question... can YOU tell me why there are no transitional fossils because I can.

 

[Ringtone]

Even Aristotle agrees with me -- Potential Infinite v. Actual Infinite | Aristotle.

Aristotle does not agree with you, James. Stop it!

You claimed that the actual infinite only exists in the supernatural realm.

FALSE!

No mathematician agrees with that BS!

THE ACTUAL INFINITE EXISTS AS A CONCEPT IN MINDS ONLY. IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO EXISTENTIALITY OUTSIDE OF MINDS. THE NATURAL REALM VS THE SUPERNATURAL REALM HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON THE MATTER.

Your own citation refutes you:

The actual infinite involves never-ending sets or 'things' within a space that has a beginning and end; it is a series that is technically 'completed' but consists of an infinite number of members. According to Aristotle, actual infinities cannot exist because they are paradoxical. It is impossible to say that you can always 'take another step' or 'add another member' in a completed set with a beginning and end, unlike a potential infinite. It is ultimately Aristotle’s rejection of the actual infinite that allowed him to refute Zeno’s paradox.​

But here's a better source, given that yours is from a blog:

The previous two chapters have established that the infinite cannot exist actually, so, by disjunctive syllogism, the infinite must exist potentially. In Aristotle’s words, ‘The alternative then remains that the infinite has a potential existence’. . . .​

​

. . . Of course, the force of this conclusion is that the infinite has only a potential existence, and never an actual one, since actual infinities have been categorically ruled out. Aristotle emphasizes this point in the following passage: 'But we must not construe potential existence in the way we do when we say that it is possible for this to be a statue—this will be a statue, but something infinite will not be in actuality.'​

​

But there is a twist to Aristotle's reasoning in terms of time, which entails the very opposite of what you contend. LOL!

 

[james bond]

Well, thanks, but if any of the gods want to reveal themselves to me they can do so at any time.

He did yesterday, but you miss the important things.

Your fascination with men in red onion suits is fascinating. Carry on.

Now, the other guy practically owns you. You can't avoid his temptations which is to follow me and bug (disagree) with me.

 

[james bond]

Even Aristotle agrees with me -- Potential Infinite v. Actual Infinite | Aristotle.

Aristotle does not agree with you, James. Stop it!

You claimed that the actual infinite only exists in the supernatural realm.

FALSE!

No mathematician agrees with that BS!

THE ACTUAL INFINITE EXISTS AS A CONCEPT IN MINDS ONLY. IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO EXISTENTIALITY OUTSIDE OF MINDS. THE NATURAL REALM VS THE SUPERNATURAL REALM HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON THE MATTER.

Your own citation refutes you:

The actual infinite involves never-ending sets or 'things' within a space that has a beginning and end; it is a series that is technically 'completed' but consists of an infinite number of members. According to Aristotle, actual infinities cannot exist because they are paradoxical. It is impossible to say that you can always 'take another step' or 'add another member' in a completed set with a beginning and end, unlike a potential infinite. It is ultimately Aristotle’s rejection of the actual infinite that allowed him to refute Zeno’s paradox.​

But here's a better source, given that yours is from a blog:

The previous two chapters have established that the infinite cannot exist actually, so, by disjunctive syllogism, the infinite must exist potentially. In Aristotle’s words, ‘The alternative then remains that the infinite has a potential existence’. . . .​

​

. . . Of course, the force of this conclusion is that the infinite has only a potential existence, and never an actual one, since actual infinities have been categorically ruled out. Aristotle emphasizes this point in the following passage: 'But we must not construe potential existence in the way we do when we say that it is possible for this to be a statue—this will be a statue, but something infinite will not be in actuality.'​

​

But there is a twist to Aristotle's reasoning in terms of time, which entails the very opposite of what you contend. LOL!

smh. You are going in circles instead of admitting you lost the argument. Your own writing betrays you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Abiogenesis has been proven to be impossible via the swan neck experiment.

Lie.

 

[Hollie]

Well, thanks, but if any of the gods want to reveal themselves to me they can do so at any time.

He did yesterday, but you miss the important things.

Your fascination with men in red onion suits is fascinating. Carry on.

Now, the other guy practically owns you. You can't avoid his temptations which is to follow me and bug (disagree) with me.

If it's OK with you, I'll manage the various gods on an as-needed basis.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Do you not know what is meant by transitional fossils?

I do and you don't. Its not even really a term used by scientists anymore. But using the old definitions from, apparently, your youth, we have found mountains of them.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

can YOU tell me why there are no transitional fossils

No, because that's delusional.

 

[ding]

Do you not know what is meant by transitional fossils?

I do and you don't. Its not even really a term used by scientists anymore. But using the old definitions from, apparently, your youth, we have found mountains of them.

A major point in deviation. One so apparently large that it distinguishes itself from its former species unlike other slight variations. Punctuated equilibrium so to speak.

So again, rather than actually offer anything of value, you go off on a tangent to hide your ignorance. Rather than discussing what it was, you talk about how it's not used or is an old definition and then hurl a thinly veiled insult as if you actually believed you were talking down to someone of lesser intelligence.

So no, I don't think you do know why there are no transitional fossils. I think all you have done is a cursory google search and can't discuss why they don't exist because you don't know why they don't exist and you couldn't find the answer in a 5 minute google search. You're a fraud. A fake. A charlatan. A religious fanatic.

 

[Stryder50]

Haven't time to read through this whole thread, so just in case not already mentioned;
> The fossil record isn't a very exact or complete "record". Normally living things undergo decay and re-absorption into other living things. Fossils happen when some living thing becomes encased in material that blocks off the prospect of decay, such as suddenly buried in a mudslide. Point being it's possible, probable, that many former species may not have left a "fossil record" they existed, or were a transitional species of sorts.
> Of the 20 known amino acids, the same four are used in all DNA ( and three of those four plus a fifth are in RNA). One would expect that if there was spontaneous generation of life in Earths past, it might have resulted in several different formulas/patterns of DNA using the other amino acids.
This could be the case where panspermia may apply;

One moment, please...

> After life was seeded on this planet, then evolution may have kicked in to expand the process.

 

[ding]

can YOU tell me why there are no transitional fossils

No, because that's delusional.

So you are saying there isn't a logical answer that explains the origin of a species and it's lack of transitional fossils?

That's really odd. I would think anyone who believed that evolution was a fact would at least be able to logically explain the absence of transitional fossils. Especially since I can.

 

[Ringtone]

ID’iot creationers often get confused with terms of science due to their lack of training in the subject matter. Using terms you don't understand does nothing to support ID'iot / creationism.

There is the FACT that species change. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. ID’iot creationers admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can change into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They give no reason for this fabricated limitation. They just can't accept "macroevolution", because it contradicts the "truth" of the bible. But there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species. The process (simply stated) involves the potential of many different types of individuals within a species, the birth of a great many individual organisms, and the deaths of those individuals whose characteristics are not as well suited to the total environment as other individuals of the same species. The deaths of these less well suited individuals allows for the increased reproduction of the better suited ones, and initiates a shift in the appearance and function of the species. Without limitation.

The evodelutionist believes in magic

Even Aristotle agrees with me -- Potential Infinite v. Actual Infinite | Aristotle.

Aristotle does not agree with you, James. Stop it!

You claimed that the actual infinite only exists in the supernatural realm.

FALSE!

No mathematician agrees with that BS!

THE ACTUAL INFINITE EXISTS AS A CONCEPT IN MINDS ONLY. IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO EXISTENTIALITY OUTSIDE OF MINDS. THE NATURAL REALM VS THE SUPERNATURAL REALM HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON THE MATTER.

Your own citation refutes you:

The actual infinite involves never-ending sets or 'things' within a space that has a beginning and end; it is a series that is technically 'completed' but consists of an infinite number of members. According to Aristotle, actual infinities cannot exist because they are paradoxical. It is impossible to say that you can always 'take another step' or 'add another member' in a completed set with a beginning and end, unlike a potential infinite. It is ultimately Aristotle’s rejection of the actual infinite that allowed him to refute Zeno’s paradox.​

But here's a better source, given that yours is from a blog:

The previous two chapters have established that the infinite cannot exist actually, so, by disjunctive syllogism, the infinite must exist potentially. In Aristotle’s words, ‘The alternative then remains that the infinite has a potential existence’. . . .​

​

. . . Of course, the force of this conclusion is that the infinite has only a potential existence, and never an actual one, since actual infinities have been categorically ruled out. Aristotle emphasizes this point in the following passage: 'But we must not construe potential existence in the way we do when we say that it is possible for this to be a statue—this will be a statue, but something infinite will not be in actuality.'​

​

But there is a twist to Aristotle's reasoning in terms of time, which entails the very opposite of what you contend. LOL!

smh. You are going in circles instead of admitting you lost the argument. Your own writing betrays you.

LOL! James, you don't understand the matter at all.

Tell me, James, what precisely is the real value of the surreal number ∞?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So no, I don't think you do know why there are no transitional fossils

Because that is silly and false. You can try to talk about me all day (and you will), but you are wrong and will not get the answer you are looking for.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Abiogenesis is a foregone conclusion. You can say "gods did it!", but that is still a form of abiogenesis. Life from no life.