Response to 'prove evolution true'

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am still hoping you will tell us whether or not the weight is tipping back now that you know that the probability argument was all wrong.

Are you familiar with the Wistar Symposium, 1966. Look it up for yourself if you like. Yes, it is a highly contested symposium, yet it does point something useful out-the verdict is yet decided. What is interesting is many scientists are quick to discredit those who disagree with them-so in this case the biologists attempted to discredit the mathematicians. I wish we could see there is an equal playing field and would discuss this academically and not instantly assume we misunderstand. however,

twhitehead, Do not treat the other side as unacademic. I sense you are-because I disagree with you, and I think you assume I'm not stupid, you therefore assume I misunderstand. Honestly, I find this funny and pretentious on your part. Who are you to assume I don't know what is my field more than yours! You would do a greater justice to admit, my side has logic and intelligence behind it. Or do you disagree with Nagel, Huxley and others? What is your academic background out of curiosity?

My probability argument is not wrong-the mathematics is sound. In fact, one of the strongest academics dissident groups from Neo-Darwinism/Evolution are mathematicians.

Granville Sewell, a mathematician at the University of El Paso,

"In 1996, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe published a book entitled "Darwin's Black Box" [Behe 1996], whose central theme is that every living cell is loaded with features and biochemical processes which are "irreducibly complex"--that is, they require the existence of numerous complex components, each essential for function. Thus, these features and processes cannot be explained by gradual Darwinian improvements, because until all the components are in place, these assemblages are completely useless, and thus provide no selective advantage. Behe spends over 100 pages describing some of these irreducibly complex biochemical systems in detail, then summarizes the results of an exhaustive search of the biochemical literature for Darwinian explanations. He concludes that while biochemistry texts often pay lip-service to the idea that natural selection of random mutations can explain everything in the cell, such claims are pure "bluster", because "there is no publication in the scientific literature that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. When Dr. Behe was at the University of Texas El Paso in May of 1997 to give an invited talk, I told him that I thought he would find more support for his ideas in mathematics, physics and computer science departments than in his own field. I know a good many mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists who, like me, are appalled that Darwin's explanation for the development of life is so widely accepted in the life sciences. Few of them ever speak out or write on this issue, however--perhaps because they feel the question is simply out of their domain. However, I believe there are two central arguments against Darwinism, and both seem to be most readily appreciated by those in the more mathematical sciences."
link-http://ai.stanford.edu/~csewell/essays/ch2.htm

twhitehead. I see you are a programmer (computer)-so you might appreciate this analogy-

"I believe mathematicians are well qualified to appreciate the general ideas involved [in evolution]. And although an analogy is only an analogy, perhaps the best way to understand Behe's argument is by comparing the development of the genetic code of life with the development of a computer program. Suppose an engineer attempts to design a structural analysis computer program, writing it in a machine language that is totally unknown to him. He simply types out random characters at his keyboard, and periodically runs tests on the program to recognize and select out chance improvements when they occur. The improvements are permanently incorporated into the program while the other changes are discarded. If our engineer continues this process of random changes and testing for a long enough time, could he eventually develop a sophisticated structural analysis program? (Of course, when intelligent humans decide what constitutes an "improvement", this is really artificial selection, so the analogy is far too generous.) If a billion engineers were to type at the rate of one random characterper second, there is virtually no chance that any one of them would, given the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth to work on it, accidentally duplicate a given 20-character improvement. Thus our engineer cannot count on making any major improvements through chance alone. But could he not perhaps make progress through the accumulation of very small improvements? The Darwinist would presumably say, yes, but to anyone who has had minimal programming experience this idea is equally implausible. Major improvements to a computer program often require the addition or modification of hundreds of interdependent lines, no one of which makes any sense, or results in any improvement, when added by itself. Even the smallest improvements usually require adding several new lines. It is conceivable that a programmer unable to look ahead more than 5 or 6 characters at a time might be able to make some very slight improvements to a computer program, but it is inconceivable that he could design anything sophisticated without the ability to plan far ahead and to guide his changes toward that plan."
link-Ibid.

Casey Luskin, writer for Evolution News and Views comments,

"The truth is that mathematics has a strong tradition of giving cogent critique of evolutionary biology. After all, Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is fundamentally based upon an algorithm which uses a mathematically describable trial and error process to attempt to produce complexity. Population genetics is rife with mathematics."
link-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/07/mathematicians_and_evolution002387.html

I'm just pulling the tip of the iceberg. I'm just looking for you to admit you don't understand mathematics (I do quite well, and I'm pretty sure you don't have post undergrad studies in it as I do). Historically and factually mathematicians have been skeptical of neo-darwinism/evolution since the mid 20th century, and the primary impetus for this was the advent of the computer and programming.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Can you post a link to this? I would be interested in seeing the context. Couldn't find anything through Google.

Here are a few for your perusing.

Stephen Jay Gould, one of the leading evolutionary biologists of our day wrote, "Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs--and equally compatible with atheism." (1)

Dawkins responds to this, "I simply do not believe that Gould could possibly have meant much of what he wrote in Rock of Ages [where the above quote is from]."

Dawkins seems incensed that the leading American evolutionary biologist would believe theism and atheism compatible views with neo-darwinism/evolution.

Next:

Freemon Dyson, a once widely tipped Nobel Prize winner for his groudbreaking work in quantum electrodynamics, said, "Even in the gruesome history of the twentieth century, I see some evidence of progress in religion. The two individuals who epitomized the evils of our century, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, were both avowed atheists. Religion cannot be held responsible for their atrocities. And the three individuals who epitomized the good, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Mother Teresa, were all in their different ways religious." (3)

Dawkin's commenting on this, "It will be taken as an endorsement of religion by one of the world's most disinguished physicists...Isn't that just what any atheistic scientist would say if he wanted to sound Christian?" (4)

Dawkins is being pretentious-assuming that these well acclaimed academics simply couldn't mean what they said....I find that academically ungenerous, and that is why I distanced myself from Dawkins even before I was a Christian because I considered him crude, audacious, and pretentious. Brilliant still, but as Michael Ruse, who is a philosopher of biology and a self described darwinian commented,

"What we need is not knee-jerk atheism but serious grappling with the issues--neither of you are willing to study Christianity seriously [he was emailing Daniel Dennet, another philosopher of science and the mind, and he was speaking of Richard Dawkins] and to engage with the ideas--it is just plain silly and grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil as Richard [Dawkins] claims--more than this, we are in a fight, and we need to make allies in the fight, not simply alienate everyone of good will." (5)

Dawkin's antics are alienating acclaimed academics on both sides (Darwinism and Creationism). He needs to cool it, as he calls anyone who isn't like him an enemy, or just downright stupid.

What is more ridiculous-the one who claims what they believe or the one who claims you don't really mean what you just said????



(1) Gould, Stephen Jay. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion iin the Fullness of Life. New York, Ballantine, 2002. Also, see-Gould, Stephen Jay "Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge," Scientific American 267, no. 1 (1992)

(2) Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. Pg. 57.

(3) Dyson, Freeman. "Progress in Religion." http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge68.html [scroll about 1/3 down the page to find the quote.

(4) Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. Pg. 152.

(5) Ruse, Michael. Taking Darwin Seriously: A Naturalistic Approach to Philosophy New York: Prometheus, 1998. The actual publication of the correspondence between Dennett and Ruse was published in 2006.

P.S. I arrived at my position through extensive study. Not mere whim. How many of you actually read the works, actual works, of your acclaimed elite? I sense very few of you do or else I would sense a higher level of erudition from you. And I don't mean this insultingly. I know evolution theory better than probably 99% of you on here because I studied it in my undergrad, and graduate school, and medical school extensively. \

Originally posted by divegeester
So you've never heard of "chaos theory" or do you dismiss it?

Yes I have heard of it, however I fail to see how its relevant.

I don't profess to understand it, but I do recognise that what you are claiming is simply not universally accepted.
What exactly about what I said do you dispute?

I've read about and seen science tv programmes where scientists talk convincingly about the "randomness" of the universe despite the physical laws.
And I did not say anything that would contradict that.

In fact the laws didn't exist until after a certain randomness within the Big Bang had settled, isn't that correct.
No, that is not correct.

I do see you as being well educated in science, but if I'm honest I think you take liberties with your level of knowledge.
If I am taking liberties, then point out where you think I said something wrong. I think you are being deliberately vague because you don't actually have any genuine objections to what I said. And I have to add that what I said only requires a rudimentary level of knowledge. In fact it should be obvious to anyone once pointed out to them.

Originally posted by black beetle
Hey Kelly,
I see the connection I maintain with my spiritual teacher as auspicious and supportive on an essence-to-essence basis instead in the sense of a higher power I happen “to be in touch with”, therefore I see it as an experiential realization that my essence, nature and energy constitute the context, source and character of all my experiences. A ...[text shortened]... mind, and as such I reject all kind of theistic thoughts and doctrines as regards this matter😵

After reading this again, you believe your mind when it comes to the
universe and if you believe it/think it is what it is, because you came up
with it? I had my eyes checked the other day, blind spots are part of our
lives they are built into them, and if you have closed off something as not
worthy of looking at so you reject them, you created your own blind spot.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes I have heard of it, however I fail to see how its relevant.

[b]I don't profess to understand it, but I do recognise that what you are claiming is simply not universally accepted.
What exactly about what I said do you dispute?

I've read about and seen science tv programmes where scientists talk convincingly about the "randomness" of the u ...[text shortened]... rudimentary level of knowledge. In fact it should be obvious to anyone once pointed out to them.

No it's not obvious, what's obvious to you is only obvious to you. The universe is full of randomness, you are wrong. Deal with it.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
How come you chose Christianity and not Islam, or Hinduism or Sikhism or any other religion? What led you to the Christian God?

That is a very long story. I was first reached out to and surrounded by many Christians, so it was very natural for me to be lead towards Christianity. But simply,

1) The uniqueness of the person of Jesus Christ
2) Textual Criticism of the Bible vs. other main stream religions
3) Personal conviction (Holy Spirit)

and the list could go on, but I didn't see the fabric or essence elsewhere in say Islam or Buddhism that I saw in Christianity.

Originally posted by King Tiger
I'm just looking for you to admit you don't understand mathematics ...

No, I don't think you are. I think you are avoiding admitting that you got it wrong. So stop trying to side track with lengthy quotes and go back to what you said in your original two posts. What exactly were you trying to calculate the probability of, and why do you think it is relevant to evolution?

Originally posted by divegeester
No it's not obvious, what's obvious to you is only obvious to you. The universe is full of randomness, you are wrong. Deal with it.

I never said the universe was not full of randomness. What exactly about what I said do you dispute. Quote any sentence or group of sentences I posted that you do not find obvious or that you dispute.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I never said the universe was not full of randomness. What exactly about what I said do you dispute. Quote any sentence or group of sentences I posted that you do not find obvious or that you dispute.

Good grief you're irritating. It's bloody obvious what I'm contesting.

Originally posted by King Tiger
That is a very long story. I was first reached out to and surrounded by many Christians, so it was very natural for me to be lead towards Christianity. But simply,

1) The uniqueness of the person of Jesus Christ
2) Textual Criticism of the Bible vs. other main stream religions
3) Personal conviction (Holy Spirit)

and the list could go on, but I didn't see the fabric or essence elsewhere in say Islam or Buddhism that I saw in Christianity.

Are you a Young Earth Creationist? Your quote in your OP is from the Institute for Creation Research.

Originally posted by King Tiger
Here are a few for your perusing.

Stephen Jay Gould, one of the leading evolutionary biologists of our day wrote, "Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs--and equally compatible with atheism." (1)

Dawkins responds to this, "I simply do not believe tha ...[text shortened]... ere because I studied it in my undergrad, and graduate school, and medical school extensively. \

Well, for someone of such erudition, perhaps you could explain where these quotes support the claim that Dawkins said Freemon Dyson was mad for speaking of God.

And where they support the claim that Dawkins said that you have to be an atheist to be a scientist.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Well, for someone of such erudition, perhaps you could explain where these quotes support the claim that Dawkins said Freemon Dyson was mad for speaking of God.

And where they support the claim that Dawkins said that you have to be an atheist to be a scientist.

Have you read Dawkin's The God Delusion?

Originally posted by King Tiger
Have you read Dawkin's The God Delusion?

Yes.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Yes.

Then you should be familiar with Dawkin's evident quotes and his insinuations. I did not quote Dawkin's as saying Dyson was 'mad' because I know of know exact quote. Yet, he certainly suggests it in his writings, and my interpretation of Dawkin's writings would be he believes all true scientists and perhaps academics should be atheist. So if I was misleading I apologize, but I'm sure you can appreciate my own interpretation of his writings.