A host of challenges have been made to evolutionary theory over the past 160 years & all have crumbled. That's why the theory is regarded as being a reliable description of how living things change & adapt.
Mathematical challenges to Darwin's Theory of evolution
Sort:
May 6, 2020
0
#3
stephen_33 wrote:
A host of challenges have been made to evolutionary theory over the past 160 years & all have crumbled. That's why the theory is regarded as being a reliable description of how living things change & adapt.
You are writing about something you have no clue, I just posted this, and you have had no time to watch it. This suggests your complaint is not be due to what is said in it, only that you disagree with it no matter what is said in it. You are speculating about something without review.
May 6, 2020
0
#4
The theory of evolution is so well tested & established that it would take a discovery of huge magnitude to overturn it.
Something tells me that you don't have such a thing. Call it instinct.
May 6, 2020
0
#5
stephen_33 wrote:
The theory of evolution is so well tested & established that it would take a discovery of huge magnitude to overturn it.
Something tells me that you don't have such a thing. Call it instinct.
I call it bias.
May 6, 2020
0
#6
I don't have time to watch yet another hour long video that looks like it's going to be hard going - how about giving a summary of the argument in your own words?
May 6, 2020
0
#7
TruthMuse wrote:
stephen_33 wrote:
The theory of evolution is so well tested & established that it would take a discovery of huge magnitude to overturn it.
Something tells me that you don't have such a thing. Call it instinct.
I call it bias.
And if someone came along & told you that he'd just watched a talk in which a few guys he'd never heard of claimed to have totally trashed the General Theory of Relativity (a well tested theory), presumably you'd believe them too?
May 6, 2020
0
#8
stephen_33 wrote:
TruthMuse wrote:
stephen_33 wrote:
The theory of evolution is so well tested & established that it would take a discovery of huge magnitude to overturn it.
Something tells me that you don't have such a thing. Call it instinct.
I call it bias.
And if someone came along & told you that he'd just watched a talk in which a few guys he'd never heard of claimed to have totally trashed the General Theory of Relativity (a well tested theory), presumably you'd believe them too?
Do not watch it, you may have to speculate on the truthfulness of the things said. It is that simple.
May 6, 2020
0
#9
TruthMuse wrote:
stephen_33 wrote:
TruthMuse wrote:
stephen_33 wrote:
The theory of evolution is so well tested & established that it would take a discovery of huge magnitude to overturn it.
Something tells me that you don't have such a thing. Call it instinct.
I call it bias.
And if someone came along & told you that he'd just watched a talk in which a few guys he'd never heard of claimed to have totally trashed the General Theory of Relativity (a well tested theory), presumably you'd believe them too?
Do not watch it, you may have to speculate on the truthfulness of the things said. It is that simple.
I watched a few minutes including the introductions. Did you notice that at least one of the guests, Stephen Meyer (?), is described as being the director in charge of 'science' at the Discovery Institute!
The Discovery Institute is little more than a creationist think tank.
But condense the so-called mathematical objection to Dawin's theory into a single post & maybe we can have a discussion?
May 6, 2020
0
#10
stephen_33 wrote:
TruthMuse wrote:
stephen_33 wrote:
TruthMuse wrote:
stephen_33 wrote:
The theory of evolution is so well tested & established that it would take a discovery of huge magnitude to overturn it.
Something tells me that you don't have such a thing. Call it instinct.
I call it bias.
And if someone came along & told you that he'd just watched a talk in which a few guys he'd never heard of claimed to have totally trashed the General Theory of Relativity (a well tested theory), presumably you'd believe them too?
Do not watch it, you may have to speculate on the truthfulness of the things said. It is that simple.
I watched a few minutes including the introductions. Did you notice that at least one of the guests, Stephen Meyer (?), is described as being the director in charge of 'science' at the Discovery Institute!
The Discovery Institute is little more than a creationist think tank.
But condense the so-called mathematical objection to Dawin's theory into a single post & maybe we can have a discussion?
Don't watch it is the most simple thing there is you can do and maintain you are right and they are wrong.
May 6, 2020
0
#14
wsswan wrote:
I played it all the way through and still found it interesting.
Me too
1. For sake of argument, even if this "mathematical challenge" to Darwin's theory of evolution is sound, it still does nothing to negate the evidence for biological relatedness (common ancestry). "Is there evidence that living things are related?" and "What are the mechanisms of biological change?" are two different questions.
2. There was only one "mathematical challenge," singular, offered (i.e., "combinatorial inflation"--improbability of randomly generating a functional protein). But this is not an argument against Darwin's theory of evolution; it's a recognized problem with the origin of life. So, the title, "Mathematical Challenges to Darwin's Theory of Evolution," is a bit of a misnomer. Also, evolutionarily biologists do not believe that functional proteins are randomly propagated, so this is also a bit of a strawman.
May 6, 2020
0
#16
tbwp10 wrote:
1. For sake of argument, even if this "mathematical challenge" to Darwin's theory of evolution is sound, it still does nothing to negate the evidence for biological relatedness (common ancestry). "Is there evidence that living things are related?" and "What are the mechanisms of biological change?" are two different questions.
2. There was only one "mathematical challenge," singular, offered (i.e., "combinatorial inflation"--improbability of randomly generating a functional protein). But this is not an argument against Darwin's theory of evolution; it's a recognized problem with the origin of life. So, the title, "Mathematical Challenges to Darwin's Theory of Evolution," is a bit of a misnomer. Also, evolutionarily biologists do not believe that functional proteins are randomly propagated, so this is also a bit of a strawman.
A good design would only need to be tweaked to make a change form or function.
Not sure how that relates to my comments or the video. The video does not present a mathematical challenge to Darwin's theory of evolution.
stephen_33 wrote:
A host of challenges have been made to evolutionary theory over the past 160 years & all have crumbled. That's why the theory is regarded as being a reliable description of how living things change & adapt.
The origin of life is a huge plothole and hasn't been answered scientifically.
Just speculation.
You're correct, we do not have a demonstrable scientific explanation for the origin of life (only speculative ones). But we do for biological evolution. (i.e., biological origin and biological change are different issues)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noj4phMT9OE&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3CB7-Hg1BtegxWzMvEinsd5XgFk2_zkD9VPCE5-95THYq8qCAB3BOb3-A
Nice discussion