Mathematical challenges to Darwin's Theory of evolution

A trivial matter, why I choose to name the link that I did. When you actually clicked on the link did you see the name they used to name the discussion? I didn't come up with that, I simply shared what was said. You find fault there, uh okay.

A small point in your link, I have not actually spent time on it yet. I also have not looked at the other link you provided yet either. Sorry, I do plan on going over both of them, you took the time to provide them for so I can see your points and reasons. I've not looked at them as closely as I can yet, but will.

" We reasoned that since nucleotide variation at amino acid invariant sites is selectively neutral and, thus, unlikely to be due to convergent evolution, the observation that an amino acid is consistently encoded by the same codon sequence in different species could provide strong evidence of their common ancestry."

If this is flawed is the whole thing flawed? I don't see this as to different than saying this fossil is related to that one, because, insert reasons. The mathematical challenges in the discussion are basically all seen in the here and now, without taking anything on faith that this means that millennia ago.

It is unclear to me what you mean by those in ID that accept "progression in time."

To clarify, are you saying that you believe in "special creation" (independent creation/design of different "kinds") and reject positions such as "theistic evolution" and "progressive creation"?

Correct, But here is where we arrive at the root problem: inconsistency in your methodology.  You make a great deal over what you believe is others' rejection of rational inquiry w/regard to say, abiogenesis and the origin of genetic information and invoke science to make your case (even to the point of getting upset or at least expressing frustration at what you see as others' "refusal" to deal with science-based problems that you have repeatedly raised).  Yet, you seem to only follow the evidence and invoke science when it's convenient for you and agrees with what I can only presume must be your faith beliefs. 

Case in point, I just gave you statistical evidence that there is effectively a 0% chance that observed genetic similarities between primate families are NOT the result of common ancestry, while granting you for sake of argument the acceptance of your own probability arguments and observed human experience that prescriptive information is only known to arise via intelligent agency.  Taken together and "following the evidence" then leads us to the conclusion that humans share a common ancestry with other primates as a result of "theistic evolution." 

You, however, have just told me that you reject theistic evolution.  But you have not provided any rational, evidentiary basis for rejecting theistic evolution, so on what grounds or basis, then, do you reject theistic evolution? 

But we can even go a step further and for sake of argument consider only non-evolutionary, creationist explanations/theories for the patterns and successions we observe in the fossil record.  If for sake of argument we automatically exclude any evolutionary hypothesis from consideration to explain the fossil record and only accept creationist hypotheses as viable, then which creationist hypothesis would come out on top and best account for the observed geologic and paleontological evidence?  When we play out this thought experiment and exclude evolution we find that "special creation" and "flood geology" fail miserably at accounting for what we observe in the fossil record.  

The fossil record shows repeated successions and extinctions of biologic communities.  These successions do NOT accord with rising waters in a global flood (e.g., first we bury marine creatures, then shallow water amphibans, then terrestrial reptiles and then birds and mammals, etc.).  The fundamental problem with such a scenario is that it is a complete misrepresentation of the fossil record---marine fossil deposits occur throughout the fossil record, for one, and as a general rule exhibit in situ deposition w/little to no transport or hydrodynamic sorting (most Paleozoic marine limestone/carbonate deposits, for example). 

The most complete fossil record we have is that of near shore, benthic (bottom-dwelling) marine invertebrates (like shells, reefs and such).  And what we see is different bottom-dwelling marine invertebrate communities "suddenly" appearing, existing with little to no change in general (morphological stasis), followed by extinction of said marine community and replacement/succession (as one physically moves up through the fossil record) by a new bottom-dwelling marine invertebrate community with an entirely unique composition and community structure (different types of invertebrates, different shells, different reef communities, different ecological relationships, etc.).

In short, when we look at the fossil record of what's on the bottom of the ocean (near shore), we see that's what's on the bottom of the ocean changes repeatedly as we physically go up through the record.  As I said, a record of extinction and succession/replacement by different marine invertebrate communities.  (You are already familiar with what I am speaking of as you have demonstrated with your knowledge of the fundamentally different paleocommunity structures and succession of the Ediacaran and Cambrian faunas)

*Furthermore, I cannot emphasize enough the robustness of this observed pattern---a pattern of repeated succession that has been known since George Cuvier's time ("the father of paleontology") in the late 1700s to early 1800s before Darwin AND that is still readily apparent today.

*The point?  The fossil record effectively "looks" the same way to today's paleontologists as it did 300 yrs ago to early paleontologists like Cuvier AND if we "follow the observational evidence where it leads" (while excluding evolution as an explanation), then there is truly only ONE creationist hypothesis that the observed fossil evidence accords with and it is the same explanation that Cuvier arrived at based on the observational evidence:

"PROGRESSIVE CREATION"

*You, however, have told me that you reject "progressive creationism."  But on what basis, then, do you do so because "progressive creation" certainly can't be rejected on the basis of what we observe in the fossil record.  To the contrary, it is the ONLY creationist view that can possibly be supported by the observational evidence 

*As you have displayed your commitment to rationalism and following the evidence (when it comes to abiogenesis and the origin of information), then should you not also do so here, if you are to be consistent with your methodology?  Or put another way, how can you argue for an intelligent designer based on our observational experience of how prescriptive information arises but then reject the observational evidence that leads us to a theistic evolution or (at minimum) progressive creation conclusion?

*So I must respectfully ask again, on what basis, then, do you reject theistic evolution and progressive creation and instead accept "special creation," when following the evidence where it leads does not justify such a conclusion?

admit I could be very wrong about the age of the earth. I think no matter what any of us believe in concerning the age of the earth and universe we are entering into faith and belief regardless of how old it all is. We are putting our faith in what we think is true, with our dating methods, or anything else And here is another example.  Why is the age of the earth suddenly a faith issue for everyone?  We have come a long way on this subject.  Today, geochronology is a very refined science (the erroneous rhetoric of young earth creationists notwithstanding) and the age of fossils, different extinctions in earth's history, the age of the earth, etc. has been increasingly narrowed with refined precision to a high degree of reliability that is further supported by the agreement of MULTIPLE, INDEPENDENT DATING METHODS and MULTIPLE,  INDEPENDENT DIFFERENT LINES OF EVIDENCE (analogous to how multiple attestation of independent historical sources strengthens the evidence for the historical Jesus).

*You no doubt readily accept our sophisticated scientific understanding of nuclear reactions and processes like fusion, fission/radioactivity, etc.  Why then reject the equally sophisticated science of geochronology including radiometric dating, which is based on the same science?  Is it not true that you believe an old earth view is incongruent with your interpretation of Scripture (specifically, "days" in Genesis)?  Is it not true that the same can be said of theistic evolution?  There is no prima facie, rational reason for you to reject theistic evolution outright?  You require an intelligent designer for the origin of life and the origin of genetic information and to explain the "genetic programming" of different life forms.  "Special creation" meets this requirement but "theistic evolution" also meets your requirement for an intelligent designer, so it seems you have no rational basis for rejecting theistic evolution a priori (apart from an appeal to Scripture)

 . I also admit even if I were to enter into the discussion on age with anyone even debating in scripture or anything else I think it is not definitive. So as far as I am concern I'm more interested in can the things we believe occurred the way we think they did or not. And if there is an intelligent designer then couldn't such an intelligence create things by evolution via non-naturalistic, supernaturally directed evolution? I'm willing to give anyone any amount of time they think is required, because I don't think time matters if it cannot be done, it doesn't matter how much time is available. But with an intelligent designer such concerns become superfluous and evolution CAN be done, so there is no prima facie reason for you to reject evolution (and all the more so, given the evidence--statistical and otherwise---for common ancestry) As soon as someone says any time limit, then that is the time limit I'd like to see used in proving life could come through only natural processes or not. OK, granting you these conditions, then I again see no reason why you would reject evolution during a time frame of 4.5 billion yrs. that is the result NOT of natural causation but that is the result of supernatural causation.  On the basis of YOUR OWN requirements, surely you can't reject theistic evolution because theistic evolution would meet these requirements

lol, fair enough.  Yes, the scientific evidence is also robust on this issue and can only lead to one inescapable, incontrovertible conclusion that no reasonable, rational person can dispute (including yourself!): namely, that I am long-winded (so don't even try to argue against that fact)

If you're not going to deliver then I will.  Here's a research article that presents a mathematical test for common ancestry (CA) vs separate ancestry (SA) that found overwhelming quantiative support for the common ancestry of all primates and found that the separate ancestry hypothesis of primates (null hypothesis) was statistically negated with a median p-value of 0.0000000000248 (!):

Statistical Evidence for Common Ancestry 

*Can you refute their math (and resulting statistical conclusions)?  I challenge you to do so

I'm not sure why I'd want to refute their math. I see the rational on looking for Common Ancestor instead of Separate Ancestors. How they went about it, however, raised some questions I do have concerning this. How they went about it reminded me of word searches while data mining a well-designed database. Now that played out like they were working in an established well-ordered data directory, not something that was flung together without well-established rules and forms. I can see how and why they would search the way they did and that they expected consistent results.

For me, this shows life has a well-established design within it. How do you differentiate spotting common design traits from common ancestor ones since both would cause similar looks and feels?

How would you differentiate the two?

Besides, in the present study, such a question is irrelevant (and to me, comes across as evasive and a red herring) since it wasn't a study of physical traits, but a study of genetic similarities and differences

You have also evaded the main point, which is even if we accept an intelligent designer, the evidence still supports common ancestry of all primates, including humans and if you see no reason to dispute the math, then I'll take it that you don't dispute the conclusions of the math that there is effectively a 0% chance that primates do NOT share a common ancestor.

How can you say to me the question is irrelevant, and at the same time, claim I'm evading the main point? I'm also looking at things as I see them, and you seem to do the same thing. I'm not criticizing you for doing it, and I think it is excepted and acceptable to look at the same data and draw different conclusions.

If there is effectively a 0% chance that primates do NOT share a common ancestor, then what other different conclusion could there possibly be from the same data???  That there is a 100% probability that they DO share a common ancestor???

If there is effectively a 0% chance that primates do NOT share a common ancestor, then what other different conclusion could there possibly be from the same data???  That there is a 100% probability that they DO share a common ancestor???

Well, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but that's the nice thing about facts, especially quantitative facts---they are not based upon subjective feelings of what "seems likely" to us. 

Again, you're entitled to your own personal opinion and feelings, but on this issue I prefer to follow the evidence where it leads, and the quantitative evidence in the study overwhelmingly supports the common ancestry of all primates, including humans.

As you have not given me any reason to reject the study results, nor have you offered any quantitative, evidence-based reasons in support of any alternative (indeed, you've only offered supposition and personal thoughts and feelings of what "seems likely" to you), then I see no logical, rational reason to think otherwise.  Thank you for your thoughts and musings, though.  Appreciate the discussion.

That's your "answer"? (and btw, I did judge and evaluate the methodology and results of the study for myself)

Yes, thinking as well as feeling both involve the brain as do fact determination vs expressions of opinion, but fact and opinion are certainly not equivalent categories as any judge, jury or thinking person would agree.

I must say, I'm a little surprised (and disappointed) by your response.  I expected better.  I expected you to provide logical, rational reasons against common ancestry, but you have yet to.

Sure, there is subjectivity in everything.  That is an always, ever present problem in epistemology.  But that is why we also have degrees of certainty.  Even mathematical degrees of certainty like the near 0 (0.0000000000248) statistical result from this study that you are quite willfully rejecting without giving any rational reason for doing so!

Well, I suppose then that you will have no objection to someone saying with regard to your arguments about the improbability of life or evolution that they disagree with you and think your arguments are entirely wrong and simply a reflection of people's different interpretation of the same data. 

What I'm also hearing from you is that all thoughts on a subject seem to be equally valid.  Thus, despite all the evidence to the contrary, to some people it still "seems like" the earth is still flat and no negation of evidence to the contrary is required because it's all just about "applying your views and opinions."

Here's the thing, though.  I don't think you actually believe any of that.  You are obviously a rationally minded individual who has made evidentiary appeals in support of your position and against others, so the fact that you are not doing the same here can only mean that you are unable to and have no rational, evidentiary reasons for rejecting the common ancestry conclusions of this study and are thus in denial.

If I am wrong in my assessment, then by all means prove me so.  Show where the study is in error, where the methodology is unsound, where the calculations and conclusions are wrong, or how the same data can be interpreted otherwise.  

I am open minded and willing to conclude otherwise, if you can give me valid reasons for doing so.  If you can't or are unable to provide reasons at the present times, then no big deal.  Just be honest enough to admit it.