Mathematical challenges to Darwin's Theory of evolution

@TruthMuse 

*That article was also but one example of the evidence that humans and other primates share a common ancestor, but it is hardly the only one.  

*A significant amount of additional evidence for human and non-human primate common ancestry also exists, such as the powerful evidence from endogenous retroviruses (ERVs):

(1) We have over 100,000 places in the human genome where ERV genetic material is found--distinctive DNA from different viruses that were inserted into our DNA in quasi-random locations during viral attacks/infections at different times in the past.  All of these ERVs are found in all humans in the same locations of the genome, with only one ERV exception that is not found in all humans (indicating that this one exception became fixed in the human population after humans had already originated as a species)

(2) However, 99.9% of these ERVs are also found in the chimpanzee genome at the same corresponding locations (or "loci")

(3) Each specific type of ERV has on average about 10,000 different locations in the genome where the viral DNA could be inserted, so the odds that a given virus would just so happen by sheer random "dumb" luck to independently insert DNA in the same location in the human genome and separately in the corresponding location in the chimpanzee genome is thus on average 1 chance in 10,000 or 0.01%.  The odds of such a "dumb" luck event happening twice is the probability of the events multipled: 1/(10,000)^2 = 0.00001 x 0.00001 = 0.00000001 or 0.00001%.  The odds, then, of such a freak coincidence occurring 100,000 times is 1/(10,000)^100,000, which is such an immensely improbable occurrence that dwarfs the results of the first study I posted.

(4) In short, it is statistically impossible that the 99.9% ERV correlation between human and chimpanzee genomes is the result of independent occurrence.  Such incredible correspondence only makes sense if chimpanzees and humans inherited these specific ERV insertions from a shared common ancestor.

(5) It also doesn't make sense to argue that all these similarities are just the result of an intelligent designer using a common design, because ERVs comprise distinctive, foreign viral DNA that is inserted during viral infections, and thus, are not part of any original design but would have to come after the fact after any original creation (separate or otherwise) of humans and chimpanzees.

(6) But wait, there's more: rigorous mathematical studies of the mutation rate within these segments of viral DNA allow us to construct timelines of when the different ERVs were inserted and the results are not only NON-random but exhibit hierarchies and nested hierarchies that correspond to phylogenetic evolutionary trees (*where for example, the primates most different from humans show the greatest disparity/genetic divergence while the primates closest to humans--chimpanzees---show the least and often not only have the same ERVs in the same locations in the genome but also the same mutations in the same ERV; again, providing powerful evidence of shared common ancestry.

Here's a good intro to the subject along with a more technical treatment:

Endogenous-retroviruses-in-your-genome-show-common-ancestry-with-primates

Three Layers of Endogenous Retroviral Evidence for the Evolution Model

I disagree, we can go over other examples, but this one study doesn't address humans, only primates.

Ummm....humans ARE primates and yes, they were included in the study, which provides evidence that ALL primates (including human Homo sapiens) share a common ancestor.  You are correct that this study does NOT provide evidence that all life shares a universal common ancestor, but it certainly does provide evidence that all primates (including humans) share a common ancestor.  You don't have a problem with that, do you?  (Based on your last post in the Dawkins debate thread it sounded like you only have qualms with a universal common ancestor for all life)

Ah, good point, hat tip. I don't believe humans and apes are remotely the same types of lifeforms, yet by our definitions in common language, you are right in the primate identification, I had my brain turned off.

Yes, humans are obviously unique and seem to have less in common with gorillas and chimpanzees than gorillas and chimpanzees have with each other.  But oddly enough, chimpanzees and humans are more genetically similar to each other (99%) than they are to gorillas (98.4%).  In terms of genetics, chimpanzees and humans are 1% different, while chimpanzees and gorillas are 1.6% different, and humans and gorillas are also 1.6% different.  

Strange to think, but chimpanzees and humans are actually more genetically similar to each other than they are to any other primate.

Well I again apologies for missing an important part of your point. I was talking about common ancestors of all life, then I got apes on the brain when I read primate, so my bad. I recall reading once that clouds and watermelons have the same ratio of water, so 1% of anything can mean a world of difference. Of course this is only a good example if true. LOL

Actually, quite horrible example even if it is true. It's apples and oranges; completely different categories that falsely imply if they were composed of 100% water (or the same % or ratio of water) that they'd be the same.  Might as well say rocks and brains are the same because they're both made up of atoms 100%.  Or tell you what, why don't you swap your diamonds for my charcoal since they're both essentially the same and 100% carbon.  By contrast, if two people have 100% identical DNA, then they are identical twins. (water also contains no linear, digital sequence information)

There's no comparison or equivalency at all, so I assume you're kidding, especially given your background in computer programing.  A 1% difference in two informational, executable programs or operating systems or linear, digital sequences of information would be a much closer analogy.

(*Come to think of it, the [jellyfish]/watermelon/cloud line is a common, flawed creationist retort.  Hmmm......)

What that argument suggests to me is the same material can make up clouds, watermelons, and so on. Therefore having the same material throughout the overall forms means next to nothing in life or non-life, I agree. It all goes back to the unique arraignment of specific instructional in life’s genetic code, directing what each cell needs to be, and do what is required to form, maintain, and reproduce life. A highly complex code that doesn’t just occur because of a mindless natural process.

Right, sequential, linear, digital prescriptive genetic information is entirely different, so I don't know why you would try to downplay the rather astonishing discovery that chimpanzees and humans are 99% the same genetically (evolutionary biologists and geneticists didn't even think it would be that close), by referencing a flawed creationist "argument."

I don’t downplay it, and it is, as I told you earlier, design, not a mindless process that seems to be a much more accurate explanation for code in life driving all of the processes. These types of things just don’t happen! I don’t recall if you watched or even seen Dr. Peltzer’s talk on Abiogenesis. The natural processes in chemical reactions don’t seem to lend themselves to writing code! The code is the one thing that drives this, so it must, in my opinion, be explained! If we cannot account for the specific functional instructions through an unguided process, which differentiates everything in how it got there, we have nothing in the form of explanation. Every cell has to be what it is, liver cells in the livers, and so on to account for all the forms and various systems within life. We know what codes are, we know what they do, there is a lot we know, but how it got there nothing, what caused it?!

The effort takes us to develop a new processor is tremendous; moving through all of the various revisions and steppings each one goes through takes planning and careful adjustments in everything. The whole world surrounding the processors have to be under strict control, we have to know everything, nothing that touches the processor can be uncounted for least it alter our test results as we set things up. From the foot-pounds used when the CPU is put into the sockets for testing, test temperatures within 2 degrees Celsius at the start of test temperature, the temperature the device rises to while the device is being tested, what patterns are being run through the processors as we monitor the testing that is causing the T-rise. All of that is just for tracking the device under test while it is being tested. I have not even addressed the physical configuration of each part of the device. I have not even addressed the testing of various patterns of the codes for testing; it is a painstaking process from the cradle to the grave moving from the drawing boards to the FABS then the backend testing.

That effort is required just for a CPU, and then it must be tested in the box it is to be placed in after the box is ready, we must have code to add a mouse, keyboard, scanner, camera, or anything else it is going to be used in as well. All of them must have code that allows them to work together. With each new device, code must be written and maintained.

If the chemical composition of two different things can be the same, up to 99%, and yet we are talking about clouds and watermelons, then how the 100% is designed and encoded is more meaningful than the material itself. Any kind of alteration in hardware or software could ruin the stability of our devices. The failures could go from something becoming non-functioning, total system failure, or even hardware damage. I’ve seen devices get destroyed by having a period in the wrong place in a program’s code for testing, when what was required was millivolts, instead got a little more. Screwing up the code in life could cause losing the ability to see, or have a heart not function correctly, are but a few of the things that could break if the code for life is altered haphazardly. Abiogenesis isn’t the unexplainable hard thing in life, altering a static, stable code for a lifeform is no less extraordinary.

Sorry for the book.

Nothing you said has any relevance for primate common vs. separate ancestry.  You're again arguing about the "how" which has no bearing on the what and when I have also already granted you your point.

Let's say that we have two different computer operating systems before us and we want to know if the two different OS were created independently ("separate ancestry") or if one is a modified version of the other ("common ancestry").

Now as I've repeatedly said, for sake of argument let's assume your intelligent designer explanation is the correct answer to the "how" question.  So, regardless of whether we're talking about common or separate ancestry, let's assume that neither could have been due to mindless evolution but is the work of an intelligent designer, OK?

That still leaves us with the "what" question of whether the intelligent designer did things separately or via common ancestry!

Same thing with the OS analogy.  Regardless of whether the two OS were created independently or one is a modified version of the other, let's assume that an intelligent computer programmer is responsible for the "how" in either case (i.e., we are rejecting any mindless, evolutionary explanation for the "how" they came to be).  This still leaves us with the question of whether the programer created the two OS independently or created one OS and then tweaked or modified it to make a second. 

(1) Now if only 1% of the two OS are the same it would seem that the intelligent computer programmer independently created two completely different OS, would it not?

(2) And conversely, if 99% of the two OS are the same, then it would seem like the intelligent computer programmer created one OS and then slightly tweaked or modified this OS to make a second one, would it not?

We can write many different programs, not just operation systems, to do a variety of different things we want, each can have their own library of variables to accomplish different tasks required. These programs could all share the same language they were written in for all the programs, without doing the same thing! This would not much different than say genetically building different animals. What is seen in life is the one of the most complex code people have seen, even those who do programming who are exposed to it see it. It is an amazing work, to give credit to a mindless process to me on its face is self-evident.

Now having life reproduce is an absolutely amazing thing considering all of the variables that have to do exactly what they are required, dealing with copying errors, and so on. The code that allows for all of this is at such a high level, again I think it is self-evident a mindless process that has no goal and therefore doesn't care one way or another about the output could do this.

TruthMuse wrote: "The code that allows for all of this is at such a high level, again I think it is self-evident a mindless process that has no goal and therefore doesn't care one way or another about the output could do this"

So, you think it's self-evident that a mindless process could do this.  Very well then.  Nice talking to you.  

I mindless process cannot do it. 

Thankyou for your opinion but that doesn't make it a matter of fact.

No opinion does.

@TruthMuse, if you understand the argument in the video, you can describe at least some of it. Give a description in your own words of some ideas or reasoning in it.

If you can't, you have just been convinced by it. This is not the same as understanding it and provides you with no genuine reason to believe it is true.

[It's probably worth mentioning that I have a couple of maths degrees and all supposed uses of maths to disprove evolution I have seen have been entirely invalid. Your video is probably related to one of these].

@Elroch and the video doesn't actually present any mathematical challenges at all; not in any formal sense (not even with numbers and such!)

Did you watch the whole thing?

I was under the impression you watched it if I recall you said you watched the whole thing. If you did, why are you saying this?