Rebuttal To Creationists - "Since We Can't Directly Observe Evolution..."

ringo:

---

It can't undo reality.

Dredge:

---

Is an atheist Darwinist qualified to define "reality"? I have my doubts.

---

---

ringo is just filling space at this time. If there is going to be any chance of an interesting discussion on this topic, it might come from Tanypteryx. Let's see how he does with his endogenous retrovirus claims.In the meantime, you might find this video interesting on debating someone that is delusional.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1GxFKtxF-I&t=91s&ab_chan...

I thought you might find this interesting:Biology transcends the limits of computationPerry Marshall 1Affiliations expand• PMID: 33961842• DOI: 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2021.006 1Free articleFull text linksCiteAbstractCognition-sensing and responding to the environment-is the unifying principle behind the genetic code, origin of life, evolution, consciousness, artificial intelligence, and cancer. However, the conventional model of biology seems to mistake cause and effect. According to the reductionist view, the causal chain in biology is chemicals → code → cognition. Despite this prevailing view, there are no examples in the literature to show that the laws of physics and chemistry can produce codes, or that codes produce cognition. Chemicals are just the physical layer of any information system. In contrast, although examples of cognition generating codes and codes controlling chemicals are ubiquitous in biology and technology, cognition remains a mystery. Thus, the central question in biology is: What is the nature and origin of cognition? In order to elucidate this pivotal question, we must cultivate a deeper understanding of information flows. Through this lens, we see that biological cognition is volitional (i.e., deliberate, intentional, or knowing), and while technology is constrained by deductive logic, living things make choices and generate novel information using inductive logic. Information has been called "the hard problem of life’ and cannot be fully explained by known physical principles (Walker et al., 2017). The present paper uses information theory (the mathematical foundation of our digital age) and Turing machines (computers) to highlight inaccuracies in prevailing reductionist models of biology, and proposes that the correct causation sequence is cognition → code → chemicals.https://www.sciencedirect.com/...ticle/pii/S0079610721000365

from the Darwinist Space Cadet Manual, 13th edition, 2022, p.1 "Evolutionary theory is now in a sea change (Baverstock, 2013). In 2013 Denis Noble said, “all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproved. Moreover, they have been disproved in ways that raise the tantalizing prospect of a totally new synthesis” (Noble, 2013).
Despite detailed investigation of many evolutionary mechanisms, from niche construction to epigenetics to the hyper-speciation of cancer cells termed “The Cancer Cambrian” (Pienta 2020), our understanding of evolution is very incomplete. We only have a surface level comprehension of it."https://www.sciencedirect.com/...ticle/pii/S0079610721000365

  Abiogenesis by natural means represents an obvious scientific impossibility. Surely only someone determined to deny their Creator could seriously entertain such anti-science nonsense. Indeed.I'm willing to accept the evidence that suggests the earth is billions of years old ... but as for when life on earth began, I'm not sure what to think.Is the claim that life on earth began billions of years ago a correct interpretation of the evidence? Dunno.Do scientists fudge the figures and bend the evidence (intentionally or unintentionally)
to accommodate evolution, which requires vast periods of time? Dunno, but it wouldn't surprise me ... considering how much delusion, fanaticism and deceit permeates the cult of evolution."Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths [re Darwinism]. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity
of their beliefs."Pierre-Paul Grasse, EVOLUTION OF LIVING ORGANISMS, TRANS. FROM FRENCH (ACADEMIC PRESS: NEW YORK, NY, 1977) P.8 NOV 30 . 1977"Biochemists and biologists who adhere blindly to the Darwinism theory search for results that will be in agreement with their theories and consequently orient their research in a given direction, whether it be in the field of ecology, ethology, sociology, demography (dynamics of populations), genetics (so-called evolutionary genetics), or paleontology. This intrusion of theories has unfortunate results: it deprives observations and experiments of their objectivity, makes them biased, and, moreover, creates false problems."Pierre-Paul Grasse, "Evolution of living organisms: evidence for a new theory of transformation" by Pierre-Paul Grasse, Academic Press, (p. 7), 1977.Pierre-Paul Grasse (1895-1985) was a French zoologist, author of over 300 publications including the influential 52-volume Traité de Zoologie. A member of the French Academy of Sciences.

When you talk of "the mathematics of evolution", you are actually talking about the mathematics of your own completely bogus strawman version of evolution. And nobody cares (except creationists).

Dredge:

---

I thought you might find this interesting:
​
Biology transcends the limits of computation
​

---

From your reference:

quote:

---

Biology has been saddled with “physics envy” when in fact it is a far more sophisticated discipline than physics, with numerous
unique principles (Kaufmann, 2005; “The social sciences' ‘physics envy,” 2012). Biology obeys the rules of mathematics, physics and
chemistry, but cannot be reduced to those things (Schr€odinger, 1944; Walker and Davies, 2016). Biology possesses properties un-
known to physics, chemistry, and computing. Evolution is not computation

---

The problem with applying the laws of physics to biological systems is that you have to have enough understanding and experience applying the laws of physics to complex systems and enough understanding and experience with biological systems and variables involved that you are trying to model. For example, when an engineer begins his/her training in learning how to apply Newton's laws to write equations of motion, one doesn't start by learning how to write the equation of the motion of a building with many structural components to an earthquake. The student starts by learning how to write the equation of motion for a pendulum or a mass and spring. You learn how to formulate a simple differential equation based on Newton's laws and compare that result with a laboratory experiment. Then you learn how to write the equations for more and more complex systems. The same principle is used when learning heat transfer. You start with the simplest case of a conduction heat transfer problem in a single spatial dimension, then you learn how to do the math in more complex geometries. Once you master that case, you introduce convection heat transfer, again doing the simplest cases first and moving to more complex cases. Once you master the situation with conduction and convection heat transfer, then radiation heat transfer is introduced. This process is continued to more and more difficult geometries with more complex physical systems. The application of these laws of physics should always be applied with simultaneous experimentation and empirical measurement when pushing the limits of the application of these laws. That's the way it is done in the aerospace industry.These principles should be taught to biology students who have familiarity with biology experiments (engineering students are not exposed to these experiments). The reason why I like the Kishony and Lenski experiments so much is that they demonstrate descent with modification for both experiments while the Lenski experiment includes biological competition. One can start with the fundamental variables, the mutation rate and population size, derive the simple probability calculation that determines the probability of an adaptive mutation occurring, and in the case of Lenski's biological competition, superimpose Haldane's frequency equation for competition and compute the rate of adaptive evolution. These experiments don't include the effect of random recombination but if you recognize that this is similar to a random card drawing problem, you can use the trinomial (or multinomial distribution) to superimpose that math on descent with modification and biological competition. Taq debated me on these points and I think he gets it. It takes a long time to get sufficient mastery of physics and mathematics and biological systems to do this kind of mathematical modeling. Descent with modification is one of the best examples of the second law of thermodynamics around. The equations are not that hard to derive and the experimental evidence can actually be visualized with the Kishony experiment.An interesting paper but I don't agree that you can't mathematically model biological evolution.

It is both sad and disturbing to see the noble pursuit of science embracing irrational absurdities. Who would have guessed that rank superstition would become enshrined in the realm of methodological naturalism?Bizarre stuff. Yep ... the Darwinian version of life's history is a product of atheism, not legitimate science. That's pretty obvious to anyone outside the cult.
Sign of the times, I'm afraid."Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles." Romans 1:22-23

Kleinman:

---

Of course, it has nothing to do with the fact that the mathematician with a little knowledge of physics doesn't do the mathematics of biological evolution.

nmr:

---

When you talk of "the mathematics of evolution", you are actually talking about the mathematics of your own completely bogus strawman version of evolution. And nobody cares (except creationists).

---

---

You are so boring. It's no fun playing with the C- team with their out-of-date playbook.

Kleinman:

---

I wonder why they think it is so important to believe that humans are related to chimpanzees. I suspect it is because they understand that if they aren't related to chimpanzees that they were created and owe a debt and are accountable to their Creator.

Dredge:

---

Yep ... the Darwinian version of life's history is a product of atheism, not legitimate science. That's pretty obvious to anyone outside the cult.
Sign of the times, I'm afraid.

---

---

More precisely, an over-extrapolation of Darwinian evolution. In a way, it's like taking Einstein's theory of relativity and saying "everything is relative". When you apply Darwin's theory correctly, you can explain experiments such as Kishony's and Lenski's. And explain the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail. What you don't want to do is throw out the baby with the bathwater. Darwin got some things right. It is universal common descent that doesn't fit in the theory of evolution. That's what the experimental and mathematical evidence shows.

Agreed. Useful Darwinian facts evolved into useless Darwinian fantasies.

Dredge:

---

I'm willing to accept the evidence that suggests the earth is billions of years old ... but as for when life on earth began, I'm not sure what to think.

---

Did you hear the joke about the tour guide at the natural history museum?He comes to the dinosaur skeleton and says to the crowd, "this dinosaur skeleton is one million and six years old!" One of the people in the crowd is incredulous and says to the tour guide, "How do you know this dinosaur skeleton is one million and SIX years old?" The tour guide says, "I came to work here six years ago and the dinosaur skeleton was a million years old then!"

Ya got that right ... that stuff passes so far above my head I don't even see it! You're a very clever man.

Kleinman:

---

Darwin got some things right. It is universal common descent that doesn't fit in the theory of evolution.

Dredge:

---

Agreed. Useful Darwinian facts evolved into useless Darwinian fantasies.

---

---

That's why, in my opinion, you should try and be precise when debating or discussing these issues. The reason why there is an upheaval in evolutionary theory is that experiments such as Kishony's and Lenski's are bringing into focus the different variables associated with biological evolution. Biologists are starting to get the hint that something is wrong with their worldview. This forum is loaded with zealots that are posters but there are always a lot more visitors than there are posters.

Kleinman:

---

It takes a long time to get sufficient mastery of physics and mathematics and biological systems to do this kind of mathematical modeling.

Dredge:

---

Ya got that right ... that stuff passes so far above my head I don't even see it! You're a very clever man.

---

---

I'm really not clever. God gave me the gift of doing mathematics. It was clear at a young age and as I got older, I became a better student. And then God gives me the solutions to complex problems in dreams. It is really incredible. Psalm 127:2 has real meaning for me.This stuff isn't going over your head, you already sense that biologists are doing something wrong. Your gift probably isn't mathematics but you understand that your chance of winning two lotteries is much lower than winning one lottery. And look at someone like nwr. He claims to be a mathematician and this really does go way over his head. It's the blind leading the blind. I hope you are learning and enjoying this conversation. Of course, the zealots on this forum aren't enjoying it.

I've already answered that. If it was important, they would have done it. It doesn't matter how many replications it takes. I'm three or four credits short of a degree in mathematics. The question is: Do they agree with your conclusions? The answer would appear to ne no. Was it a real peer review for a real journal? Or di the review consist of seeing whether your check cleared? If nwr disagree with me, he isn't afraid to say so. How is that silly? If you make a claim, YOU back it up. It certainly isn't MY responsibility to find out whether or not they agree with you. You're the one who mentions them hundreds of times. Basic honesty would require you to find out what they actually think. You should be asking THEM why they haven't explained it to your satisfaction instead of trying to flog your nonsense here. When I want to "deal with" science, I go to the scientists, not some Internet crank. Biologists can and they did. Why do you think the nested hierarchy was established before anything was known about DNA? If it was just a bunch of wild guesses, why does DNA confirm it instead of refuting it? I know. That's where you fail. No biologist on earth understands but you do. Do you get your arrogance wholesale? I doubt that many physicians share your opinion. I argue with the stupidest people and they bring up the stupidest things. I try to avoid arguing with people who are smarter than me. Blah blah blah.What I asked was, "So is it Kishony best, Lenski second-best and Desai third-best? Then give us your fourth-best and fifth-best."Answer that. Sure it does. But unlike you, I don't call the experimenters incompetent. You're trying to make biology the equivalent of phrenology by claiming that biologists don't know what they're doing. A fool would.And the "we" here is not you. I got three cheers for that post, so "we" seem to agree with ME. They haven't explained it to your satisfaction because your satisfaction doesn't matter. I'll tell them to go with biology, not creationist quackery.