A Mathematician's View of Evolution

The Mathematical Intelligencer ^ | Granville Sewell

[BlackElk]

To both of you and any other Darwinian delusionists, I will suggest that you take Running Wolf's #274 as my answer. The day will not dawn when tax-fed Darwinian bullies are going to move me a skinny little millimeter toward joining in their delusion that humans are "descended from" apes or whatever. Take Darwin and place him and his idjit theories where the sun shineth not.

And, Godless is, among other things, Ann Coulter's cogent explanation of the hilarious fantasy that is Darwinianism, to you, Bub.

Wanna drag race with Annie for position on the (gulp) New York Times best-seller list???? You'll lose. On such a list of National Review, Human Events or the American Spectator, you'll lose a lot worse.

BTW, right now, FR is doing a poll on whether Intelligent Design or Creationism should be taught in public skewels alongside Darwinism. I had to vote yes but only because abolition of the hideously expensive gummint brain laundries was not an option. OTOH, a very strong majority voted yes. What does Darwinian delusion or environmentalwhackoism or paleopantywaistism or other heresies have to do with CONSERVATISM????? You are aware that this is a CONSERVATIVE website and not an atheist or agnostic or liberal or "progressive" or gummint edjumakashunist or Darwinian website, right??????

To all who make of Darwinian delusion an understandably irrational pseudo-religion, science, like everything else, was created by God. Any "science" which purports to refutes the word of God is a rejection of His truth and therefore not part of a search for truth. If science is not a search for truth, then it is not science. If you want to believe that whatever passes for Nancy Pelosi's "brain" is made of Ricotta cheese, it would be an awful insult to lasagna but feel free. America, it's a free country to some extent. If you want to believe that Darwin was capable of simultaneously employing three brain cells, feel free. America, it's ..... If you believe that human beings are "descended from" apes or earthworms or pterodactyls or natural rock formations or 1929 Model A Ford 2-seaters with rumble seats or Pee Wee Herman or George McGovern or Howard the "Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrgh" Dean (I think those three are "primates" and that they almost certainly are simian wannabes, or whomever or whatever, feel free but do not expect respect for such fairy tales from people who know better. If it comforts you to imagine you are "descended from" beasts of any sort, presto and abracadabra! You are a beast! Feel better????? America, it's a great country!

Now, run along and leave the people (You know, Adam and Eve's progeny and their progeny and.... NOT Bonzo's or Mighty Joe Young's progeny, if any) who have Biblical dominion over you beasts alone.

[wolfcreek]

I read through the entire tread but, can't find where I posted. Got any idea?


This argument is facinating but, I really don't have an opinion worth expressing except that it is much *easier* to believe God created everything and leave it at that. If taking the *easy* path is the way you choose to see it, power to ya.

[Non-Sequitur]

The day will not dawn when tax-fed Darwinian bullies are going to move me a skinny little millimeter toward joining in their delusion that humans are "descended from" apes or whatever.

We'll just have to learn to live with the disappointment, I guess.

[Virginia-American]

There are very few people who will say, “Well, I guess I was wrong on that one"

True enough. I can provide examples of scientsts saying that. Can you provide examples of theologians or clergy saying it?

[js1138]

Can you provide examples of theologians or clergy saying it?

I believe the Curch recently apologised to Galileo. Still waiting on Bruno.

[Dimensio]

Take Darwin and place him and his idjit theories where the sun shineth not.

You have yet to demonstrate that the theory of evolution is false. Your claims are presumptious.

And, Godless is, among other things, Ann Coulter's cogent explanation of the hilarious fantasy that is Darwinianism, to you, Bub.

As has been demonstrated, Ann Coulter employs blatant falsehoods in her attacks on the theory of evolution. That you choose to ignore this fact does not negate the reality that her arguments against the theory are not valid.

Wanna drag race with Annie for position on the (gulp) New York Times best-seller list???? You'll lose. On such a list of National Review, Human Events or the American Spectator, you'll lose a lot worse.

The popularity of Ann Coulter's book does not make her invalid arguments any less invalid. You are appealing to a logical fallacy.

Any "science" which purports to refutes the word of God is a rejection of His truth and therefore not part of a search for truth.

If you have decided already that you will reject any aspect of reality that contradicts your religious beliefs, then there is no further purpose for discussion. You have already made it clear that you are arrogant enough to believe that you know God's word better than any other, thus you have demonstrated that you are wholly irrational.

[Virginia-American]

Yeah, they did. But they didn't say "I was wrong" (like Einstein did wrt the Cosmological Constant, where ironically, he may actually have been right), they said "those guys 300 years ago were wrong". Rather like "mistakes were made"

[BlackElk]

I don't give a damn what Iran's homicidal maniac president (or general population) "think" (assuming that they think) about Dubya, the USA or conservatism or Catholicism or Chriostianity generally. Likewise Ugo Chavez. Likewise, Jacques "Light Fingers" Chirac. Likewise, the New York Times. Likewise, the National Education Association. Likewise, C-Span's Commies in the Morning aka Washington Journal. Likewise Noam Chomsky. Likewise Charles Darwin and his posthumous Monicas. Likewise other liberals/leftists/"progressives" whose "stereotypes" conservatives are proud to be and righfully so. OOOOOH, that Elk is just sooooooo, ummmm, ummmmm, anti-intellectual!!!!! Sooooooo politically incorrect!!!!! Liberals posing as conservatives are sooooooo embarassed!

I have no interest in worrying for my country or my conservatism about human respect (the Catholic term for what the world misthinks) and every interest in having the world become appropriately worried about what America and conservatives think. We have the weapons. They don't.

I practiced law for decades. You did not if you imagine that "science" can be libeled much less that it has been.

What is fictional about Darwinian "science?" Ummmm, everything! If you imagine yourself descended from apes or other simians to be linked later (how many centuries and government funds later???? Never mind!) or that darwinism is truth, then you are a Darwinian Church Lady.

Also "scientifically literate people" is another discredited tautology. First, you are forgetting your claim to be mere trousered apes. I am still waiting for the darwinian answer to whether there is an immortal human soul and, if so, whether it too "evolved" from whatever sould the apes had to immortal.

It only seems to you darwinians that I am jumping up and down because you are not used to being rightfully disrespected or subjected to dissent from darwinian "orthodoxy" protected as you are by federal courts which establish your false religion and force taxpayers who know better to pay for it. You are used to grandiosely setting the terms of the debate and I refuse to play along. You are used to playing establishmentarian and demanding that your critics bear the burden of proof and I refuse to play along. You are pissed. That is only natural but it does not buttress your fantasies as fact.

Go back to your laboratory and genuflect before your beakers and test tubes. I guess it's better than nuthin'.

[jwalsh07]

The ambiguity is based upon defining when a human "life" begins, which is not a scientific question.

Nonsense. The genome is human. The cells are alive. Hence a living human being at that stage of human beinghood. The science is clear on that, you just don't like the science.

[js1138]

Well there you go. Even when scientists admit they're wrong, they're wrong. It's much safer to have opinions that can't be wrong.

[BlackElk]

No further purpose for discussion? Promise or threat? Please make it promise.

[js1138]

Nonsense. The genome is human.

Is every cell that is alive and has a human genome a human?

[ml1954]

"Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club" Tagline Placemarker

[BlackElk]

Well, if I thought you were capable of such powerful arguments in service to your darwinist fantasies, I would have, I would have, I would have..... Oh, that's right, I would have ignored you and you would have deserved it.

Besides, ninenot coined the term. Take it up with him.

[Dimensio]

Wouldn’t you say that is being a bit naïve?

No. Data stands or fails as valid based upon its correspondence to reality, not because of any agenda posessed by those who report the data.
,br> No one is necessarily accusing all scientists of falsifying data, even though some have. But how many scientists are “true” scientists, people who objectively seek out answers?

If you have evidence of bias leading to false conclusions regarding the theory of evolution, then please present it. Mere speculation, however, is not evidence against a scientific theory.

I doubt that if someone was trying to prove the rainforest deforestization was leading to global warming, and they found evidence to the contrary, that they would publish the data.

This would not preclude another without such an agenda of publishing data.

I’m skeptical given today’s environment that they would wish to contradiction to their agenda. There are very few people who will say, “Well, I guess I was wrong on that one.”

If this were true, there would be no further advances in science.

What constitute the “scientific community”?

The subset of the general population who is educated sufficiently in a scientific field to be employed in a position that requires such knowledge.

You say that evolution is correct based upon your scientists. I probably counter with other scientists that would say they believe in created design

Please cite the relevant scientific research that lends credibility to claims of "created design".

Perhaps I’ve broad brushed this a bit but not unreasonably so. It really becomes who you wish to believe.

The nature of scientific inquiry is that the methods are openly known. It is possible to investigate the research that has led to scientific conclusions to determine whether or not a claim is justified. While it is true that there exist individuals who wish to change the definition of science to one that would truly be based upon "who you wish to believe", such individuals have gained little headway outside of the state of Kansas.

It’s a matter of faith-in scientific models and premises.

Scientific models can be tested and reviewed, and in fact much face such testing and review to be accepted as valid. This is not "faith".

Nonsense. The same medical profession that goes in to operate on a fetus at 20 weeks is the same group that will think nothing of killing it.

You are speaking of medical ethics, not science. Science is not a method for defining ethics.

The “ambiguity” is simply a political cover. There certainly is no shortage of people looking for “scientific” funding of embryonic stem cell research money now is there? It’s simply a cop out to say no one knows when life begins.

How do you define a "human life"?

Don’t you think that would be a very important scientific question to answer before we go destroying it?

What factors would need to be observed to conclude that a collection of cells is a "human life"?

Evolution and the earth creation are interrelated.

Incorrect. The mechanisms of the process of evolution do not depend in any way on the means by which the planet on which the process occurs came to exist. If you disagree, then please explain how the mechanisms of evolution would change between a planet that formed through unguided processes and a planet that was built by interstellar contractors.

There is no different in saying the earth was created by intelligence design than to say man was created by intelligence design.

You are again incorrect. Demonstrating that the Earth were "intelligently designed" would not automatically demonstrate that humans or any other organism was initially "intelligently designed".

If there was “little dispute” we wouldn’t be wasting a lot of bandwidth, paper and media attention on this.

I should have clarified my comment. I meant to say that there is little dispute within the field of cosmology, from where the current models for planetary formation originate. (I will also note that I use the plural "models" not because there exist competing explanations, but because there are different means by which a planet can form).

Why?

You have made a specific claim. It is reasonable to expect that you will provide evidence to support it.

1) Galileo was going against hundreds of years of scientific beliefs. 2) Most scientists (if not all) were members of the Catholic Church. 3) No one came to the aid of Galileo. It reasonable to deduce that either the scientists of the day either supported the Church or they were abject cowards being afraid to advance science in the name of saving their own skins. Doesn’t this come back to our discussion about scientists being bias?

Is it not also possible that there were not a large number of individuals who had conducted the same research that Galileo had conducted?

If this is true, then man destroying us either through global warming or blowing ourselves up will be simply another step in the world's evolution.

Planets do not evolve.

Either one must be a good thing.

There is no rational basis for your conclusion.

[BlackElk]

Actually, that reminds me. Lincoln is about as good a proof of Darwinian fantasies as ever existed. Even Marx, as a correspondent for the London Times, upon observing the awkward Lincoln at a White House social function, said that he resembled nothing so much as an orangutan. If we dig him up and check out the DNA, even Lincoln will probably prove to have had human ancestors.

You and I are never going to be described as "we." By we, do you mean people or simian wannabes? In any way that I disappoint you, yes, you will have to learn to live with that disappointment because you sure as Lincoln's permanent address aren't going to change my mind.

[Dimensio]

It is a statement. You have made it clear that you believe yourself omniscient. Your position is irrational, and demonstrates that you are delusional.

[Dimensio]

Nonsense. The genome is human. The cells are alive. Hence a living human being at that stage of human beinghood. The science is clear on that, you just don't like the science.

Your statement is presumptious, as I was not offering my opinion on the subjcet.

[BlackElk]

I looked back too and I suspect that I meant to ping Running Wolf in an earlier post and then confused wolfcreek with Running Wolf and then thought I should ping both not realizing the original error. My error. Sorry to have unnecessarily pinged you.

[Quark2005]

To both of you and any other Darwinian delusionists, I will suggest that you take Running Wolf's #274 as my answer.

Good to see the two of you are teaming up. Very apt.

The day will not dawn when tax-fed Darwinian bullies are going to move me a skinny little millimeter toward joining in their delusion that humans are "descended from" apes or whatever. Take Darwin and place him and his idjit theories where the sun shineth not.

That doesn't seem to be the trend set by every recent court decision and election pertaining to this matter in recent history. (Hint: think Dover.) Rational science has the raving lunacy of theocratic fanatics in part to thank for this, as well as the fact that all modern biological and paleontological science supports evolution.

And, Godless is, among other things, Ann Coulter's cogent explanation of the hilarious fantasy that is Darwinianism, to you, Bub.

You honestly think Ann Coulter singlehandedly was able to raise 'valid' points that somehow 'eluded' the minds of scientists all over the world who dedicate their lives and educations to this research? Please. Ann Coulter is about as 'cogent' as Kent Hovind on this matter.

Wanna drag race with Annie for position on the (gulp) New York Times best-seller list???? You'll lose. On such a list of National Review, Human Events or the American Spectator, you'll lose a lot worse.

Irrelevant. Facts are not right or wrong based on their popularity. I think you already know that, though.

BTW, right now, FR is doing a poll on whether Intelligent Design or Creationism should be taught in public skewels alongside Darwinism. I had to vote yes but only because abolition of the hideously expensive gummint brain laundries was not an option. OTOH, a very strong majority voted yes.

I have no problem with creationism being taught along side of evolution. Then, biology teachers could give creationism the public skewering it deserves. You do realize that this is what someone educated in biology would do in this situation, don't you? Still want them taught 'side by side'?

What does Darwinian delusion or environmentalwhackoism or paleopantywaistism or other heresies have to do with CONSERVATISM?????

What does creationism and scientific ignorance have to do with conservatism? This perceived connection is driving sensible people away from the Republican Party in droves. Statements such as yours above are typical of the scientific ignorance people (wrongly) associate with Republicans.

You are aware that this is a CONSERVATIVE website and not an atheist or agnostic or liberal or "progressive" or gummint edjumakashunist or Darwinian website, right??????

That's what I hear. That's why I support hard scientific facts, not this PC dreck called "creationism" and "intelligent design".

To all who make of Darwinian delusion an understandably irrational pseudo-religion, science, like everything else, was created by God. Any "science" which purports to refutes the word of God is a rejection of His truth and therefore not part of a search for truth. If science is not a search for truth, then it is not science.

Rejecting any theory because it doesn't support a conclusion that you wish for is not science, it is apologetics. That's exactly what you appear to do.

If you want to believe that whatever passes for Nancy Pelosi's "brain" is made of Ricotta cheese, it would be an awful insult to lasagna but feel free. America, it's a free country to some extent.

Oookayyy...

If you want to believe that Darwin was capable of simultaneously employing three brain cells, feel free.

Darwin established a biological paradigm shift that has withstood a century and a half of scrupulous investigation, notwithstanding sultry, substanceless attacks by unqualified fundamentalist antagonists. If he did that with only three brain cells, it beckons the question of what contributions you've made to science...

If you believe that human beings are "descended from" apes or earthworms or pterodactyls or natural rock formations or 1929 Model A Ford 2-seaters with rumble seats or Pee Wee Herman or George McGovern or Howard the "Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrgh" Dean (I think those three are "primates" and that they almost certainly are simian wannabes, or whomever or whatever, feel free but do not expect respect for such fairy tales from people who know better.

I think you've quite 'cogently' demonstrated through your recent posting history that you don't know better.

If it comforts you to imagine you are "descended from" beasts of any sort, presto and abracadabra! You are a beast! Feel better????? America, it's a great country!

I don't find it comforting at all. If the fact that we descended from apelike ancestors was so 'comforting', it wouldn't cause so much consternation among folk like yourself. I'm sorry science has no respect for your feelings. I prefer to learn the facts and find my way to deal with them, rather than pervert facts to fit my comfort zone. (That I leave to the leftists...)

Now, run along and leave the people (You know, Adam and Eve's progeny and their progeny and.... NOT Bonzo's or Mighty Joe Young's progeny, if any) who have Biblical dominion over you beasts alone.

Unbelievable. Ironically, you scorn the philosophy (science) that has given us dominion over much of nature, as God commanded us.