A Mathematician's View of Evolution

The Mathematical Intelligencer ^ | Granville Sewell

[Coyoteman]

if you inject a note of common sense into a prayer thread, people go bananas, like it's the end of the world. If, on the other hand, you bring this sort of trolling on to an otherwise sensible discussion of science, nothing happens at all. Nothing at all.

Lets get back to science. What do y'all think of this?

---

Fossil: KNM-WT 15000

Site: Nariokotome, West Turkana, Kenya (1)

Discovered By: K. Kimeu, 1984 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.6 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7, 10), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Male (based on pelvis, browridge) (1, 8, 9)

Cranial Capacity: 880 (909 as adult) cc (1)

Information: Most complete early hominid skeleton (80 bones and skull) (1, 8)

Interpretation: Hairless and dark pigmented body (based on environment, limb proportions) (7, 8, 9). Juvenile (9-12 based on 2nd molar eruption and unfused growth plates) (1, 3, 4, 7, 8). Juvenile (8 years old based on recent studies on tooth development) (27). Incapable of speech (based on narrowing of spinal canal in thoracic region) (1)

Nickname: Turkana Boy (1), Nariokotome Boy

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=38

[FreedomProtector]

Undanted, the sarcastic post

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1704943/posts?page=246#246

I replied with (which you haven't replied to) wasn't intended to be an insult, I was using sarcasm to help to demonstrate the absurdity/improbability of a chance universe. You deserve credit, there is a connection with what you wrote and the topic at hand "A Mathematician's View of Evolution", which is above the fray of most of your like-minded peers on this thread. I wish you the best in graduate school..("I majored in Math, Computer Science, and Physics as an undergrad.")...I deeply enjoyed graduate school studying similar areas.

I know that you will think I am crazy when I say this as you don't believe in God.....but I will pray for you. You have an understanding of the mathematics of probability. I dare you to honestly ask the question was evolution via chance and natural process probable, was spontaneous generation probable etc? What are my presuppositions about ultimate reality, do they match or contradict the world I observe? I will lovingly and with true tears pray that the shelter you have built up will be removed and that this will allow the truth of the God's created world--reflecting His eternal attributes, his eternal power and divine nature--to shine on you. May God bless you, and may God change your heart.

[FreedomProtector]

Thanks you for the kind words and the thoughtful post.
May there be abundant blessings on your head, betty boop.

"One of the most famous second realities was the one constructed by Karl Marx. It is completely out of whack with human nature and the natural order, and so sooner or later has failed to deliver on its promises everywhere it has been tried"


The Marxist view on biology, spontaneous generation, psychology would be an interesting follow up here....if I have some time this weekend I might add a few things here.

[FreedomProtector]

Undaunted,

sorry to put a random mutation in your name, it honestly was an accident, I will put a carefully designed "u" back in it. If I had misspelled in the the To: area it would have been unfit for sending. :)

Undanted->Undaunted

[FreedomProtector]

Thanks you->Thank you

Someday I will learn how to type with out adding detrimental mutations to previously designed words and phrases.

[VadeRetro]

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

But you didn't.

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.

So, it's not about evidence. Recall that in theory you've now seen plenty of same, having clicked on various links and read them. (BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!)

What you have said above is a telling admission, one which most creos are too [pick one from: "smart," "dishonest"] to make. They pretend it's actually about the evidence for them and proceed to [pick one from: "lie about," "demonstrate militant ignorance of"] same in endless rounds of bizarre repetition.

You, on the other hand, just admit flat-out no evidence ain't ever gonna do nuttin and commence spewing. This kind of thing:

Wanna drag race with Annie for position on the (gulp) New York Times best-seller list????

I gave you a few problems with what Anne wrote. "Facts" that aren't true, logic that wouldn't pass for logic in a kindergarten. You're waving around her sales figures? A lie isn't a lie now if it sells?

I gave you credit for honesty just now, but I have to wonder if it was intentional on your part. The rest of your silliness will be given the attention it deserves, zero.

[jwalsh07]

And only two facts were required to put your original claim in the dumper.

[VadeRetro]

Your own reasoning is specious, incorrect: totally representative of creationist misinformation and amnesia. I know full well that I've been correcting you, Tribune7, on this stuff for years and still--as a matter of personal convenience--you know nothing, nothing, nothing. Ah, the wondrous alternative science of know-nothingism!

We have about the fossil record our models of geology and evolution say we should have.

Speciation by Punctuated Equilibrium.

Off of the above link: Smooth Change in the Fossil Record.

Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record.

Furthermore, the detailed, specific, and frankly undeniable problems with Ann's execrable "scholarship" do not wave away by the means you have attempted here even if your single point about the fossil record had the slightest validity, which it does not.

The lurker is invited to look at the links in 220 and 276 and ask himself if T7 hasn't attempted a warp-velocity fast one here.

[jwalsh07]

If you are interested, here is an updated version of Sewell's paper he put together in 2004 in reply to his critics.

[Dimensio]

And only two facts were required to put your original claim in the dumper.

What claim did you "put in the dumper"?

[xzins]

Excellent article for file

bttt

[VadeRetro]

[Me] But you didn't.

... let 274 stand as your answer.

[Editor needed, must work for peanuts.]

[jwalsh07]

This nonsense.

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

There is no amibiguity and the question of when new human life begins has broad scientific agreement. It begins at conception.

[Dimensio]

There is no amibiguity and the question of when new human life begins has broad scientific agreement. It begins at conception.

There are those who state that the collection of cells is not "human" until it has a functioning nervous system. For what reason should your definition be accepted over theirs?

[jwalsh07]

LOL. If the embryo is not a living human being then what is it Dimensio, a dead aardvark. Your reply is almost as pitiful as the pro abortionists nonsense equating dandruff to an embryo. Laughable on it's face to anybody that understands even rudimentary biology and systems.

Now tell me again what the living embryo is. What species? Alive or dead?

[Dimensio]

If the embryo is not a living human being then what is it Dimensio, a dead aardvark.

An embryo is a collection of identical living cells that have not yet formed a fetus, though there are stages prior to the embryonic stage.

Your reply is almost as pitiful as the pro abortionists nonsense equating dandruff to an embryo.

I have made no such comparison. Your reply is a non-sequitur.

Laughable on it's face to anybody that understands even rudimentary biology and systems.

The biologcial elements are not disputed. What is disputed is the point at which the cell or collection of cells is to be called "human". As I have said, this is a purely philosophical matter. You cannot use science to show that a collection of cells without a functioning nervous system is or is not a "human being"

[jwalsh07]

What species is the human embryo? (There's a hint in the question.)

Is the living embryo alive or dead? (There's a hint in the question.)

Two simple questions. They should be no problem for somebody of your talents.

[Dimensio]

What species is the human embryo? (There's a hint in the question.)

Homo sapiens.

Is the living embryo alive or dead? (There's a hint in the question.)

It is a collection of living cells. I have stated this repeatedly. That does not change the fact that there are those who do note believe that a collection of cells cannot be defined as "human" if it has no nervous system or even no differentiation in the cells at all.

I am curious: if you believe that a collection of undifferentiated cells is a single human being, then what do you believe happens to that individual human being should the embryo split and the two halves form identical twins?

[FreedomProtector]

Thank you very, very much for the updated article post.

[jwalsh07]

Homo sapiens. Very Good. And the embryo is alive. Again very good. So what we have is a living member of the species homo sapines at that stage of homo sapienhood.

Now what species are you?

And are you living?

As for the twinning, it is another stupide argument by pro abortionists easily dismantled so I'll dismantle it for you. Killing two human beings is twice as bad as killing one. And no twins are totally identical. I'd suggest a refresher course in biology.