A Mathematician's View of Evolution

The Mathematical Intelligencer ^ | Granville Sewell

[js1138]

You don't have to be defensive. There's nothing wrong with S&M, and I'm sure lavender looks good on you.

[Last Visible Dog]

"not random" isn't the same as "(IE, designed or something)". It's just not random; some combinations of genes favor survival and reproduction, and some don't. "The race is not always to the swiftest, but that's the wy to bet."

Yes it is. Not random means there is a aim, reason, or pattern - which is not true for Natural Selection. NS has no aim, no reason, no pattern and nothing to apply an aim, reason , or pattern.

Natural Selection is little more than an observation in the past tense - it is not a force that has aim, reason, or pattern therefore it is random.

I am guessing some Darwinists find comfort in thinking Natural Selection is not random?

[HarleyD]

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

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

For I did not think that faith was preceded by God's grace, so that by its means would be given to us what we might profitably ask, except that we could not believe if the proclamation of the truth did not precede; but that we should consent when the gospel was preached to us I thought was our own doing, and came to us from ourselves. And this my error is sufficiently indicated in some small works of mine written before my episcopate. Among these is that which you have mentioned in your letters, wherein is an exposition of certain propositions from the Epistle to the Romans. Eventually, when I was retracting all my small works, and was committing that retractation to writing,—of which task I had already completed two books before I had taken up your more lengthy letters,—when in the first volume I had reached the retractation of this book" - Augustine, A Treatise on Predestination

Augustine, the first early church father to put together a systematic theology of the western church, had no problem admitting he was in error and retracting his works.

[Senator Bedfellow]

You and I are never going to be described as "we." By we, do you mean people or simian wannabes?

See, now, 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.

Just figured you'd find this interesting.

[atlaw]

Quark2005 -- So, exactly what is "fictional" about 'Darwinian' science?

BlackElk -- I don't give a damn what Iran's homicidal maniac president (or general population) "think" about Dubya, the USA or conservatism or Catholicism or Chriostianity generally. . . . OOOOOH, that Elk is just sooooooo, ummmm, ummmmm, anti-intellectual!!!!! Sooooooo politically incorrect!!!!!

Good point.

I practiced law for decades.

And your fellow inmates were appreciative, I'm sure.

[Last Visible Dog]

There is no discernable aim, reason or purpose to gravity. Would you suggest that gravity is random?

But there is a pattern. Please review the meaning of the word "random"

[RunningWolf]

Thanks.

I am not nearly as articulate on these topic as you are, so no doubt they will apply the gang up tactics of ridicule and slant-ways insult with inference, place-markers, and side bar conversations about you for agreeing with anything I say.

It is all to marginalize and silence you so they can own the podium.

Take Care,

W.

[js1138]

Natural Selection is little more than an observation in the past tense

Selection is conceptually different from other kinds of causation, but it is, nevertheless, entirely within the realm of natural causes studied by physics and chemistry. It is conceptually no different from learning.

[Dimensio]

But there is a pattern.

There is a pattern in natural selection. You simply choose to ignore it no matter how often it is explained to you. Similarly, I am applying your same standard and ignoring the pattern of gravity.

[balrog666]

And your fellow inmates were appreciative, I'm sure.

Ding, ding, ding - we have a winnah!

[Quark2005]

I practiced law for decades.

Perhaps you should practice science a little bit before making pronouncements about it. The proverbial 'audience' would be a good place to start.

What is fictional about Darwinian "science?" Ummmm, everything!

Once again, you fail to be specific (as do most people making vacuous claims). Do you even know what the basic lines of evidence are that support Darwin's theory (and still do, very strongly)?

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.

The fact that you think it is within the purvey of science to answer such theological questions shows how sadly unaware you are of how science is actually practiced.

You are used to grandiosely setting the terms of the debate and I refuse to play along.

By what, actually providing evidence, and demanding the same from critics? Shame, shame.

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

I'll do my genuflecting in church, thank you. I do my work in a lab.

You are pissed.

How about taking a long, careful look at your own posts, and then decide who's been keeping a cooler head, here. I'm not sure you can do that, but I'm sure there's plenty of lurkers that are quite capable of that discernment.

[HarleyD]

No. Data stands or fails as valid based upon its correspondence to reality

That’s very nice and sounds reasonable, but as a statistician I know I can manipulate numbers to mean just about anything I want them to mean. It’s all how you play the game.

If you have evidence of bias leading to false conclusions regarding the theory of evolution, then please present it.

I’m the one who says that I’m skeptical in the evolution findings. If I recall it’s scientists who have to provide conclusive proof prior to something being accepted. Evolutionists have not done this, certainly not to everyone’s satisfaction.

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

Sure, there can be different people with different views. But all communities have agendas. There is nothing to say that true papers could be published and discarded.

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

One could argue that the reason we are not farther advance is simply for this reason.

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

You wouldn’t believe it and simply dismiss it as not credible. It goes back to two statements ago.

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.

We’re not in Kansas anymore.

Scientific models can be tested and reviewed

When you test the theory of evolution you let me know. I would like to be there for the results.

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

Until it can be shown otherwise, it begins at conception. Isn’t that the most scientifically safe position? Shouldn’t science error on the side of caution? As a scientist how would you measure it?

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 you have evidence of such research then please present it.

[Non-Sequitur]

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.

This would seem to be more a product of your fantasies than Darwinian. Karl Marx never set foot in the U.S., and he was never a correspondent for The Times. The Times correspondent in the U.S. at the time of the Southern rebellion and the Lincoln Administration would have been William Howard Russell.

[Virginia-American]

Not random means there is a aim, reason, or pattern - which is not true for Natural Selection

Isn't a hawk eating dark rabbits on the snow a pattern? Why not? Not all the dark one are food, and not all the white ones escape, but there is still a pattern there. It's rather like tossing loaded dice. You don't always win, but you win more than you lose.

Natural Selection is little more than an observation in the past tense - it is not a force that has aim, reason, or pattern therefore it is random.

Remember the peppered moths? That was testing natural selection in action; there was nothing post-hoc involved.

I am guessing some Darwinists find comfort in thinking Natural Selection is not random?

I don't think we're communicating. If the hawk picked light and dark rabbits with equal probability, that's lacking a pattern; but if it feeds on those it can see easier, that's a pattern. Are you using the words the same way I am?

[Tribune7]

I scanned the rebutal in post 220. Most of it was the same old garbage you see on these boards.

This pretty much shoots down any reason as to why you should take it seriously: Coulter claims several times that the fossil record in no way supports Darwin's theory of evolution.

Darwin's theory called for "gradualism" the inexorable accumulation of tiny changes that led to new species, genus etc. That fossils don't show this, presents a puzzle for evolutionists, hence you have punctuated equilibrium and catastrophism being considered.

[Dimensio]

That’s very nice and sounds reasonable, but as a statistician I know I can manipulate numbers to mean just about anything I want them to mean. It’s all how you play the game.

Numbers and raw data do not lie. People can lie. If you assert that this has happened, and that information has been misrepresented, then it is your responsibility to demonstrate this.

I’m the one who says that I’m skeptical in the evolution findings.

I am aware of this. You have suggested that "bias" is the reason for your skepticism, but you have offered no evidence of bais.

If I recall it’s scientists who have to provide conclusive proof prior to something being accepted. Evolutionists have not done this, certainly not to everyone’s satisfaction.

You recall incorrectly. No scientific theory is "conclusively proven". Scientific explanations are accepted based upon confidence through verified predictions, but are never considered proven. The theory of evolution has made numerous successful predictions throughout its 150 year history. That there are those who refuse to examine the evidence for evolution does not negate the evidence or render it invalid.

Sure, there can be different people with different views. But all communities have agendas. There is nothing to say that true papers could be published and discarded.

You will need to show that events that you are suggesting have actually occured, rather than suggesting -- without evidence -- that they 'may' have occured, in order for your claims to carry credibility.

One could argue that the reason we are not farther advance is simply for this reason.

Your suggestion is meaningless without supporting evidence.

You wouldn’t believe it and simply dismiss it as not credible. It goes back to two statements ago.

Using the unsupported assertion that I would "dismiss" evidence does not lend credence to your claim. On the contrary, it suggests that you are making excuses to avoid providing evidence that you do not have.

When you test the theory of evolution you let me know. I would like to be there for the results.

Every fossil find or genome sequencing is a test for the theory of evolution. Thus far the fossil record has appeared as has been expected by common descent. A find such as a Precambrian rabbit fossil woud falsify established lines of descent, but thus far no such discovery has been made. Researchers recently used the theory to successfully predict where a tranisitonal fish-to-amphibian would be found. Genetic sequencing has also strengthened lines of descent, showing patterns of viral insertions at the same locations in the genome of multiple species previously determined to be related.

Until it can be shown otherwise, it begins at conception.

What qualities or characteistics define a collection of cells as "human"?

Isn’t that the most scientifically safe position?

It is a semantic position. The scientific facts of what is present biologically are not in dispute. Whether or not a fertilized egg should be considered a "human being" is not a question that science can address.

Shouldn’t science error on the side of caution? As a scientist how would you measure it?

I have asked you for a standard of measurement. You have provided none.

If you have evidence of such research then please present it.

You have alleged that there existed scientists who knew what Galileo knew or had access to the information but either refused to accept his conclusions or refused to speak in his favor at his trial. It is your responsibility to show that your claim is accurate.

[jwalsh07]

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

Only to biologic illiterates who conflate organs with organisms.

[jwalsh07]

The last sentence contains presumption, the first couple are fact.

[Tax-chick]

Thanks for mentioning the poll. I wouldn't have noticed it, way down at the bottom of the page.

You're right, it needs a choice for eliminating government-run schools entirely!

[Dimensio]

The last sentence contains presumption, the first couple are fact.

Only one presumptious statement is required for my claim to be correct.