Skip to comments.Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution with Berlinski, Meyer, and Gelernter
Posted on 07/28/2019 10:50:40 AM PDT by Tennessean4Bush
Recorded on June 6, 2019 in Italy.
Based on new evidence and knowledge that functioning proteins are extremely rare, should Darwins theory of evolution be dismissed, dissected, developed or replaced with a theory of intelligent design?
Has Darwinism really failed? Peter Robinson discusses it with David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer, who have raised doubts about Darwins theory in their two books and essay, respectively The Deniable Darwin, Darwins Doubt, and Giving Up Darwin (published in the Claremont Review of Books).
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Have you seen this interview? I thought it was very informative and fascinating.
LOL. I literally just finished listening to this 5 minutes ago. Before seeing this thread. Fascinating.
quick play the lottery lol- coincidence? I think not- it’s a sign lol
Are you my doppelganger, or am I yours?
Here is a bit more info on the impossibility:
An occurrence that has more than one chance in 1050, it has a statistically zero chance of actually occurring.
"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence."
I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (New York: NW Research Publications, Inc., 1984), p. 205 (as quoted in Vance Ferrell, The Evolution Handbook (Evolution Facts, Inc., Altamont TN, 2001) p. 260
In order to circumvent the problem of statistical zero, evolutionists often argue that "Given enough time, anything can happen." This is not a rational argument. It proves nothing. It is a reference to practically infinite periods of time that lie beyond statistical zero.
"A further aspect I should like to discuss is what I call the practice of avoiding the conclusion that the probability of a self-producing state is zero ... When for practical purposes the condition of infinite time and matter has to be invoked, the concept of probability is annulled. By such logic we can prove anything ... "
P.T. Mora, The Folly of Probability, as quoted in Origins 13(2):98-104 (1986) Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Lind University, 1986. Emphasis supplied.
In fact the chances of the chance formation of just DNA - much less all of the applications of DNA - are so remote, they are far beyond statistical zero.
"This means that 1089190 DNA molecules, on average, must form to provide the one chance of forming the specific DNA sequence necessary to code 124 proteins. 1089190 DNAs would weigh 1089147 more than the earth ... A quantity of DNA this colossal could never have been formed.
R.L. Wysong, The Creation Evolution Controversy, (Inquiry Press, Midland MI, 1976) p.115, as quoted in The Evolution Handbook (Evolution Facts, Inc., Altamont TN, 2001) p. 261. Same Website as above
“Based on new evidence and knowledge that functioning proteins are extremely rare, should Darwins theory of evolution be dismissed, dissected, developed or replaced with a theory of intelligent design? “
Intelligent design merely says a higher being directed evolution. It does not replace evolution.
Peter Robinson is an excellent interviewer.
Playing the lottery does not raise you chance of winning by more than a minuscule amount.
Still, some people do win the lottery.
Kinda odd it's posted about while it's up on the TV.
Yeah, I merely copied the intro text to the youtube video. I think the discussion came to center around this question: “While we see evolution in adaptation traits over time within species, does Darwin’s Theory of Evolution adequately explain the origin of new species?”
Darwin’s theory is the original bad science big theory in America.
The issue then is your definition of minuscule, and your timeframe allowance for playing enough lotteries.
They win the lottery because the odds not exceed the upper probability limits of possibility- not even close-
Please read post 8. There is a difference between mutations and evolution
Are those figures assuming that atoms can combine higgledy-piggledy in totally random ways, or did they take the valences into account, did they assume that one could get a molecule of a hundred hydrogen atoms all strung together, or a carbon bonded to 12 other atoms?
That assumption vastly simplifies the calculation, but in no way reflects reality, and hugely inflates the final number over what is chemically possible.
with the lottery- you have a chance, with evolution, there is no chance-
I’m sure they have taken everything into consideration- These were secular scientists coming to these conclusions- I’m sure they were fully away of variances and took those into account- Again- the possibility so exceeds the upper probability limit, for even just one mutation, let alone billions needed to move a species kind beyond it’;s own kind, that it’s impossible- just one is impossible- extremely impossible- not just a little- and again for emphasis- we’re talking about bucking the impossibility odds billions of times-
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.