Jump to content


Photo

Math Logic Disproves Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#81 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 08 December 2009 - 07:24 PM

Correct it appears to be a comprehension issue.  By "fluff over the linked paper" you mean "excitement" over the paper?

View Post


I guess... If that's the best defense you can muster, after totally misreading my comments. Or just being misleading... Again...

#82 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Connecticut

Posted 09 December 2009 - 05:07 AM

I guess... If that's the best defense you can muster, after totally misreading my comments. Or just being misleading... Again...

View Post

well, sorry for my lack of understanding, perhaps you can explain what you mean in words I can understand

#83 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 09 December 2009 - 05:48 AM

well, sorry for my lack of understanding, perhaps you can explain what you mean in words I can understand

View Post


Absolutely!

Talking about math, look at this article :

Waiting for two mutations: with applications to regulatory sequence evolution and the limits of Darwinian evolution.

Results of Nowak and collaborators concerning the onset of cancer due to the inactivation of tumor suppressor genes give the distribution of the time until some individual in a population has experienced two prespecified mutations and the time until this mutant phenotype becomes fixed in the population. In this article we apply these results to obtain insights into regulatory sequence evolution in Drosophila and humans. In particular, we examine the waiting time for a pair of mutations, the first of which inactivates an existing transcription factor binding site and the second of which creates a new one. Consistent with recent experimental observations for Drosophila, we find that a few million years is sufficient, but for humans with a much smaller effective population size, this type of change would take > 100 million years. In addition, we use these results to expose flaws in some of Michael Behe's arguments concerning mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution.  ;)

PubMed

Someone needs to tell them that according to evolutionary fairytale, Human evolved from a monkey-like creature in only 10 Million years B)

View Post


What is humorous here is the great faith involved in the "few millions years" and the "100 Million years" prayers (evolutheism). Observation + Millions of years = evolution :o

#84 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 11 December 2009 - 02:37 AM

Read that paper and Behe's you'll see that it addresses that.  Behe's own maths say it would something like 5 trillion years.  As for the 100+ million years, well that's an average, and you assume the process started in humans.  We do share genetic material without ancestors.

View Post


I´m not assuming anything.The logic is simple.If a simple substitution of binding site which needs only two mutations in sequence takes 100 million years then it´s obvious that homo sapiens cannot have evolved from a monkey-like creature in 10 million years.

#85 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 December 2009 - 05:12 AM

I´m not assuming anything.The logic is simple.If a simple substitution of binding site which needs only two mutations in sequence takes 100 million years then it´s obvious that homo sapiens cannot have evolved from a monkey-like creature in 10 million years.

View Post


And that is where all the faith and prayers of the evolutheist come in. Adaptation with in a species was never at issue. But positing millions of years (or more) and then hoping and praying for the unproven evolving from on species to another is nothing more than theological doctrine. Then to attempt to posit it as factual is simply egregious.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users