Jump to content


Photo

Math Logic Disproves Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#1 Bill

Bill

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 22 November 2009 - 08:03 PM

While Evolution does not have a formal mathematical foundation it does conform to at least two mathematical descriptors.

Firstly, Evolution is linear and sequential. That is Evolutionary change is thought of as following a straight path of small sequential changes.

Secondary, Evolution is thought as a continuous process.

However the fact is that nature is nonlinear and sometimes not sequential and sometimes discontinuous (quantum.) Examples of this occur in the fossil record in which there are gaps and sudden bursts of change and fossils that are out of sequence.

Nature is best described using nonlinear equations or curved functions. But Evolution requires a world of linear or straight line changes. Therefore just as real circles and squares do not occur naturally neither is Evolution a description of nature. Evolution is at best an approximation of nature in a mind that is unable to think in the terms of nonlinear or quantum realities that is required to portray the complex nature of the real world.

Because we can only think in dimensions that are less than that of the real world the theory of Evolution will always be in a state of change. It will always be like a line tangent on a curve and will never explain the real world and will always give a erroneous overview of nature.

#2 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 November 2009 - 03:33 AM

Who says evolution is linear?

#3 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 November 2009 - 05:03 AM

While Evolution does not have a formal mathematical foundation it does conform to at least two mathematical descriptors. 

Firstly, Evolution is linear and sequential.  That is Evolutionary change is thought of as following a straight path of small sequential changes.

Secondary, Evolution is thought as a continuous process.

However the fact is that nature is nonlinear and sometimes not sequential and sometimes discontinuous (quantum.)  Examples of this occur in the fossil record in which there are gaps and sudden bursts of change and fossils that are out of sequence.

Nature is best described using nonlinear equations or curved functions.  But Evolution requires a world of linear or straight line changes. Therefore just as real circles and squares do not occur naturally neither is Evolution a description of nature.  Evolution is at best an approximation of nature in a mind that is unable to think in the terms of nonlinear or quantum realities that is required to portray the complex nature of the real world. 

Because we can only think in dimensions that are less than that of the real world the theory of Evolution will always be in a state of change.  It will always be like a line tangent on a curve and will never explain the real world and will always give a erroneous overview of nature.

View Post


Evolution doesn't follow a sequential set of changes at a constant rate, and no scientist has ever asserted otherwise. Hence, it isn't linear.

Secondly, natural phenomena is often reduced to a linear system as its much easier to work with.

#4 Bill

Bill

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 23 November 2009 - 09:30 AM

Evolution doesn't follow a sequential set of changes at a constant rate, and no scientist has ever asserted otherwise.  Hence, it isn't linear. 

Secondly, natural phenomena is often reduced to a linear system as its much easier to work with.

View Post


Yes, the evidence in nature of change is not linear. But the theory of Evolution has no way to account for this. As a theory Evolution is a linear view of nature.

We must distinguish between the evidence in nature and what Evolution logically can predict. On this account the theory of Evolution falls well short of reality.

#5 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 November 2009 - 12:07 PM

Yes, the evidence in nature of change is not linear.  But the theory of Evolution has no way to account for this.  As a theory Evolution is a linear view of nature. 

We must distinguish between the evidence in nature and what Evolution logically can predict. On this account the theory of Evolution falls well short of reality.

View Post


For what you're saying to be true changes in selection pressures would have to be linear, but as you've already said nature isn't linear. As I said, no scientist would say evolution is linear because it isn't.

Would you prove its linearity with a deductive or inductive proof??? :huh:

#6 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

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

Posted 23 November 2009 - 12:16 PM

Yes, the evidence in nature of change is not linear.  But the theory of Evolution has no way to account for this.  As a theory Evolution is a linear view of nature. 

We must distinguish between the evidence in nature and what Evolution logically can predict.   On this account the theory of Evolution falls well short of reality.

View Post

Why is evolution linear? Perhaps because it only appears that way in hindsight? Time is linear and therefore history, whether of nature or otherwise give the appearance of linearity???

You need to explain this, not just make a statement.
Thanks

#7 Bill

Bill

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 23 November 2009 - 01:03 PM

For what you're saying to be true changes in selection pressures would have to be linear, but as you've already said nature isn't linear.  As I said, no scientist would say evolution is linear because it isn't.

Would you prove its linearity with a deductive or inductive proof???

Why is evolution linear? Perhaps because it only appears that way in hindsight? Time is linear and therefore history, whether of nature or otherwise give the appearance of linearity???

You need to explain this, not just make a statement.
Thanks

:huh:

View Post


What I am talking about is just the Theory of Evolution itself. The Theory of Evolution that exists as a set of thoughts in our minds and nothing beyond that.

I am saying that what is happening in the natural world is a completely separate matter. The reason why there isn't a one to one correspondence between Theory of Evolution (in our minds) and the natural world is because the natural world is non linear and quantum and our minds are capable only of linear sequential rational thought.

#8 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

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

Posted 23 November 2009 - 01:20 PM

What I am talking about is just the Theory of Evolution itself.  The Theory of Evolution that exists as a set of thoughts in our minds and nothing beyond that.

I am saying that what is happening in the natural world is a completely separate matter.  The reason why there isn't a one to one correspondence between Theory of Evolution (in our minds) and the natural world is because the natural world is non linear and quantum and our minds are capable only of linear sequential rational thought.

View Post

I'm sorry, but does anyone else see the irony in this?

And since you started with suggesting that math disproves evolution, how about some math to back that up.
Thanks

#9 Bill

Bill

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 23 November 2009 - 01:25 PM

I'm sorry, but does anyone else see the irony in this?

And since you started with suggesting that math disproves evolution, how about some math to back that up.
Thanks

View Post


Please read my first post. If you are not interested in the topic that's OK.

#10 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

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

Posted 23 November 2009 - 02:13 PM

Please read my first post.  If you are not interested in the topic that's OK.

View Post

You are the one that brought math in. I only asked for some.

#11 Bill

Bill

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 23 November 2009 - 02:18 PM

You are the one that brought math in.  I only asked for some.

View Post


If you don't understand the thread that might be my fault - I apologize for that.

#12 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 23 November 2009 - 11:12 PM

If you don't understand the thread that might be my fault - I apologize for that.

View Post

It's not your fault. The O.P. makes sense.

The strategy you'll mostly encounter consists of playing as if you misunderstand the vaporware. Linearity is, however assumed in several evolutionist claims, like how the eye could evolve in a very short time (if just the right sequence of mutation after mutation after mutation just "by chance" happened to occur, of course). It was also assumed by those who initially assigned the dates to rocks by "carefully gauging" the amount of time it took for lifeform A to evolve into lifeform B.

#13 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

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

Posted 24 November 2009 - 09:31 AM

It was also assumed by those who initially assigned the dates to rocks by "carefully gauging" the amount of time it took for lifeform A to evolve into lifeform B.

View Post

Really, got a cite to that in the literature? Thanks.

#14 Bill

Bill

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 24 November 2009 - 10:15 AM

It's not your fault. The O.P. makes sense.

The strategy you'll mostly encounter consists of playing as if you misunderstand the vaporware. Linearity is, however assumed in several evolutionist claims, like how the eye could evolve in a very short time (if just the right sequence of mutation after mutation after mutation just "by chance" happened to occur, of course). It was also assumed by those who initially assigned the dates to rocks by "carefully gauging" the amount of time it took for lifeform A to evolve into lifeform B.

View Post


Thanks. Many people I have encountered who believe in evolution believe that whats going on in their heads ("Theory of Evolution") has a one to one correspondence with the real world. The truth is that our minds and consciousnesses operate in a space that much more limited than the real world and therefor we can never really grasp reality.

#15 QED

QED

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • University of Texas, Texas

Posted 24 November 2009 - 06:19 PM

While Evolution does not have a formal mathematical foundation it does conform to at least two mathematical descriptors. 

Firstly, Evolution is linear and sequential.  That is Evolutionary change is thought of as following a straight path of small sequential changes.

I don't accept both of your axioms. There are many examples of non-linear Evolution, populations that are being subjected to balancing selection for example looks similar to the Sine or Cosine functions.

I do agree that Evolution is sequential.

Secondary, Evolution is thought as a continuous process.

It's continuous but I must note it's not goal oriented.

However the fact is that nature is nonlinear and sometimes not sequential and sometimes discontinuous (quantum.)  Examples of this occur in the fossil record in which there are gaps and sudden bursts of change and fossils that are out of sequence.

'Sudden bursts' isn't really a good term for what is going on in relation to time. Furthermore, are you accepting conventional geology? I ask this because the "flood hypothesis" concludes that those relationships are arbitrary and don't point to any specific conclusions in regards to Time and Evolution. So this point would be rendered useless if you subscribe to Flood Hypothesis.

Nature is best described using nonlinear equations or curved functions.  But Evolution requires a world of linear or straight line changes.

Your premise is bad....

Therefore just as real circles and squares do not occur naturally neither is Evolution a description of nature.

In turn, the conclusion that follows is also bad.

Evolution is at best an approximation of nature in a mind that is unable to think in the terms of nonlinear or quantum realities that is required to portray the complex nature of the real world. 

I think in terms of differential equations and Calculus based physics and I approximate some observed natural phenomenon as Evolution. Why am I still able to do such complex mathematics with such a simple mind that is incapable of such feats?

Because we can only think in dimensions that are less than that of the real world the theory of Evolution will always be in a state of change.  It will always be like a line tangent on a curve and will never explain the real world and will always give a erroneous overview of nature.

View Post

Please demonstrate this point.

#16 Bill

Bill

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 24 November 2009 - 08:42 PM

I don't accept both of your axioms. There are many examples of non-linear Evolution, populations that are being subjected to balancing selection for example looks similar to the Sine or Cosine functions.

I do agree that Evolution is sequential.

It's continuous but I must note it's not goal oriented.

'Sudden bursts' isn't really a good term for what is going on in relation to time. Furthermore, are you accepting conventional geology? I ask this because the "flood hypothesis" concludes that those relationships are arbitrary and don't point to any specific conclusions in regards to Time and Evolution. So this point would be rendered useless if you subscribe to Flood Hypothesis.
Your premise is bad....

In turn, the conclusion that follows is also bad.
I think in terms of differential equations and Calculus based physics and I approximate some observed natural phenomenon as Evolution. Why am I still able to do such complex mathematics with such a simple mind that is incapable of such feats?

Please demonstrate this point.

View Post



I believe that you are confusing "evolution" that occurs in ones mind with the natural world as though they are one and the same.

The point of my post is to show that they are not. Mainly because the human mind is not capable of thinking rationally beyond linear sequential thought. We can acknowledge higher functions just as we can acknowledge 11 dimensions but we cannot think in them. The fact the Theory of Evolution is a linear sequential thought form means that it really doesn't describe the natural world any more than a line tangent to a curve describes the curve.

#17 QED

QED

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • University of Texas, Texas

Posted 24 November 2009 - 09:06 PM

I believe that you are confusing "evolution" that occurs in ones mind with the natural world as though they are one and the same. 

The point of my post is to show that they are not.  Mainly because the human mind is not capable of thinking rationally beyond linear sequential thought.  We can acknowledge higher functions just as we can acknowledge 11 dimensions but we cannot think in them.  The fact the Theory of Evolution is a linear sequential thought form means that it really doesn't describe the natural world any more than a line tangent to a curve describes the curve.

View Post

I believe you are confusing the scientific theory of Evolution with 'Evolution' as you perceive it because the theory I'm referring to is based on natural observation....

Basically, you are creating a Straw man by creating an entirely new and different definition of Evolution. Really, you shouldn't do that because it doesn't provide evidence for anything and it demonstrates that you aren't very serious about the discussion.

#18 Bill

Bill

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 24 November 2009 - 09:28 PM

I believe you are confusing the scientific theory of Evolution with 'Evolution' as you perceive it because the theory I'm referring to is based on natural observation....

Basically, you are creating a Straw man by creating an entirely new and different definition of Evolution. Really, you shouldn't do that because it doesn't provide evidence for anything and it demonstrates that you aren't very serious about the discussion.

View Post


Observations. . Exactly.

These "observations" are necessary not identical with the events observed in the real world. Mainly because the natural world and the environment of our minds are two completely different places. You are observing events through the filters of Evolutionary theory. Other people observing the same events would interpret them differently depending upon their world view.

The math problem here is that we can only think rationally in linear thought forms ie a = b + c or a = bc. We cannot think rationally in higher maths or in quantum which are the realities that are out there. We can acknowledge the complexities of the real world and work with them but we cannot think them as normal thoughts.

Therefor the Theory of Evolution is at best a figment of our imagination.

.

#19 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 November 2009 - 10:10 PM

The math problem here is that we can only think rationally in linear thought forms ie a = b + c or a = bc.  We cannot think rationally in higher maths or in quantum which are the realities that are out there.  We can acknowledge the complexities of the real world and work with them but we cannot think them as normal thoughts.

View Post

Er...yes, we can (just ask anybody who's studied calculus, or even nonlinear algebra). And by the way, a=bc isn't linear.

#20 Bill

Bill

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 25 November 2009 - 12:53 AM

Er...yes, we can (just ask anybody who's studied calculus, or even nonlinear algebra).  And by the way, a=bc isn't linear.

View Post


Both are straight line functions. I have studied both and gotten top marks.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users