# Math Logic Disproves Evolution

84 replies to this topic

### #21 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
• Guests

Posted 25 November 2009 - 12:58 AM

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

Even if that were true, I can't help but feel that a = b + c and a = bc are the only equations you've studied, because if you'd studied any more, you'd probably realize that mathematicians and scientists aren't limited to studying linear behavior.

### #22 Bill

Bill

Junior Member

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

Posted 25 November 2009 - 01:01 AM

Even if that were true, I can't help but feel that a = b + c and a = bc are the only equations you've studied, because if you'd studied any more, you'd probably realize that mathematicians and scientists aren't limited to studying linear behavior.

I think that you are missing to whole point here.

### #23 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
• Guests

Posted 25 November 2009 - 01:04 AM

I think that you are missing to whole point here.

Then perhaps you should explain it better.

Besides, this was simply incorrect: "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."

Also, a = bc really isn't a linear equation. You can tell because b is multiplied by c.

### #24 Bill

Bill

Junior Member

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

Posted 25 November 2009 - 01:33 AM

Then perhaps you should explain it better.
Besides, this was simply incorrect: "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."
Also, a = bc really isn't a linear equation.  You can tell because b is multiplied by c.

The word linear comes from the Latin word linearis, which means created by lines. In mathematics, a linear map or function f(x) is a function which satisfies the following two properties...

* Additivity (also called the superposition property): f(x + y) = f(x) + f(y). This says that f is a group homomorphism with respect to addition.
* Homogeneity of degree 1: f(αx) = αf(x) for all α. It turns out that homogeneity follows from the additivity property in all cases where α is rational. (proof) In that case, provided that the function is continuous, it becomes useless to establish the condition of homogeneity as an additional axiom. (Wikipdia)

Have another read from the start and sleep on it :-)

### #25 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
• Guests

Posted 25 November 2009 - 01:37 AM

The word linear comes from the Latin word linearis, which means created by lines. In mathematics, a linear map or function f(x) is a function which satisfies the following two properties...

* Additivity (also called the superposition property): f(x + y) = f(x) + f(y). This says that f is a group homomorphism with respect to addition.
* Homogeneity of degree 1: f(αx) = αf(x) for all α. It turns out that homogeneity follows from the additivity property in all cases where α is rational. (proof) In that case, provided that the function is continuous, it becomes useless to establish the condition of homogeneity as an additional axiom. (Wikipdia)

Have another read from the start and sleep on it :-)

Yes, I know what it means to be linear. And bc is not a linear term.

But regardless, it's ludicrous to suggest that we can only understand the world in terms of linear things. Mathematicians and physicists have been dealing with nonlinear equations for centuries.

### #26 CTD

CTD

Banned

• Banned
• 2,059 posts
• Age: 44
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Missouri

Posted 25 November 2009 - 01:27 PM

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.

.

The portion in bold is erroneous. Math has no impact on our capacity to think. You almost preclude science altogether with such philosophy.

As a counter-example, we have Newton's formula for gravity. Attractive force depends on the square of the distance between objects. This is not a linear plot, but rather an obvious curve.

http://www-istp.gsfc...ze/Sgravity.htm

Not only can we think in terms of curves, we can calculate them extremely quickly. Accurately throwing a ball requires this, for example.

Our inability to think rationally "in quantum" has nothing to do with the math; it has to do with the fact that quantum philosophy is irrational. I'd sooner try to think rationally "in female" *ducking for cover*.

### #27 Bill

Bill

Junior Member

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

Posted 25 November 2009 - 02:03 PM

"The portion in bold is erroneous. Math has no impact on our capacity to think. You almost preclude science altogether with such philosophy."

and

"But regardless, it's ludicrous to suggest that we can only understand the world in terms of linear things. Mathematicians and physicists have been dealing with nonlinear equations for centuries."

Do you have the mind of God then?

I can draw a 3 dimensional object on a 2 dimensional piece of paper - but I know that this representation is not the real object - do you?

The ideas we call "evolution" that exist in our minds lack the dimensional reality of the natural world. They are just as real as the drawing of a 3 dimensional object is to the object itself. The Theory of Evolution is an image in your mind that you choose to project onto the real world.

.

### #28 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
• Guests

Posted 25 November 2009 - 02:20 PM

Our inability to think rationally "in quantum" has nothing to do with the math; it has to do with the fact that quantum philosophy is irrational.

Then how can quantum mechanics make accurate observational predictions that directly point to the fundamental principles of the theory?

### #29 Bill

Bill

Junior Member

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

Posted 25 November 2009 - 02:36 PM

Math comes into the Theory of Evolution in that the theory is stated in the most simple math descriptors - ie linear and continuous. This proof that the theory will fail any real correlation with the real world as the real world is nonlinear and quantum.

### #30 CTD

CTD

Banned

• Banned
• 2,059 posts
• Age: 44
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Missouri

Posted 25 November 2009 - 03:28 PM

Then how can quantum mechanics make accurate observational predictions that directly point to the fundamental principles of the theory?

Why do you ask me? I never said it could.

And by the way, what "theory"?

### #31 lehtv

lehtv

Junior Member

• 61 posts
• Age: 20
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Edinburgh

Posted 26 November 2009 - 10:52 AM

The ideas we call "evolution" [...] are just as real as the drawing of a 3 dimensional object is to the object itself.

Which is a pretty damn good approximation of reality that everybody can understand.

### #32 Bill

Bill

Junior Member

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

Posted 26 November 2009 - 02:49 PM

Which is a pretty damn good approximation of reality that everybody can understand.

The earth looks flat and everyone can understand that too. I think you need to decide on which side you are on. When people said the world was round what would have been your reaction I wonder. Is evolution your scared cow?

### #33 lehtv

lehtv

Junior Member

• 61 posts
• Age: 20
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Edinburgh

Posted 26 November 2009 - 03:18 PM

The earth looks flat and everyone can understand that too.

Yes, and that the earth looks flat is a pretty good approximation. You can treat the ground under you as though it was flat, when you know from empirical evidence it's not exactly flat but actually curved.

Similarly, you can treat evolutionary theory as a pretty good approximation. It allows you to make accurate predictions, and this makes it an empirically supported theory.

Another example is Newtonian physics. We know that they apply empirically in most situations, but that in reality they're just an approximation of the truth which is more accurately explained by Einstein's general relativity. I'm not a physicist, but I accept the validity of Einstein's theory (it can also make accurate predictions) and I accept it may also be an approximation of the truth.

### #34 Bill

Bill

Junior Member

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

Posted 26 November 2009 - 06:16 PM

Yes, and that the earth looks flat is a pretty good approximation. You can treat the ground under you as though it was flat, when you know from empirical evidence it's not exactly flat but actually curved.

Similarly, you can treat evolutionary theory as a pretty good approximation. It allows you to make accurate predictions, and this makes it an empirically supported theory.

Another example is Newtonian physics. We know that they apply empirically in most situations, but that in reality they're just an approximation of the truth which is more accurately explained by Einstein's general relativity. I'm not a physicist, but I accept the validity of Einstein's theory (it can also make accurate predictions) and I accept it may also be an approximation of the truth.

The comparison with the flat earth is OK but comparing the Theory of Evolution with Newtonian physics is absurd. The Theory of Evolution is like a beggar at a wedding. It has a history of fraud, it has a political agenda, it tells lies and obscures the truth, and it has no place in real science.

Every so called proof of evolution can always be easily explained in other ways. Almost half of people don't believe it even though it is the official truth endorsed by most governments.

It is anti God and it flatters its believers into thinking they are the "enlightened" few.

It has no mathematical foundation and is completely extra and unnecessary in doing any science. It is a heap of pure speculation not unlike that of medieval scholasticism.

.

### #35 AFJ

AFJ

AFJ

• Veteran Member
• 1,625 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Baton Rouge, LA
• Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
• Age: 51
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 26 November 2009 - 06:50 PM

CTD said:
It was also assumed [that evolution is linear] 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.

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

Wow, would the geologic timescale qualify? Go to the Berkley website. Everything is well organized as to where it belongs in time.

The timescale is often represented as a helix which is mathematical.

### #36 lehtv

lehtv

Junior Member

• 61 posts
• Age: 20
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Edinburgh

Posted 26 November 2009 - 06:56 PM

It has a history of fraud

Provide evidence for that statement.

it has a political agenda

Provide evidence for that statement.

it tells lies and obscures the truth

Provide evidence for that statement.

and it has no place in real science.

Science deals with testable hypotheses that can be verified by repeatable experiments, observations and predictions. Hypotheses that don't work according to observable reality, are discarded. A scientific theory compiles hypotheses that are repeatably shown to be in agreement with observations. The theory of evolution is composed of thousands upon thousands of observations, verifying the testable hypotheses time and time again. There is not a single observation that challenges the theory of evolution, and not a single theory can explain the relevant observations better.

Every so called proof of evolution

What proof? Science does not deal with proof, it deals with evidence.

Almost half of people don't believe it even though it is the official truth endorsed by most governments.

If you want to argue from numbers, you might at least want the majority on your side.

It is anti God

The theory of evolution does not say or imply anything about the existence of God. It is a scientific theory, it deals with falsifiable hypotheses, and the God hypothesis isn't one.

It has no mathematical foundation

The theory of evolution postulates that populations evolve mainly by the mechanisms of mutation, natural selection and genetic drift, all of which create evolutionary change, which is defined as change in allele frequencies in a population over generations. To quantitatively understand change in allele frequencies, population genetics was developed to explain evolutionary change in precise mathematical terms.

### #37 Bill

Bill

Junior Member

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

Posted 26 November 2009 - 07:23 PM

Provide evidence for that statement.
Provide evidence for that statement.
Provide evidence for that statement.
Science deals with testable hypotheses that can be verified by repeatable experiments, observations and predictions. Hypotheses that don't work according to observable reality, are discarded. A scientific theory compiles hypotheses that are repeatably shown to be in agreement with observations. The theory of evolution is composed of thousands upon thousands of observations, verifying the testable hypotheses time and time again. There is not a single observation that challenges the theory of evolution, and not a single theory can explain the relevant observations better.
What proof? Science does not deal with proof, it deals with evidence.
If you want to argue from numbers, you might at least want the majority on your side.
The theory of evolution does not say or imply anything about the existence of God. It is a scientific theory, it deals with falsifiable hypotheses, and the God hypothesis isn't one.
The theory of evolution postulates that populations evolve mainly by the mechanisms of mutation, natural selection and genetic drift, all of which create evolutionary change, which is defined as change in allele frequencies in a population over generations. To quantitatively understand change in allele frequencies, population genetics was developed to explain evolutionary change in precise mathematical terms.

Here is a link that will cover most of my assertions:

### #38 AFJ

AFJ

AFJ

• Veteran Member
• 1,625 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Baton Rouge, LA
• Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
• Age: 51
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 26 November 2009 - 07:34 PM

The theory of evolution does not say or imply anything about the existence of God. It is a scientific theory, it deals with falsifiable hypotheses, and the God hypothesis isn't one.

So if I teach kids in sixth grade that God created the universe in six days, does this mean that I imply nothing against the theory of evolution? Many evos would like to live in a world of total neutrality towards God--however this is quite impossible.

The theory of evolution postulates that populations evolve mainly by the mechanisms of mutation, natural selection and genetic drift,

Here's a quote from Discovery Education: "About 3.5 million years ago in Africa, the firsthominidsappearedÃ¢â‚¬â€bipedal primates who walked erect. Those early hominids were the ancestors of recent humans."

This is normal language for most of evolutionary curriculum. There is no mention of a postulate or hypothesis.

all of which create evolutionary change, which is defined as change in allele frequencies in a population over generations. To quantitatively understand change in allele frequencies, population genetics was developed to explain evolutionary change in precise mathematical terms.

Nice, but you still have no evidence that these hypotheses translated into the assumed macro evolution that brought nearly all precursor body types in 10 million years--that is the Cambrian fauna. Could you give some "precise mathematical" allele frequencies that could account for such diversity in such a short time?

### #39 lehtv

lehtv

Junior Member

• 61 posts
• Age: 20
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Edinburgh

Posted 27 November 2009 - 11:35 AM

So if I teach kids in sixth grade that God created the universe in six days, does this mean that I imply nothing against the theory of evolution?Ã‚Â  Many evos would like to live in a world of total neutrality towards God--however this is quite impossible.

Of course you'd imply the theory of evolution is wrong if you claim that.

The theory of evolution doesn't say anything about whether a God exists or not. You're the one assuming the only possible God is one that created the universe in six days. Are you aware the 1) there are many scientists who believe in God (Francis Collins, for example), and 2) that over a billion people belong to a religion (namely, western Catholicism) that officially accepts evolution?

Here's a quote from Discovery Education: "About 3.5 million years ago in Africa, the firsthominidsappearedÃ¢â‚¬â€bipedal primates who walked erect. Those early hominids were the ancestors of recent humans."

This is normal language for most of evolutionary curriculum.Ã‚Â  There is no mention of a postulate or hypothesis.

Yes, the website agrees with the theory of evolution and presents its evidentially supported postulates as fact. What's your point?

Nice, but you still have no evidence that these hypotheses translated into the assumed macro evolution that brought nearly all precursor body types in 10 million years--that is the Cambrian fauna.Ã‚Â  Could you give some "precise mathematical" allele frequencies that could account for such diversity in such a short time?

Change in allele frequencies accounts for microevolution, as I think you'll agree. Microevolution is composed of mechanisms such as random mutation, natural selection, genetic drift and gene flow. All of these have been documented as mechanisms for evolutionary change that produces reproductive isolation between populations or parts of a population. See, for example, Ensatina salamanders. Also, here:

"What is most interesting about this species of salamander, is that the two southern most subspecies, eschscholtzi and klauberi, meet in several locations. Near Mount Palomar, these two subspecies meet in a very narrow zone and hybridize infrequently. (Brown, 1974) To the south near Cuyamaca State Park, klauberi and eschscholtzi meet and apparently fail to interbreed under natural conditions even though they are narrowly sympatric. In fact, by analyzing electrophoretic separations of selected enzymes and studying DNA patterns, the two subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi are different species by every definition."

Sympatric means "same area."

### #40 Bill

Bill

Junior Member

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

Posted 27 November 2009 - 01:41 PM

Of course you'd imply the theory of evolution is wrong if you claim that.

The theory of evolution doesn't say anything about whether a God exists or not. You're the one assuming the only possible God is one that created the universe in six days. Are you aware the 1) there are many scientists who believe in God (Francis Collins, for example), and 2) that over a billion people belong to a religion (namely, western Catholicism) that officially accepts evolution?
Yes, the website agrees with the theory of evolution and presents its evidentially supported postulates as fact. What's your point?

Change in allele frequencies accounts for microevolution, as I think you'll agree. Microevolution is composed of mechanisms such as random mutation, natural selection, genetic drift and gene flow. All of these have been documented as mechanisms for evolutionary change that produces reproductive isolation between populations or parts of a population. See, for example, Ensatina salamanders. Also, here:

"What is most interesting about this species of salamander, is that the two southern most subspecies, eschscholtzi and klauberi, meet in several locations. Near Mount Palomar, these two subspecies meet in a very narrow zone and hybridize infrequently. (Brown, 1974) To the south near Cuyamaca State Park, klauberi and eschscholtzi meet and apparently fail to interbreed under natural conditions even though they are narrowly sympatric. In fact, by analyzing electrophoretic separations of selected enzymes and studying DNA patterns, the two subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi are different species by every definition."

Sympatric means "same area."

A real house of cards here of assumption and speculation - is any of this real? With this as proof I can say the the Theory of Evolution is an addicting fantasy.

.

.

#### 0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users