Nightrider's anti-evolution thread...

[cjive134]

I just want to hear your take, so here is your thread.

[nightraider]

1966 Wistar Conference (http://www.wistar.org/)

Background: Conference held by the Wistar Institute in response to macro-evolutionary problems, changes from species to new species, using mathematical principles.

"The ascription of all changes in form to chance has long caused raised eyebrows. Let us not dally with the doubts of nineteenth-century critics, however; for the issue subsided. But it raised its ugly head again in a fairly dramatic form in 1967, when a handful of mathematicians and biologists were chattering over a picnic lunch organized by the physicist, Victor Weisskopf, who is a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and one of the original Los Alamos atomic bomb group, at his house in Geneva. `A rather weird discussion' took place. The subject was evolution by natural selection. The mathematicians were stunned by the optimism of the evolutionists about what could be achieved by chance. So wide was the rift that they decided to organize a conference, which was called Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution. The conference was chaired by Sir Peter Medawar, whose work on graft rejection won him a Noble prize and who, at the time, was director of the Medical Research Council's laboratories in North London. Not, you will understand, the kind of man to speak wildly or without careful thought. In opening the meeting, he said: `The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought of as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian theory. This dissatisfaction has been expressed from several quarters.”(Taylor, 1983).

From a previous discussion in Sweden, Dr. Kaplan of the Wistar Institute set the conference in motion, a meeting with top biologist and mathematicians to discuss statistical and mathematical problems posed by evolution. For the first time in history there were computers powerful enough to calculate the probability of macro-evolution being feasible. Utilizing the computers it was found out that the probability of life occurring by chance was without a doubt, impossible.

Convention Chairman, SirPeter Medawar, Nobel Prize winner, http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1960/medawar-bio.html

“"The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian theory . . These objections to current neo-Darwinian theory are very widely held among biologists generally; and we must on no account, I think, make light of them.”

Other lecturers at the convention:

-Leading computer scientist (thorough research on the deficiencies of evolution), Schutzenberger, Marcel-Paul, http://combinatorics.math.upenn.edu/...ml/v3i1f1.html, verified that the computers used in the analysis were capable of completely running all of evolutions mathematical probabilities in question. His results showed the statistical impossibilites of evolution.

-George Wald, researcher, Nobel Prize winner (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1967/wald-bio.html)
He explained his research on hemoglobin and how mutations (just one of any kind, of any type of mutation) of the hemoglobin would certainly cause it to not function properly.

“One only has to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet, we are here as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation” (I posted this quote to show that even with glaring impossibilities in front of the evolutionist, they deny reason, to accept a faulty premise)

-Murray Eden, MIT researcher/publisher, showed the impossibilities for single ordered pair gene’s to be produced by DNA mutations in E. Colli. His sample length for the probability analysis was 5 billion years, which is greater than the estimated age of the Solar System and Earth given geological data. (http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html)
“His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (1012) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin (red blood cells).
Hemoglobin has two chains, called alpha and beta. A minimum of 120 mutations would be required to convert alpha to beta. At least 34 of those changes require changeovers in 2 or 3 nucleotides. Yet, *Eden pointed out that, if a single nucleotide change occurs through mutation, the result ruins the blood and kills the organism.”
(Previous information taken from Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Monograph No. 5, Martin Kaplan)


Excerpts from Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution:
“A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute. They clearly refuted neo-Darwinianism in several areas, and showed that its "fitness" and "adaptation" theories were tautologous—little more than circular reasoning. In contrast, some of the biologists who spoke at the convention could not see the light. They understood bugs and turtles, but could grasp neither the mathematical impossibilities of evolutionary theory nor the broad picture of how thoroughly defunct evolution really is.”
The 1966 Convention had a majority consensus that macroevolutions claim to species to species change was mathematically and statistically impossible. There were several follow up meetings (such as the 1969 Alpbach follow-up meeting), all of which arrived at the same conclusion.
Statements concerning probability by leading scientist of the world (I’ll add to this later, I need to find my notes):
Sir Fredrick Hoyle, Cambridge University, Crafoord Prize winner for http://www.crafoordprize.se/press/arkivpressreleases/5.32d4db7210df50fec2d800018163.html remarks: “The speculation of The Origin of the Species turned out to be wrong. It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leaves Paley the ultimate winner”

Other mathematical related problems of Evolution (continued on next post, word limit):

[nightraider]

Claims that microevolution is in fact one the same with macroevolution, which they adhere to each other and microevolution eventually leads to macroevolution is as well statistically impossible. In order for life to have started in the first place a single cell would have needed to be created. Statistical analysis of life coming from non-living matter has proved to be astronomically impossible. Additionally, experimental method and laboratory findings have proved that life cannot be created through non-living matter randomly, even amongst replicating theoretical conditions posed by evolutionist. Following such methods would deem a damaging blow onto evolutions “theory,” as it could not even start, it certainly cannot evolve from this point.

A common defense for evolution is posed by Gould’s theory. This is often used to explain the major gaps in the fossil record, though it posses yet another problem. Gould’s theory in turn may explain the gaps in the fossil record, but the consequence of the theory is that it creates even more statistical discrepancies. With the surge of evolution at specific points in time, it reduces the length interval for evolution to occur. Reducing such an interval creates even lower possibilities of such organisms evolving. At current conservative statistical analysis, evolution is deemed impossible. To argue Gould’s theory would be to magnify such statistical blunders into the realms of absurdity.

I will discuss more recent Evolution conventions as well in the following post.

Tomorrow I am going to discuss in further detail why it’s mathematically impossible, with discussion on DNA, amino acids, proteins and so on. I’ll give a basic run down of RNA and DNA as well.

[nightraider]

Placeholder: Physical Law Violations

[nightraider]

I'll throw a few quotes in to start jogging this section. If it weren't for the incredible lack of fossil evidence of evolution, there may just be some hope for it yet.

George G. Simpson, http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~alroy/lefa/Simpson.html - "Regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologist."

A.J. Marshall - "The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."

H.W. Smith of NYU - "The gap remains unbridged and the best place to start the evaluation of vertebrates is in the imagination"

Herbert Nilsson, University of Lund, Sweden, Professor of Botany, after 40 years of studying Evolution - "The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of materials. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled."

David Kitts, Editor of Evolution Journal - "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionist, the most notorious of which is the presence of gaps in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them"

[nightraider]

Placeholder: Biological impossibilities

[nightraider]

Placeholder: List of resources

Books:
Online Resource Links:

[einheit 13]

Show off (nightraider )........OK, how about an anti-creationism thread. Niether can be proved nor disproved and should be 'taught' hand in hand......

[Bycyclist]

Originally Posted by einheit 13

Show off (nightraider )........OK, how about an anti-creationism thread. Niether can be proved nor disproved and should be 'taught' hand in hand......

Maybe neither can be proven using the "scientific" method of repeatable experimentation, observation, measurement, etc.

However, there is significant "evidentiary" proof more along the lines of legal/evidence proof. Much more along the lines of reasonableness of assertions, logic, best explanation of observed phenomena/circumstances, etc.

very interested in following this thread...I'm sure in spite of potential disagreements, we will all remain civil and look forward to open and mutual sharing of ideas, etc.

[einheit 13]

Originally Posted by Bycyclist

However, there is significant "evidentiary" proof more along the lines of legal/evidence proof.

What is illegal proof??? We all know what an atom looks like right?? has anyone ever seen one, no, but we know thats what it looks like......adaptation is evolution, genes are altered to fit a given need to help in the survival of the species and with that, every now and then a new species (physically simular, genetically different) are made.