Soxcat

Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

Recommended Posts

Well these guys aren't pro God or anti God.  They are scientifically looking at Darwin's theory.  Basically the conclusion is pretty simple.  Darwin did not have the scientific knowledge we have now concerning how cells work and DNA.  Thus is evolutionary concepts were based on what he knew at the time and they state Darwin would have made some modifications to his theory had he known more (such that DNA codes all molecules and is made up of strings of 20 different amino acids).  

 

Basically the conclusion is that Darwin's theory is wrong and can't be right.  This is explained a number of ways including the Cambrian explosion and mathematics.  It is an intellectual discussion I thought some might enjoy.  For the rest of you go ahead and remain ignorant.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Soxcat said:

Well these guys aren't pro God or anti God.  They are scientifically looking at Darwin's theory.  Basically the conclusion is pretty simple.  Darwin did not have the scientific knowledge we have now concerning how cells work and DNA.  Thus is evolutionary concepts were based on what he knew at the time and they state Darwin would have made some modifications to his theory had he known more (such that DNA codes all molecules and is made up of strings of 20 different amino acids).  

 

Basically the conclusion is that Darwin's theory is wrong and can't be right.  This is explained a number of ways including the Cambrian explosion and mathematics.  It is an intellectual discussion I thought some might enjoy.  For the rest of you go ahead and remain ignorant.  

Show us the peered review article that states Darwinism is wrong. We'll wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy you are an idiot aren't you.  Go ahead and disagree with the experts here just to be an ass.

How much of the discussion did you watch?

 

You do realize Darwin wrote his "theory" in the 19th century..... right.  We have way more information and fossil records now.  We understand how genetics works and DNA (although we still have a huge amount to learn). I guess you think the earth is still flat.

 

Again, this doesn't prove or disprove the existence of God if that is what is bothering you.  

 

And by the way, there are plenty of peer reviews questioning the foundations of Darwin's theory.  

https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/peer-reviewed-article-critical-of-darwinism-by-nas-member-evolution-by-absence-of-selection/

https://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice try earthers boy. Darwinism is a cornerstone of scientific theory. If it were even close to being discredited or questioned it would be massive news. Its not except inside your little fake science bubble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, oldschool said:

Nice try earthers boy. Darwinism is a cornerstone of scientific theory. If it were even close to being discredited or questioned it would be massive news. Its not except inside your little fake science bubble.

Would it? How many careers/research grants would such discrediting/questioning threaten? Nevermind that, how many philosophical points of view would be threatened? You think those who prescribe to religions are the only ones who are dogmatic in their beliefs/opinions or who'd be willing to cover shit up if it protected their ideologies or way of life?

 

You think just because someone is a scientist it means they only deal in cold, hard, objective facts and are only ever calculatingly noble in their pursuit of said facts? If you believe that then I bet you'd also believe there's no such thing as a pedo Catholic priest. After all, such heinously devious acts are an abominable sin and a priest is a priest because he'd never do that kind of thing, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, NashvilleNinja said:

Would it? How many careers/research grants would such discrediting/questioning threaten? Nevermind that, how many philosophical points of view would be threatened? You think those who prescribe to religions are the only ones who are dogmatic in their beliefs/opinions or who'd be willing to cover shit up if it protected their ideologies or way of life?

 

You think just because someone is a scientist it means they only deal in cold, hard, objective facts and are only ever calculatingly noble in their pursuit of said facts? If you believe that then I bet you'd also believe there's no such thing as a pedo Catholic priest. After all, such heinously devious acts are an abominable sin and a priest is a priest because he'd never do that kind of thing, right?

Not this bullshit again. Do you understand how the scientific method works? This is just a poorly veiled attempt to discredit evolution which has already stood the test of time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is new with it?  It seems the same old argument - the odds are so high that the world is where it is. And it seems the same crowd making it: a conservative organization, Hoover Institution,  with a panel of authors published by a conservative publisher, Claremont Institute. 

Edited by 9 Nines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Soxcat said:

Well these guys aren't pro God or anti God. 

They are pro intelligent design. In the case of Berlinski, it is the core of his professional life:

 

A critic of the theory of evolution, Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a Seattle-based think tank that is a hub of the intelligent design movement.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berlinski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.