Forum
»
"Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution"
01-25-2023, 04:30 PM
-
#61
- MichaelMcFail
- Banned
-
- MichaelMcFail
- Banned
- Join Date: Jan 2023
- Posts: 4,454
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
Originally Posted By GreatOldOne⏩
Yeah I mean the model has to also fit experimental data.No, they're not fine. They're no better than my nose is designed because glasses fit.
01-25-2023, 04:31 PM
-
#62
- MichaelMcFail
- Banned
-
- MichaelMcFail
- Banned
- Join Date: Jan 2023
- Posts: 4,454
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
Originally Posted By DDSF1⏩
inb4 dogkrackTwo of the three people being interviewed in the OP are Jewish. One is an atheist and the other is agnostic. You have no idea what you are talking about, watch the video first.
01-25-2023, 04:32 PM
-
#63
- isingmodel
- Registered User
-
- isingmodel
- Registered User
- Join Date: Mar 2019
- Age: 56
- Posts: 11,925
- Rep Power: 57442
-
-
Originally Posted By DDSF1⏩
Fuking lol. Just realised one of the guys in the vid is Meyer, the guy who states in his book that he is starting from the assumption that god exists and trying to retcon ID into biology to fit his preconceived conclusion.They are raising some doubts and questioning certain aspects. It is very interesting. I stress--watch it and think about what they are raising, hence the title "Mathematical challenges..."
Meyer's basic argument is that the probability of any functional protein being assembled in the perfect order that it is is incredibly low, thus natural selection is improbable and intelligent design must be the answer.
He of course expects his viewers to be idiots who aren't going to look any of this up, so he thinks this is a powerful argument - but in reality protein sequences can vary a huge amount while still performing the exact same or very similar function.
Most importantly producing functional proteins out of randomness has been demonstrated, experimentally, numerous times:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11287961/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15635-8
https://www.nature.com/articles/35070613
Which refutes his entire premise - of course this is why he has never published anything in a related academic journal and resorts to doing interviews for political thinktanks and evangelicals.
Would never waste a second reading his book about the Cambrian explosion, but highly qualified biologists have taken every claim in it apart which is much more than anyone here can do:
https://discourse.peacefulscience.or...-doubt/2821/27
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013...opeless-2.html
Of course an academic fraud like OP would be bowled over by something like this.
Misc Crypto Crew
BTC to $200k
01-25-2023, 04:35 PM
-
#64
- MichaelMcFail
- Banned
-
- MichaelMcFail
- Banned
- Join Date: Jan 2023
- Posts: 4,454
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
Originally Posted By isingmodel⏩
^ding ding dingFuking lol. Just realised one of the guys in the vid is Meyer, the guy who states in his book that he is starting from the assumption that god exists and trying to retcon ID into biology to fit his preconceived conclusion.
Meyer's basic argument is that the probability of any functional protein being assembled in the perfect order that it is is incredibly low, thus natural selection is improbable and intelligent design must be the answer.
He of course expects his viewers to be idiots who aren't going to look any of this up, so he thinks this is a powerful argument - but in reality protein sequences can vary a huge amount while still performing the exact same or very similar function.
Most importantly producing functional proteins out of randomness has been demonstrated, experimentally, numerous times:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11287961/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15635-8
https://www.nature.com/articles/35070613
Which refutes his entire premise - of course this is why he has never published anything in a related academic journal and resorts to doing interviews for political thinktanks and evangelicals.
Would never waste a second reading his book about the Cambrian explosion, but highly qualified biologists have taken every claim in it apart which is much more than anyone here can do:
https://discourse.peacefulscience.or...-doubt/2821/27
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013...opeless-2.html
Of course an academic fraud like OP would be bowled over by something like this.
Meyer's basic argument is that the probability of any functional protein being assembled in the perfect order that it is is incredibly low, thus natural selection is improbable and intelligent design must be the answer.
He of course expects his viewers to be idiots who aren't going to look any of this up, so he thinks this is a powerful argument - but in reality protein sequences can vary a huge amount while still performing the exact same or very similar function.
Most importantly producing functional proteins out of randomness has been demonstrated, experimentally, numerous times:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11287961/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15635-8
https://www.nature.com/articles/35070613
Which refutes his entire premise - of course this is why he has never published anything in a related academic journal and resorts to doing interviews for political thinktanks and evangelicals.
Would never waste a second reading his book about the Cambrian explosion, but highly qualified biologists have taken every claim in it apart which is much more than anyone here can do:
https://discourse.peacefulscience.or...-doubt/2821/27
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013...opeless-2.html
Of course an academic fraud like OP would be bowled over by something like this.
That's why I say wait for the publication.
Spoiler!
There will never be one lmao.
01-25-2023, 04:36 PM
-
#65
Originally Posted By isingmodel⏩
The angry fraud reappears. He still has not watched the video or read the essay. The other two are an atheist and an agnostic. The interview was the three discussing mathematical challenges to the standard evolution theory. Put at least a little bit of effort into it. Please stop embarrassing yourself.Fuking lol. Just realised one of the guys in the vid is Meyer, the guy who states in his book that he is starting from the assumption that god exists and trying to retcon ID into biology to fit his preconceived conclusion.
Meyer's basic argument is that the probability of any functional protein being assembled in the perfect order that it is is incredibly low, thus natural selection is improbable and intelligent design must be the answer.
He of course expects his viewers to be idiots who aren't going to look any of this up, so he thinks this is a powerful argument - but in reality protein sequences can vary a huge amount while still performing the exact same or very similar function.
Most importantly producing functional proteins out of randomness has been demonstrated, experimentally, numerous times:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11287961/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15635-8
https://www.nature.com/articles/35070613
Which refutes his entire premise - of course this is why he has never published anything in a related academic journal and resorts to doing interviews for political thinktanks and evangelicals.
Would never waste a second reading his book about the Cambrian explosion, but highly qualified biologists have taken every claim in it apart which is much more than anyone here can do:
https://discourse.peacefulscience.or...-doubt/2821/27
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013...opeless-2.html
Of course an academic fraud like OP would be bowled over by something like this.
Meyer's basic argument is that the probability of any functional protein being assembled in the perfect order that it is is incredibly low, thus natural selection is improbable and intelligent design must be the answer.
He of course expects his viewers to be idiots who aren't going to look any of this up, so he thinks this is a powerful argument - but in reality protein sequences can vary a huge amount while still performing the exact same or very similar function.
Most importantly producing functional proteins out of randomness has been demonstrated, experimentally, numerous times:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11287961/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15635-8
https://www.nature.com/articles/35070613
Which refutes his entire premise - of course this is why he has never published anything in a related academic journal and resorts to doing interviews for political thinktanks and evangelicals.
Would never waste a second reading his book about the Cambrian explosion, but highly qualified biologists have taken every claim in it apart which is much more than anyone here can do:
https://discourse.peacefulscience.or...-doubt/2821/27
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013...opeless-2.html
Of course an academic fraud like OP would be bowled over by something like this.
01-25-2023, 04:37 PM
-
#66
- MichaelMcFail
- Banned
-
- MichaelMcFail
- Banned
- Join Date: Jan 2023
- Posts: 4,454
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
Originally Posted By DDSF1⏩
lol strong ignoring the counterargumentsThe angry fraud reappears. He still has not watched the video or read the essay. The other two are an atheist and an agnostic. The interview was the three discussing mathematical challenges to the standard evolution theory. Put at least a little bit of effort into it. Please stop embarrassing yourself.
01-25-2023, 04:37 PM
-
#67
Originally Posted By MichaelMcFail⏩
You have never read a publication in your life. You have never read a book in your life. You have never watched a youtube video longer than five minutes. Stop embarrassing yourself.^ding ding ding
That's why I say wait for the publication.
Spoiler!
That's why I say wait for the publication.
Spoiler!
There will never be one lmao.
01-25-2023, 04:38 PM
-
#68
- MichaelMcFail
- Banned
-
- MichaelMcFail
- Banned
- Join Date: Jan 2023
- Posts: 4,454
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
Originally Posted By DDSF1⏩
I've actually written several publications champ. And I've read thousands of books. And I routinely watch youtube videos longer than 5 mins. Wrong on all counts.You have never read a publication in your life. You have never read a book in your life. You have never watched a youtube video longer than five minutes. Stop embarrassing yourself.
01-25-2023, 04:40 PM
-
#69
Originally Posted By MichaelMcFail⏩
Neither of you have watched the video. You are both very stupid, and absolute failures in life. Both of you have never read an article in your life. Isingfraud just looked up Meyer and found other peoples articles that link to those articles he linked. He is, as always, a fraud and an idiot. That is why he focused on just Meyer.lol strong ignoring the counterarguments
01-25-2023, 04:41 PM
-
#70
Originally Posted By MichaelMcFail⏩
lololol fantasyland wincel, is not real, it is a fantasy. Got it champ? You and Ising are quite literally two of the stupidest miscers. Sad lolI've actually written several publications champ. And I've read thousands of books. And I routinely watch youtube videos longer than 5 mins. Wrong on all counts.
01-25-2023, 04:42 PM
-
#71
- MichaelMcFail
- Banned
-
- MichaelMcFail
- Banned
- Join Date: Jan 2023
- Posts: 4,454
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
Originally Posted By DDSF1⏩
Yep we are part of the globohomo conspiracy to suppress these fine intellectuals.Neither of you have watched the video. You are both very stupid, and absolute failures in life. Both of you have never read an article in your life. Isingfraud just looked up Meyer and found other peoples articles that link to those articles he linked. He is, as always, a fraud and an idiot. That is why he focused on just Meyer.
No publication, no care.
01-25-2023, 04:43 PM
-
#72
- MichaelMcFail
- Banned
-
- MichaelMcFail
- Banned
- Join Date: Jan 2023
- Posts: 4,454
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
Originally Posted By DDSF1⏩
Well gl with your theory brah. Hope it catches on.lololol fantasyland wincel, is not real, it is a fantasy. Got it champ? You and Ising are quite literally two of the stupidest miscers. Sad lol
01-25-2023, 04:45 PM
-
#73
Originally Posted By MichaelMcFail⏩
You are so pathetic wincel. Your poor parents, both of you, as you are nothing more than parasites that fraud for a few dozen people online. Stop with your idiocy and go get a job and at least start helping out with the bills wincel and ising. Two idiots that keep making fools of themselves.Yep we are part of the globohomo conspiracy to suppress these fine intellectuals.
No publication, no care.
No publication, no care.
01-25-2023, 04:50 PM
-
#74
- MichaelMcFail
- Banned
-
- MichaelMcFail
- Banned
- Join Date: Jan 2023
- Posts: 4,454
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
Originally Posted By DDSF1⏩
lololYou are so pathetic wincel. Your poor parents, both of you, as you are nothing more than parasites that fraud for a few dozen people online. Stop with your idiocy and go get a job and at least start helping out with the bills wincel and ising. Two idiots that keep making fools of themselves.
publish ur theory brah
what's the problem brah
01-25-2023, 04:50 PM
-
#75
Existence comes first, math must come second when trying to explain / approximate it.
I'm not sure how you would begin to challenge a broad theory like evolution, purely with maths?
It wasn't based on math in the first place, was it? Observation of differences in species, fossil records, rapid changes when species selectively bred, etc.
I guess you could focus on some extremely small, observable part, of species change to prove / disprove the principle of evolution, and mathematically model it? Dunno..
I'm not sure how you would begin to challenge a broad theory like evolution, purely with maths?
It wasn't based on math in the first place, was it? Observation of differences in species, fossil records, rapid changes when species selectively bred, etc.
I guess you could focus on some extremely small, observable part, of species change to prove / disprove the principle of evolution, and mathematically model it? Dunno..
01-25-2023, 04:55 PM
-
#76
- MichaelMcFail
- Banned
-
- MichaelMcFail
- Banned
- Join Date: Jan 2023
- Posts: 4,454
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
Originally Posted By Channel83⏩
Correct. You'd need to produce some competing theory with a rational/mathematical explanation that reproduces all observed data to date.Existence comes first, math must come second when trying to explain / approximate it.
I'm not sure how you would begin to challenge a broad theory like evolution, purely with maths?
It wasn't based on math in the first place, was it? Observation of differences in species, fossil records, rapid changes when species selectively bred, etc.
I guess you could focus on some extremely small, observable part, of species change to prove / disprove the principle of evolution, and mathematically model it? Dunno..
I'm not sure how you would begin to challenge a broad theory like evolution, purely with maths?
It wasn't based on math in the first place, was it? Observation of differences in species, fossil records, rapid changes when species selectively bred, etc.
I guess you could focus on some extremely small, observable part, of species change to prove / disprove the principle of evolution, and mathematically model it? Dunno..
01-25-2023, 04:59 PM
-
#77
01-25-2023, 05:04 PM
-
#78
Originally Posted By Jayarbie⏩
You realize you're a hairless monkey on a spec of dust flying in a seemingly infinite void?"I have a mathematical challenge to Darwin's evolution"
Ok, what is it?
"Muh sky wizard made things. It's math."
LOL, OK.
Ok, what is it?
"Muh sky wizard made things. It's math."
LOL, OK.
Oh but you have the answers to the most ancient of questions.
lol the gall.
300 Forever
Bookmarks
-
- Digg
-
- del.icio.us
-

- StumbleUpon
-
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts