Mathematical Challenges to Darwinism

Sea Breeze

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=678&v=noj4phMT9OE&feature=emb_logo

These scientists all seem to agree that the traditional view Darwinism cannot possibly be true.

cofty

These scientists all seem to agree...

There are no scientists in that conversation. You might as well post a video of a hairdresser, a postman, a plumber and a gardener chatting about why gravity is bullshit.

Stephen Meyer - philosopher
David Gelernter - artist
David Berlinski - author
Peter Robinson - author

cofty

I haven't watched it yet but I'm going to guess they waffle about the unlikeliness of a protein molecule. Am I right?

Do they acknowledge redundancy? Did you know that the number of possible amino acid sequences that would result in a functional Cytochrome C protein molecule has been calculated to be a billion times larger than all the atoms in the known universe and all of those combinations would work equally well?

Did you know that each of those amino acid sequences can be constructed by numerous different sequences of DNA bases? The "language" of DNA is made up of just 4 "letters" - A,C,G and T.

Sequences of letters are read off in groups of 3 called codons.

ACGGCCTCGAATGCCTTC would be read as ACG GCC TCG AAT GCC TTC

If you do the maths you will see that there are 64 different codons or "words" that can be produced by this method.

A codon is comparable to the instructions for making one amino acid. There are a collection of 20 amino acids that living things can choose from to assemble proteins. (Actually a 21st can be assembled from the "stop" codon)

This is where the word redundancy comes in. There are 20 amino acids to be made but many more codons available.

It turns out that codons are often not too fussy about the third letter. If you want to make the amino acid alanine for example the codons GCT, GCC, GCA, or GCG will all do equally well.

Amino acids combine together like oddly shaped magnets that build a shape with various recesses and bumps. It is the physical shape of the molecule that does the work and it doesn't matter how you achieve that shape.

Then bear in mind that a shape that is approximately right will also function - just not as efficiently as the perfect shape. That gives us many more ways to make a functioning protein molecule that can later be shaped by evolution.

Imagine standing in a theatre in front of an audience of 10,000 people and saying something like 'how unlikely was is that every individual would end up here in your exact seat in this theatre on at precise moment?' It sounds impressive but actually it's nonsense. Any 10,000 individuals sat in any seat would still be an audience.

There are so many fallacies in conversations among creationists who hide from informed criticism. I would be happy to go through the video and point out more of their errors but I suspect that just like Hooby you will fail to engage in the conversation.

The Fall Guy

Definition of a scientist:

Someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, making a hypothesis and testing it, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.

(https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-a-scientist/

Sea Breeze

Stephen C. Meyer, Ph.D - Philosophy of Science., University of Cambridge.

David Gelernter, Phd - Computer Science., Yale University

David Berlinski Phd - Philosophy., Princeton University. Postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University.

What I liked about the three scientists in the video is that they all have different perspectives and are not in agreement on many points, for different reasons. They frame the arguments well.

Cofty,

There are hundreds of Phd. scientistis of biology, chemistry and genetics (as well as hundreds from other related fields) who have signed a manifesto stating that they are skeptical of Darwinism.

cofty

So you agree there is nobody in the video who is qualified to debunk one of the most fundamental facts in all of science. Just a bunch of philosophers, artists and authors shooting the breeze.

Actually you frame this thread as if it was about evolution but I bet most of the conversation is actually about abiogenesis.

I posted a very detailed explanation of why their prognostications about the probability of evolution is much mistaken. Predictably you ignored every word of it. Mustn't let facts get in the way of religious dogma.

cofty

Okay I'm dipping into the conversation by watching a few minutes here and there at random. Every time so far I find them saying things that are just plain wrong and that has been thoroughly debunked by actual scientists.

I can see why someone who has never read a biology textbook in their life might be impressed but a high school student who paid attention in class could see through it

Sea Breeze why not tell me the one argument from this conversation that you find most compelling and present it in your own words and I will accept the challenge of responding to it in defence of evolution.

Half banana

I wonder what proportion of Darwin dissenters are NOT Christians?

Christianity is not built on science but beliefs. Mere beliefs! Unverifiable beliefs.

The believer's world view and self worth are shaped from the expectation that the Bible is telling the truth.This means they are highly motivated to see evidence even where none exists to provide a support for their religious world. Just like it is with JWs, the religious 'imperatives' come before anything else.

In the spirit of human enquiry it is indeed worthwhile testing the veracity of Evolution-- but it has been tested for 150 years and nobody has serious doubts from a scientific perspective

The anthropologist and psychologist would have to conclude that for some people, including the very well educated, the trade off from holding a religious belief is greater than their need to find sound evidence for its existence.

Vidiot

All academic, really, IMO.

Creationists reject evolution for primarily ideological reasons.

Not scientific ones.

iwantoutnow

How do you say it - TotalBullshit.

Mathematical Challenges to Darwinism

Share this