Hoover Institute video on Mathematical Challenges to Darwin's Theory

[Audie]

Until you can let go of the idea that "design" means "was designed" this conversation can go nowhere. You atheists are so freaked out by even the slightest inference of a "designer" that you can't accept the idea of design by Itself. DNA is literally the physical embodiment of life form design. It exists to design the structure of living things. Just as gravity exists to design the way physical matter gets arranged in space. But you can't recognize such examples of design by itself when you insist that it isn't design without a designer. So unless you are willing to let go of that insistence, there is no point in my trying to discuss design as a stand alone phenomenon with you.

Telling lies about persons unnamed is
about the worst argument ever

 

[Eric Hyom]

DNA is a good example of existential design.

I agree, evolution seems mathematically impossible without intelligent design - God.

RNA, DNA are like Lego bricks, and every Lego brick has a code which says where it has to end up in relation to every other brick. Imagine sorting out a pile of a trillion Lego bricks, we would use intelligent design to assemble them, but evolution relies on blind random mutation.

Random mutation is needed before natural selection can work. Starting from 3.7 million years ago, there are no organising Hox gene, there are no other genetic organising systems in place. For about three billion years there was not the need for any mutations that would become vertebrae, jaws, eyes, fins, rib cages etc, and life is happy.

Can you imagine a trillion Lego bricks in one big heap, and you had to assemble them in the shape of a fish, complete with its skeleton. You can have as many billions of attempts as you like. There are some conditions, a small fish of around a trillion cells would become full size within about a year. This means you would have to assemble the Lego bricks at the rate of about three billion every day, or about a hundred million bricks every hour for a year. And if this was to be done in some kind of random way, you would need a blindfold to make it more realistic.

How can blind nature come up with an organising system to do this?

 

[gnostic]

ID proponents claim it very specifically doesn't bring God into the equation.

They tried to hide God behind the title Designer, but it is very clear the Discovery Institute is a group of creationists.

You should read the Wedge Strategy, their manifesto that was leaked to the web:

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf​

It revealed their agenda to masquerade Intelligent Design as alternative scientific theory, and their tactics they would use, to promote creationism behind the Intelligent Design.

 

[gnostic]

I agree, evolution seems mathematically impossible without intelligent design - God.

RNA, DNA are like Lego bricks, and every Lego brick has a code which says where it has to end up in relation to every other brick. Imagine sorting out a pile of a trillion Lego bricks, we would use intelligent design to assemble them, but evolution relies on blind random mutation.

Random mutation is needed before natural selection can work. Starting from 3.7 million years ago, there are no organising Hox gene, there are no other genetic organising systems in place. For about three billion years there was not the need for any mutations that would become vertebrae, jaws, eyes, fins, rib cages etc, and life is happy.

Can you imagine a trillion Lego bricks in one big heap, and you had to assemble them in the shape of a fish, complete with its skeleton. You can have as many billions of attempts as you like. There are some conditions, a small fish of around a trillion cells would become full size within about a year. This means you would have to assemble the Lego bricks at the rate of about three billion every day, or about a hundred million bricks every hour for a year. And if this was to be done in some kind of random way, you would need a blindfold to make it more realistic.

How can blind nature come up with an organising system to do this?

Sorry.

Have you seen the actual equations to Intelligent Design?

Can you show these maths for Intelligent Design?

There are no such equations.

Plus, the maths aren’t that important in biology as they are in physics.

But regardless if it is physics, chemistry, biology, Earth science or astronomy. What is very important to sciences, are the physical evidence, experiments, tests, data - all scientific observations - these are what really matters in Natural Sciences - mathematical equations don’t take precedence over testable evidence & data.

Like the explanations and predictions that are proposed in a hypothesis, theory or theoretical model, equations required testing too.

So if the evidence or experiments don’t support the mathematical equations in a hypothesis or theory, then the equations are wrong or not relevant, not evidence or experiments.

The numbers you have given, show no actual equations and no contexts that it applied to “design”, so really your numbers don’t involve any maths at all.

And you have no evidence to support the numbers you have given.

You talk vaguely about fish, as your example. But which fish.

Fishes come in all species, and they ranged in size from the very tiny as the ember tetra, to as large as the whale shark.

The points being, that you wouldn’t expect the ember tetra (2 cm long) and whale shark to have the same numbers of cells.

Hence, your example of number of cells in a fish, is too vague and since you didn’t specify what fish, your numbers have no real context.

And btw, Eric, not all fishes have jaws. Examples, hagfishes and lampreys. In fact, jawless fishes predated jawed fishes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree, evolution seems mathematically impossible without intelligent design - God.

RNA, DNA are like Lego bricks, and every Lego brick has a code which says where it has to end up in relation to every other brick. Imagine sorting out a pile of a trillion Lego bricks, we would use intelligent design to assemble them, but evolution relies on blind random mutation.

Random mutation is needed before natural selection can work. Starting from 3.7 million years ago, there are no organising Hox gene, there are no other genetic organising systems in place. For about three billion years there was not the need for any mutations that would become vertebrae, jaws, eyes, fins, rib cages etc, and life is happy.

Can you imagine a trillion Lego bricks in one big heap, and you had to assemble them in the shape of a fish, complete with its skeleton. You can have as many billions of attempts as you like. There are some conditions, a small fish of around a trillion cells would become full size within about a year. This means you would have to assemble the Lego bricks at the rate of about three billion every day, or about a hundred million bricks every hour for a year. And if this was to be done in some kind of random way, you would need a blindfold to make it more realistic.

How can blind nature come up with an organising system to do this?

What do you mean that there was not a Hox gene 3.7 million years ago? Hox genes occur in every animal, at least that is my understanding. I am open to correction, but this article seems to agree:

Hox gene - Wikipedia

Perhaps you meant 3.7 billion years ago. In that case I would reply "So what?" We have had almost 4 billion years of evolution since then. And your analogy is so failed I do not even know where to begin.

 

[Audie]

Sorry.

Have you seen the actual equations to Intelligent Design?

Can you show these maths for Intelligent Design?

There are no such equations.

Plus, the maths aren’t that important in biology as they are in physics.

But regardless if it is physics, chemistry, biology, Earth science or astronomy. What is very important to sciences, are the physical evidence, experiments, tests, data - all scientific observations - these are what really matters in Natural Sciences - mathematical equations don’t take precedence over testable evidence & data.

Like the explanations and predictions that are proposed in a hypothesis, theory or theoretical model, equations required testing too.

So if the evidence or experiments don’t support the mathematical equations in a hypothesis or theory, then the equations are wrong or not relevant, not evidence or experiments.

The numbers you have given, show no actual equations and no contexts that it applied to “design”, so really your numbers don’t involve any maths at all.

And you have no evidence to support the numbers you have given.

You talk vaguely about fish, as your example. But which fish.

Fishes come in all species, and they ranged in size from the very tiny as the ember tetra, to as large as the whale shark.

The points being, that you wouldn’t expect the ember tetra (2 cm long) and whale shark to have the same numbers of cells.

Hence, your example of number of cells in a fish, is too vague and since you didn’t specify what fish, your numbers have no real context.

And btw, Eric, not all fishes have jaws. Examples, hagfishes and lampreys. In fact, jawless fishes predated jawed fishes.

Hagfish are not fish

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hagfish are not fish

Are sharks fish? I would like your definition of fish. It is probably one not adhered to by all biologists.

 

[PureX]

I agree, evolution seems mathematically impossible without intelligent design - God.

What it seems and what is is may not be the same result. The idea and recognition of design does not necessitate the idea and recognition of a designer. The presence of order and complexity does not necessitate the presence of an intelligent creator of that order and complexity. These conditions may be used as evidence of such, logically, but they are not by themselves, proof.

So for you to claim it "impossible" to be otherwise is not reasonable. If we're going to ask the atheist to be willing question their doubt, we have to ask the theist to be willing to question their belief.

 

[Eric Hyom]

The numbers you have given, show no actual equations and no contexts that it applied to “design”, so really your numbers don’t involve any maths at all.

And you have no evidence to support the numbers you have given.

The devil is always in the detail, and the detail has to be correct.

I was referring to any smallish fish from about 400 -500 million years ago, that had around a trillion cells, and became fully grown in about a year. That would mean it had about a year to sort a trillion cells out, about three billion a day or about a hundred million cells every hour for about a year. What natural forces could come up with this kind of organising system and at this speed?

 

[PureX]

The devil is always in the detail, and the detail has to be correct.

I was referring to any smallish fish from about 400 -500 million years ago, that had around a trillion cells, and became fully grown in about a year. That would mean it had about a year to sort a trillion cells out, about three billion a day or about a hundred million cells every hour for about a year. What natural forces could come up with this kind of organising system and at this speed?

That isn't the question. The question is where did these 'natural (organizing) forces' come from? That existence is governed by 'natural forces' is not really in question. The question is how did they come to be?

 

[gnostic]

Hagfish are not fish

Maybe, maybe not.

What it is, is uncertain, its status is still under review.

 

[gnostic]

The devil is always in the detail, and the detail has to be correct.

I was referring to any smallish fish from about 400 -500 million years ago, that had around a trillion cells, and became fully grown in about a year. That would mean it had about a year to sort a trillion cells out, about three billion a day or about a hundred million cells every hour for about a year. What natural forces could come up with this kind of organising system and at this speed?

Sorry, Eric.

You didn’t specify which species of fish, because as I have given you examples, the adult of the ember tetra would only grow 2cm in length and won’t weigh much, while a whale shark on the other hand, have average length of 9 metres for male shark, and female of around 14 m and weigh 35 tonne for that length.

It is obvious ember tetra and whale shark won’t have the same number of masses, which also means they won’t have the same numbers of cells.

Furthermore, if you are going to talk of fossils that are 300 or 400 million years old, you would estimate the numbers of cells of only the fossilized skeletal remains. It would be guessing games as to how many cells it would have when they were alive that include all the living tissues and organs existed.

But you still haven’t given me any clue as to which species of fishes you talking about, all you are doing throwing some numbers around about the number of cells, so your numbers have no context.

So try again.which fish are you talking about?

 

[Revoltingest]

Are sharks fish? I would like your definition of fish. It is probably one not adhered to by all biologists.

Fish have backbones.
(Sharks have them, but hagfish don't.)
And they're great deep fried.
Hagfish - Wikipedia

 

[Revoltingest]

Hagfish are not fish

The way creation scientists aren't scientists.
We never do see any real math behind their ambitious claims.

 

[Audie]

The way creation scientists aren't scientists.
We never do see any real math behind their ambitious claims.

IF they had reality on their side there'd
be no discussion.

Certainly no need for "Math" tricks,
fakes like paluxy man tracks and all
the other phoniness that is endlessly
trotted out.

 

[Audie]

Maybe, maybe not.

What it is, is uncertain, its status is still under review.

Taxonomy is always "under review".

 

[metis]

The devil is always in the detail, and the detail has to be correct.

I was referring to any smallish fish from about 400 -500 million years ago, that had around a trillion cells, and became fully grown in about a year. That would mean it had about a year to sort a trillion cells out, about three billion a day or about a hundred million cells every hour for about a year. What natural forces could come up with this kind of organising system and at this speed?

Let me just say, welcome here to RF!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fish have backbones.
(Sharks have them, but hagfish don't.)
And they're great deep fried.
Hagfish - Wikipedia

The article says that they had them. So they should still be fish. Cladistics is the correct way to classify life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The way creation scientists aren't scientists.
We never do see any real math behind their ambitious claims.

Creation scientists do not follow the scientific method. They have no scientific evidence for creationism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The devil is always in the detail, and the detail has to be correct.

I was referring to any smallish fish from about 400 -500 million years ago, that had around a trillion cells, and became fully grown in about a year. That would mean it had about a year to sort a trillion cells out, about three billion a day or about a hundred million cells every hour for about a year. What natural forces could come up with this kind of organising system and at this speed?

The same sort of organizing systems that govern the growth of small animals with a short lifespan today. Why is this a problem in your mind?