Creationists Believe the Darndest Things

It's not my objective to write here my interpretation of his entire book.
You are free to buy or loan it from library and find out on your own.

Darwins theory of evolution is hoax per quantitative analysis and this man did excellent job at transparently demonstrating it.

The rest is irrelevant to me.

No humor.

BTW, if I was Darwinist and if there were no creationists, I would pay to create one. Makes so much easier to perpetrate hoax and claim that Darwins theory is something "scientific as opposed to creationist's view".

In any event, as I stated earlier, it is none of my concern if anyone makes any invalid statement about anything in some other context.
What matters is that Darwin's theory is not scientifically valid one and quantitative analysis clearly demonstrates it.

If anyone who clearly understands this waked up the next morning and claimed that elephants fly, the error of second statement would not negate the validity of the former.

 

Can you demonstrate how quantitative analysis disproves Darwin's idea?

Are you trying to say that there should be far more fossils than just the ones that have so far been found, I might be completely off the point can you clarify?

 

SInce you are consistently refusing to open the book and find out on your own, I will do you a favor and leave a link along with computational methods employed by Fisher (to whom Dr Spetner refers in his work).

With fossils , what we have is fragmentary, tiny, scattered here and there pieces of a huge mosaic which lack interconnecting pieces to solve the puzzle (except in the imagination of Darwinists).
But even if we ignored this obvious lack of physical evidence to support Darwin's theory of evolution, it would still be invalidated per quantitative analysis and fundamental principles of the theory of probability.

 

Give a brief description of your understanding of quantitative analysis if you wouldn't mind.

 

I will,

It's largely an examination of evidence put forward on a theory which is then graded using various dimensions of applicability to its decalred state and the relationships to other data objects are also analysed.

I kind of made that up by the name of the topic
The fallacy here is that there would be no objective measurements to be made persay...it is something that should be done by consensus, thus the findings of an isolated group cannot over rule the findings of a much larger group

 

Does anyone here like epigenetics?

exchanging plasmids and what not...Saw some great stats about how the bacteria/micros of a region were the holders of the genes that gave rise to quite a few traits that the various creeds of earth have

 

I may have asked with this in the past but what do you make of vestigial organs in many animals on Earth today, and the transitional fossils suck as Ambulocetus (or the "'walking whale'"?)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus

The fact that we even find some fossils is precious, if your saying that in order for Evolution to be labeled a genuine fact every single last transitional fossil must be found and documented into a full genetic tree of it's ancestors up to and including you, by your same reasoning we would believe gravity must be thoroughly tested every day, we are still discovering new animals today, the rest of the now extinct and transitional fossils ,make over 99.9% of all life on Earth.



99.9% of all life on the Earth has already went extinct.

 

========================================================

Following is not my understanding of quantitative analysis, but word to word quote from Spetners exchange with Edward Max (btw, it is fairly easy to understand):

"Spetner: The theoretical argument is the following. Evolution requires a long series of steps each consisting of an adaptive mutation followed by natural selection. In this series, each mutation must have a higher selective value than the previous. Thus, the evolving population moves across the adaptive landscape always rising toward higher adaptivity. It is generally accepted that the adaptive landscape is not just one big smooth hill with a single Maximum, but it is many hills of many different heights. Most likely, the population is on a hill that is not the highest in the landscape. It will then get stuck on a local Maximum of adaptivity and will not be able to move from it. This is particularly likely because the steps it takes are very small - only one nucleotide change at a time. The problem is compounded by the lack of freedom of a single nucleotide substitution to cause a change in the encoded amino acid. A single nucleotide substitution does not have the potential to change an amino acid to any one of the other 19. In general, its potential for change is limited to only 5 or 6 others. To evolve off the “dead point” of adaptivity, a larger step, such as the simultaneous change of more than one nucleotide, is required. Moreover, the probability is close to 1 that a single mutation in a population, even though it is adaptive, will disappear without taking over the population (see my book, Chapter 3). Therefore, many adaptive mutations must occur at each step.

The hypermutation in the B cells does this. It achieves all possible single, double, and triple mutations for the immune system, which allows them to obtain the information necessary to match a new antigen. Ordinary mutations, at the normal low rate, cannot add this information - even over long times. I shall explain why. Consider a population of antigen-activated B cells of, say, a billion individuals. In two weeks, there will be about 30 generations. Let’s say the population size will remain stable, so in two weeks there will be a total of 30 billion replications. With a mutation rate of 1 per 1000 nucleotides per replication, there will be an average of 30 million changes in any particular nucleotide during a two-week period. The probability of getting two particular nucleotides to change is one per million replications. Thus in two weeks, there will be an average of 30 thousand changes in any two particular nucleotides. There will be an average of 30 changes in any three particular nucleotides.

How many generations, and how long, would it take to get a particular multiple nucleotide change in a germ cell to have an effect on Neo-Darwinian evolution? Here, the mutation rate is about one per billion nucleotides per replication. Let’s suppose we're doing this experiment with a population of a billion bacteria. Then, in one generation, there will be an average of one change in a particular base. A particular double base change has a probability of one per quintillion, or 10-18. To get one of these would take a billion generations, or about 100,000 years. To get a triple change would take 1014, or a hundred trillion, years. That is why a long waiting time cannot compensate for a low mutation rate. I've given numbers here for a laboratory experiment with bacteria. Many more mutations would be expected world-wide. But the same kind of thing has to happen under NDT with multicelled animals as well. With vertebrates, for example, the breeding populations seldom exceed a few thousand. Multicelled animals would have many fewer mutations than those cited above for bacteria".

 

Oooh theres also that study where they demonstrated evolution in a yeast strain...it spontaneously developed the ability to digest a sugar which it had no ability to before the evolution.

Not only that, but the evolutionary jumps came in stages, discreete and portionally gapped stages.

It seems weird that you wouldn't argue that evolution isn't possible but would argue that we happen to be an exception to natural and observable laws

 

the mutation doesn't have to be from the species, exchange of dna is happening all the time

the junk dna that makes up most of your dna is mostly left over from viruses. Whether or not the genes they implanted were functional idk but it certainly going to push up the influx of new dna

 

Any serious arguments to prove scientific validity of Darwinian theory of evolution? ...

 

Did you read this Spetners book yourself?

 

Will you ever prove that Darwin's theory of evolution is scientifically valid one ? (it's a rhetorical question)

 

rhetorical questions don't need a question mark? (that is not a rhetorical question)

 

Here are some reasons in argument of Darwin's origin of species.

Why do we have vestigil fingers on our feet?

Why do so many human infants get born with tail stubs?

Why do we have the masoidic assembly?

Why do our nasal passages drain into our lungs?

Why are our ankles so damn thin and weak compared to our weight and height? Why are our ribs designed to carry weight horizontally?

Evolutionary scientists have the answers : Creationists do not.

Whales with legs; snakes with legs; snakes with one atrophied lung; embryonic gill slits in ALL land animals; the human jaw too small for the number of teeth it holds (i.e. impacted wisdom teeth). Why would the gods make these worthless, and often dangerous, vestigil features? Scientists know the answer: I've yet to hear a Creationist offer any rational explanation.

didn't even mention the fossil record.

Now with that being said will you site some examples of reasons Darwin's theory of evolution does not work?

 

It wasn't addressed to you

 

Real Answer: We don't know

Prove it !

Irrelevant to me.

What does it prove and how

How do we know who made what why if any?

Why don't you share with us?

Again, this is irrelevant to the fact that Darwin's theory of evolution is scientifically invalid one.

Go ahead, keep mentioning it

Fossil evidence:
"I have two fossils. One of pterodactyl, another of petrified wood (latter is "transitional" between pterodactyl and Big Bang. There is nothing in between to fill the gap , but there can't be anything because fossils are such a rare thing in the first place. Besides, any found remnant of anything is transitional on evolutionary ladder anyway!
Now, how could anyone in their right mind and in light of such convincing empirical evidence as fossil evidence question the scientific validity of Darwin's theory?"

Hmm...

I don't have to.
It is you who claim it's a scientifically valid theory thus by default you are the one who has to prove it.

 

you do have to, because no theory isn't a theory. A theory, law or concept will never fit 100%. your name doesnt fit you 100%...doesn't make your name false, just flawed.

this reminds me of the birther movement

 

No, it simply isn't so.

If you claim that you can become Pope tomorrow I don't have to prove that you can't in order to invalidate your claim.
It is you who has to prove your claim since you are the one making it.


To quote Spetner once again:

 

oh i wasn't arguing that per say...really what i am saying is i don't care if you don't believe in it, since you have LESS to provide than evolutionary theory (NOTE THIS DOESN'T EQUAL NDT) then all you are doing is being an idealist.

To that end, you do not have the standing to deem whether or not evidence is genuine

What is genuine is the demonstration of evolutionary processes existing.

Neo-darwinism was about random chance...it was wrong. What isn't wrong is that it happened on its own accord, in a sense life drove itself because it followed what made sense.

Things like the ten fundemental amino acids for pre-life being a thermodynamic certainty...

It's really really early but the foundations we are building are fucking amazing. Anyway NDT is wrong in the sense that its all a big coincidence, however the seed of a lot of complaints seems based on this idea that of all the random chances on all the worlds in the universe, we happened to be alive on this one...well how could it be any other way? you don't really question why your parents live 2 streets over do you? seems kinda obvious...because its what worked at the time

Ernst Mayr writing in 1984: