Why Darwinian Evolutionists Hate Mathematicians

[Celtic Rose]

In other words it would take far too long to evolve from single celled creatures to what we have now in the timeline put forward by evolutionists?

Pretty much. 

[Carl]

Pretty much. 

Plus what they were talking about was a negative result of the mutations.."diseases" was the word used.

[The Night Owl]

So they studied one family, found a total of 4 unnoticeable mutations to the DNA sequencing that resulted in no significant change over 13 generations.  

I don't think anybody questions whether DNA can change and mutate, the question is whether those mutations can actually be significant enough to create a new species.  I think the original point still stands.  To evolve from a single celled organism to a complex multi-celled organism requires frequent huge evolutionary changes. To produce the vast range of life that exists on earth would require extreme, near constant mutations, and we should be able to still see huge evolutionary leaps.

The rate of mutation seems low but when one considers the size of the human population and the fact that each sperm cell carries about 2 mutations it's easy to see that there's a whole lot of mutating going on.

[Celtic Rose]

The rate of mutation seems low but when one considers the size of the human population and the fact that each sperm cell carries about 2 mutations it's easy to see that there's a whole lot of mutating going on.

Firstly, a study that only studies one family proves nothing.  Secondly, the human population of the world is over 6.5 billion.  According to this study, approximately 4 out of 13 people in every generation should have some sort of genetic mutation, and yet humans are still distinctly human with no dramatic evolutionary changes in our entire history.  Yes, we have gotten taller, etc, but we are still absolutely the same species as we have been since the earliest humans.  So, obviously, any mutations that have occurred have been so minor so as not to really affect humanity. 

How exactly do you think this study proves that species evolve into new species? 

[TVDOC]

How exactly do you think this study proves that species evolve into new species? 

Additionally, why have we not seen any completely new species evolve for the past 505 million years?  If Darwin was correct, we should have seen at least one during the roughly 10,000 years of known human existance........we've seen extinctions, certainly, but nothing new has been added by the evolutionary process........

Makes you wonder.....

doc

[thundley4]

The rate of mutation seems low but when one considers the size of the human population and the fact that each sperm cell carries about 2 mutations it's easy to see that there's a whole lot of mutating going on.

Really?  Where are all these mutations?  We have seen evidence of chromosomal damage that causes birth defects, but not just random mutations.  With 6 billion plus living laboratories, surely there would be some mutations visible.

[The Night Owl]

Additionally, why have we not seen any completely new species evolve for the past 505 million years?  If Darwin was correct, we should have seen at least one during the roughly 10,000 years of known human existance........we've seen extinctions, certainly, but nothing new has been added by the evolutionary process........

http://www.talkorigins.or...logical_intermediates_ex1

[The Night Owl]

Really?  Where are all these mutations?  We have seen evidence of chromosomal damage that causes birth defects, but not just random mutations.  With 6 billion plus living laboratories, surely there would be some mutations visible.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

[Carl]

http://www.talkorigins.or...logical_intermediates_ex1

In the case just mentioned, we have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps" (Sereno 1999), represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others (Carroll 1997, pp. 306-323; Norell and Clarke 2001; Sereno 1999; Xu et al. 1999; Xu et al. 2000; Xu et al. 2002). All have the expected possible morphologies (see Figure 3.1.1 from Prediction 3.1 for a few examples), including organisms such as Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, and the famous "BPM 1 3-13" (a dromaeosaur from China now named Cryptovolans pauli; Czerkas et al. 2002 ) which are flightless bipedal dinosaurs with modern-style feathers (Chen et al. 1998 ; Qiang et al. 1998; Norell et al. 2002). Additionally, several similar flightless dinosaurs have been found covered with nascent evolutionary precursors to modern feathers (branched feather-like integument indistinguishable from the contour feathers of true birds), including Sinornithosaurus ("Bambiraptor"), Sinosauropteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Microraptor, and an unnamed dromaeosaur specimen, NGMC 91, informally called "Dave" (Ji et al. 2001). The All About Archaeopteryx FAQ gives a detailed listing of the various characters of Archaeopteryx which are intermediate between reptiles and modern birds.

In other words...when we want to call it a dinosaur we will call it a dinosaur,when we want to call it a bird we will call it a bird.
Show me how they can prove that there was a mutation or mutations that produced the feathers.
It is taking a conclusion that has been reached and wrapping all they can into it without proof.

[MrsSmith]

They also hate fossils...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/a.../eu_sci_fossil_footprints

4-legged animals emerged earlier than thought

...

An expert unconnected with the research said the find would force experts to reconsider a critical period in evolution when sea-based vertebrates took their first steps toward becoming dinosaurs, mammals and — eventually — human beings.

"It blows the whole story out of the water, so to speak," said Jenny Clack, a paleontologist at Cambridge University.

...

Imagine that...a fossil discovery that "changes everything"...again.     In point of fact, I heard this discussed on the radio the other day, the tetrapods actually showed up before the fish that were supposed to be their ancestors.   

[The Night Owl]

In other words...when we want to call it a dinosaur we will call it a dinosaur,when we want to call it a bird we will call it a bird.
Show me how they can prove that there was a mutation or mutations that produced the feathers.
It is taking a conclusion that has been reached and wrapping all they can into it without proof.

Evidence of a genetic link between birds and dinosaurs was found only recently so I don't blame anyone for not knowing about it. Anyway, here it is: http://www.scienceblog.co...039-link-birds-16088.html

[Duke Nukum]

The basic problem most humans have is we simply think backward.  We think from effect to cause, or try to, and it is easy to.  It is easy to buy into the illusion that the material world is the Alpha and the Omega.   The Aleph and the Tav.  We think the building started with the brick and mortar even though most of us know it started with the idea, with the thought.  Somebody needed a building and they thought about it and they hire an expert in dreaming up buildings to think up the building's design and then a whole bunch of other thoughts have to be brought into alignment, building permits and whatever else has to be done these days to manifest a building.  And then finally after all the thinking is done, the brick and mortar are brought to bear by the men who have specialized in this aspect of building manifestation.  But that is the final stage, the the starting stage.

So, however new species come into existence I don't think they necessarily need an old species to evolve from.  For all I know, they may just decide it is time to exist and so they do.

[FGL]

For all I know, they may just decide it is time to exist and so they do.

 

*gasping like a dying fish on the shore*

That.... that..... *pulls hair out screaming*... *kicks over chalkboard*....

[Carl]

Evidence of a genetic link between birds and dinosaurs was found only recently so I don't blame anyone for not knowing about it. Anyway, here it is: http://www.scienceblog.co...039-link-birds-16088.html

If true it shows that they were similar animals as are dogs and wolves even humans to lesser primates.
It`s last sentence says that mastadons are closely related to elephants..well duh.
That still takes a tremendous leap of faith to suggest that one species of animal has morphed into another.

On the aside,back when I was in school (70s) anything short of pure Darwinism (natural selection) was considered almost blasphemy.
It wasn`t until the 80s that it became accepted that there simply wasn`t enough time for that to have occurred based on observable and verifiable evidence.
Thus came the theory of the hopeful monster as it has been called,evolution occurring in a dramatic leap via mutation.
It is this that as you are aware is almost always detrimental to the animal it may happen to and also seldom able to be reproduced.

However now that is the standard and any challenge to that is viewed as a similar blasphemy.
Strangely in the move from a slow natural selection form to a rapid "overnight" method the accepted dogma has always maintained that only evolution is allowed to be considered.
If the science that once declared pure Darwinism as the origin of life can be discarded why can not the entire concept of evolution be as well if a truly open mind is being used?

[The Night Owl]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/a.../eu_sci_fossil_footprints

Fascinating. Thanks for the news.