1
   

Mathematicians and Darwin

 
 
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2014 07:50 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=S89IskZI740
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 949 • Replies: 11
No top replies

 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2014 11:40 am
@gungasnake,
since Berlinski NEVER has taken a biology or stratigrphy course, he has no appreciation for the work regarding "Deep Time" from the so-called "CambriaN eXPLOSION". tHIS "eXPLOSION" WAS merely a product of the chemistry of life wherein;

1 the cyanobacters had already overwhelmed the planet with free oxygen before the cryogenian period.

2, With excess oxygen available, Alkali oxides and CARBONATES were able to be formed into hard shells so that organisms could deposit exoskeletons and structural skeletons like in proto-fish.(most of these didn't occur until the mid-Cambrian)

This "explosion" is easily evidenced in the fossil record and the chemistry involved has been experimentally proven. The overall "explosion" hs been estimated to hve lasted between 20 and 60 million years(kind of a slow blow-up don't we think?)

Berlinski claims that hes agnostic about ANY story about the origin of life, he just doesn't like evolution (Which, he should understand IS NOT ACTUALLY a story about the origin of life)

I heard Berlinski in a talk once. He gets circular and tries to lean on math as a "proof of concept" when, actually, his concepts are what need work.
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2014 03:14 am
@farmerman,
of course all this without any proof, again!



What a deep mess this evolution religion is in!!!!


You probably don't know which group of scientist laugh and scoff at evolution....


Yep..Mathematicians!!! They can easily see how horrible extremely flawed this disgusting religion really is!


maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2014 06:15 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Quehoniaomath,

This is another example of where you are crazy. In this case, you have some guy on YouTube to back you up, but you are still nuts.
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2014 06:33 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
This is another example of where you are crazy. In this case, you have some guy on YouTube to back you up, but you are still nuts.


I really don't care if you call me nuts.

And, of course you haven't researched any, this is not the only guy!



Figures. To me it really seems evolutin-shite-bollocks-religion-believers, are really blinded and can't see and think outside their box. So they cram things that are outside the box into their box, hence you are calling me nuts, I am a waaaaay waaay outside your little evolutin-shite-bollocks-religion-believers box.

0 Replies
 
carloslebaron
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2014 12:26 am
Berlinski hits the right target when announces that the theory of evolution lacks of evidence and of the explanation of the mechanism for each one of its doctrines.

Believing in the theory of evolution is similar to believe that the earth if flat and square, this is to say, a theory baed in illusions.
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Oct, 2014 12:27 am
@carloslebaron,
Quote:
Berlinski hits the right target when announces that the hypothesis of evolution lacks of evidence and explanation of the mechanism for each one of its doctrines.

Believing in the theory of evolution is similar to believe that the earth if plat and square, this is to say, a theory baed in illusions


Right! Spot on!


Most evolution-religious-fundamentalist can't even look at this information!

They are so far removed from reality it is unbelievable.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2014 08:07 pm
Richard Goldschmidt's write-up of the fruit fly experiments is dated 1940. It should have been illegal to teach evolution after 1940.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2014 08:50 pm
@gungasnake,
       http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/evo/drosophila_experiment.gif
EVIDENCE FOR SPECIATION IN ORGANISMS
Quote:
•Experimental results: The first steps of speciation have been produced in several laboratory experiments involving "geographic" isolation. For example, Diane Dodd examined the effects of geographic isolation and selection on fruit flies. She took fruit flies from a single population and divided them into separate populations living in different cages to simulate geographic isolation. Half of the populations lived on maltose-based food, and the other populations lived on starch-based foods. After many generations, the flies were tested to see which flies they preferred to mate with. Dodd found that some reproductive isolation had occurred as a result of the geographic isolation and selection for different food sources in the two environments: "maltose flies" preferred other "maltose flies," and "starch flies" preferred other "starch flies." Although, we can't be sure, these preference differences probably existed because selection for using different food sources also affected certain genes involved in reproductive behavior. This is the sort of result we'd expect, if allopatric speciation were a typical mode of speciation.





Making freak flies was a past exercise of the 40's and 50's. hen the mechanisms of genomics were better understood, the manipulation of specific nucleotides has resulted in good data.
EVOLUTION IS the fact, do Creationists have any lab experiments that work? Seems that Behe's latest efforts have been quickly debunked.

I
carloslebaron
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2014 09:55 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Although, we can't be sure, these preference differences probably existed because selection for using different food sources also affected certain genes involved in reproductive behavior


Do you have reading comprehension problems?

If the consequences of the test generate doubts about the causes for them, you can't claim success even if the results agree with your expectations.
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2014 11:01 pm
@carloslebaron,
Quote:
Do you have reading comprehension problems?

If the consequences of the test generate doubts about the causes for them, you can't claim success even if the results agree with your expectations.


That is just farmerboy, ready to defend his religion, no matter the costs.
He is just stubborn and blind to any truth.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2014 03:04 am
@carloslebaron,
science "savvy" requires us to look at analogous systematics. Pppred moths or dietary isolation is a demonstrable mechanism in species allopatry. Ill take time to explain better if you've missed the point.
Gunga was making snarkies as if Goldshmidt denied evolutionary mechanisms. Goldschmidt never denied the fact of evolution, and the modern use of drosophila has yielded much information about population isolation by looking at specific dietary requirements and wing structures.

Goldscmidt was moreconcerned in developing his own theory of "the hopeful monster" concept which, made possible by genetic studies, has shown us that evolution isn't always gradual.


PS, I see that someone has added a tag to gungas post. It was NOT me, so it was probably either Quahog or the other troll.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Mathematicians and Darwin
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 04:12:34