Darwinism Evolution Intelligent Design

Laszlo Bencze offers an analogy to current claims about evolution: Correcting an F grade paper

Spread the love

Laszlo Bencze What do you think of philosopher and photographer Laszlo Bencze’s analogy:

The central theme of evolution is that tiny improvements in fitness can steadily accumulate resulting in a new species. The unstated assumption (usually) is that the original species was in need of improvement. So let’s apply these assumptions to a common educational experience. Let’s assume that a teacher has assigned to an eighth grade class the writing of an essay on the causes of the Civil War.

You stand in for evolution and your task is to convert a poorly written “F” paper to an essay that can be published in Harper’s Magazine. This is reasonably analogous to fish evolving into an amphibians or a dinosaurs into a birds.

However, your conversion of the inept essay must proceed one word at a time and each word substitution must instantly improve the essay. No storing up words for future use is allowed.

After changing a few obvious one-word mistakes, you will run into a brick wall. It doesn’t matter how clever you are or how many dictionaries and writers’ guides you have at your disposal. Only by deleting entire paragraphs and adding complete sentences would you have any chance of getting to a better essay. But that would be equivalent to a small dinosaur sprouting functional wings or a fish being able to breathe air in a single mutation. Changing one word at a time and expecting that to result in better writing is hopeless.

But remember, this analogy is extremely friendly to evolution. If we want the analogy to be more realistic we would eliminate the intelligent agent and have a computer randomly changing one letter in each step. Furthermore, a better representation of selection would be to submit the paper with the one letter change to the same professor who gave it an “F” first time around. What could we expect in this scenario? Well, let’s assume the random letter change was very lucky. It took the word “blut”, a typo, and dropped the “L” or it converted “recieve” into “receive”. And how much better might this lucky change be?

Let’s use a number commonly used by evolutionists and say that it’s now 0.1%* better than it was before. Big deal. Is that minuscule change going to raise the grade from an F to a D? No way. The paper had 47 typos and misspellings. Fixing one has no significant effect. Nor would a 0.1% change have any effect in any characteristic of a species. In fact, such a trivial change would be astoundingly difficult to even measure. If one boxer is 0.1% better than another boxer how could you tell? Same goes for one antelope being able to run 0.1% faster than another. In fact, in real life having two different things within 0.1% of each other is another way of saying they are identical!

But of course it’s vastly more probable that random letter changes will simply introduce more mistakes and as the changes proceed, the more garbled the essay becomes. The paper will never be anything but an F paper. And as far as living things go, the outcome is far worse than getting an F. It’s death.

But before we leave this topic, let’s take another look at that 0.1% improvement. How many trials would it require to prove with statistical certainty that one thing is 0.1% better than another? You might think that a thousand trials would be enough. You would be wrong. Likewise for ten thousand trials. According to the math, you would have to run 138,889 trials* to be certain of that 0.1% difference. No matter what your testing protocol or what thing you were testing, it would be worn out long before the the trials were over. And on top of that, the supposed 0.1% difference would be swamped by various random factors impossible to eliminate from any testing.

A long sequence of tiny, incremental improvements simply cannot result in individuals becoming steadily more fit. And if they don’t become more fit generation after generation, they can’t be on the road to becoming new species. These tiny fitness steps will simply disappear from the population. Hence the most foundational supposition of evolution is false. Evolution cannot do the job demanded of it by Darwinists.

*My reference to the 0.1% differential attributed to evolutionary steps comes from Lee Spetner’s Not by Chance. The necessity for 138,889 trials comes from a mathematics student of Bill Dembski’s.

Readers? What do you think?

See also: Do random mutations never increase information? Ever?

40 Replies to “Laszlo Bencze offers an analogy to current claims about evolution: Correcting an F grade paper

  1. 1
    ET says:

    Improvements in fitness can be many things- improvements could include- shorter, teller, smaller, larger, slower, faster, good eye sight, no eye sight, – well you get the message. Improvements in fitness is whatever it is. It is all really just contingent serendipity.

    And in the end even the fittest squirrel is still a squirrel.

  2. 2
    Seqenenre says:

    “However, your conversion of the inept essay must proceed one word at a time and each word substitution must instantly improve the essay. No storing up words for future use is allowed.”

    Species consist of more than one individual.

  3. 3
    ET says:

    Seqenenre:

    Species consist of more than one individual.

    Yes but the mutations occur in individuals. Fitness refers to individuals within a population. Natural selection refers to individuals within a population.

  4. 4
    Seqenenre says:

    At the same time (or even one or more generations apart) more than one individual can have a beneficial mutation. The effect gets stronger when these individual mutations meet in mutual offspring.

  5. 5
    ET says:

    At the same time (or even one or more generations apart) more than one individual can have a beneficial mutation.

    True, but they will be different.

    The effect gets stronger when these individual mutations meet in mutual offspring.

    Given sexual reproduction the odds of that are slim

  6. 6
    Seqenenre says:

    But after 10, 20 or 100 generations these multiple beneficial mutations have spread among the population, so the chance of offspring getting more than one of these mutations is getting bigger every generation.

  7. 7
    ET says:

    But after 10, 20 or 100 generations these multiple beneficial mutations have spread among the population,

    Or have been lost. Do you understand how meiosis works?

  8. 8
    Seqenenre says:

    I agree. Some will be lost, others remain.

    I had difficulties keeping meiosis and mitosis apart, until I realised that the Dutch word ‘mei’ is ‘may’ in English, the month where ‘every bird lays an egg’. 🙂

  9. 9
    bb says:

    “I agree. Some will be lost, others remain. ”

    Like the many deleterious mutations that are not only more likely to arise, but more likely to be passed on. Using Bencze’s analogy, what we observe empirically are B essays being degraded into F’s, with random changes. But…….hope for this ridiculous theory is more eternal than the universe materialists used to think was. Evolution isn’t believed because of evidence, but swallowed because it’s essential to a religious viewpoint.

  10. 10
    Seqenenre says:

    @bb: Why would a deletirious mutation be more likely to be passed on?

  11. 11
    ET says:

    Why would a deletirious mutation be more likely to be passed on?

    They are much more common than beneficial mutations.

  12. 12
    Seversky says:

    Bencze’s analogy, like all such analogies, is flawed by two basic misconceptions: first, that evolution has some predetermined goal in mind and, second, that the theory proposes that it can make the leap from simple precursor to complex target in a single bound, In other words, it is just another version of the story of the huge improbability pf a tornado in a junkyard assembling a Boeing 747 from scattered parts or Hoyle’s fallacy.

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    Actually Seversky, the main flaw in Bencze’s analogy is the Darwinian assumption that it is even remotely possible that mutations to DNA can transform the basic form of any particular organism into an entirely new form.

    Simply put, the basic form that any particular organism may take is not reducible to mutations to DNA, (or by mutations to any other material particulars of a organism that Darwinists may wish to invoke), PERIOD!

    Darwinism vs Biological Form – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

    As Stephen Meyer states, at the 5:55 minute mark, in the following video, ” ‘you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan.’

    ‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body-plan. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’
    – Stephen Meyer – Functional Proteins and Information for Body Plans – video – 5:55 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/hs4y4XLGQ-Y?t=354

    The failure of reductive materialism to be able to explain the basic form of any particular organism occurs at a very low level. Much lower than DNA itself.
    In the following article entitled ‘Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable’, which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remark that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”

    Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015
    Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,,
    It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,
    “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-12-q.....godel.html

    Basically, reductive materialists trying to explain the basic form of any particular organism is very much like trying to ‘square the circle’.

    Synthesis versus Analysis – niwrad – August 2014
    Excerpt: Consider a circle and, inside it, a set of evenly-spaced orthogonal lines describing squares with equal side. If you sum the area of all squares you obtain an imprecise value of the circle’s area. If you thicken the orthogonal lines by decreasing the square’s side and sum their areas you get a better measure. You can iterate this analytic process ad libitum (obtaining always better approximations) but you will never get the exact circle’s area,,,
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-analysis/

    i.e. The abstract ‘form’ of a circle can never be explained by appealing solely to the material ‘parts’ of a circle, for the simple reason that the abstract ‘form’ of the circle eternally precedes, (in the “Platonic realm”), the circle’s material representation in the temporal realm.
    ,,, And by extension of the argument, any particular abstract ‘Form’ that any particular organism may take will forever be beyond the explanation of the material ‘parts’ of that organism.

    Thomas Aquinas contra Transformism – niwrad – August 25, 2014
    Excerpt: Reply to objection 3: Some have claimed that the [first] man’s body was formed antecedently in time, and that later on God infused a soul into the already formed body. But it is contrary to the nature of the perfection of the first production of beings that God would make either the body without the soul or the soul without the body; for each of them is a part of human nature. It is especially inappropriate to make the body without the soul, since the body depends on the soul, but not vice versa. [Summa Theologiae, 91, IV]
    Aquinas
    ,,,Beings are “perfect” because they are “true wholes”. If they are “true wholes” then their constitution / organization spiritus-anima-corpus must be an integrated “unit” or “oneness”. As I said in the linked post a “true whole” is a synthesis that can be neither produced nor conceived by analysis, rather only by means of “synthetic knowledge” (related to intelligent design). Because of such “synthetic knowledge” any kind of being is a top-down manifestation / instantiation of a metaphysical archetype into matter, by means of a vertical causation across the three layers: spiritual, animic (soul), corporeal (body).
    Differently, a material macroevolution, or macro-morphing, of a being A to a being B would be a step-by-step analytic process, which — as we have seen — can never reach the limit of the target “true whole”. If the limit unit is not reached, and the beings are units, they neither can be produced by such analytic manner,,,
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....nsformism/

    Of semi related note:

    The Vitruvian Man – Leonardo da Vinci – Drawing
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/Da_Vinci_Vitruve_Luc_Viatour.jpg/441px-Da_Vinci_Vitruve_Luc_Viatour.jpg

    “Speaking as one who has examined the original Vitruvian Man drawing, I can say that Leonardo was looking for a numerical design scheme that informs the proportions of the human body.
    The drawing began as an illustration from Vitruvius’ book, De Architectura where Vitruvius justifies the use of the square and circle as design elements because those shapes are integral to the human body: a man’s height is equal to his width (with arms outstretched) as a square, and a circle drawn with the navel as center and feet as radius is coincident with the hands’ reach.
    Leonardo also notes the other proportional relationships from Vitruvius such as the head height measures to the whole as well as the arms and hand sections.
    Leonardo then continued measuring (from the evidence of pin point indentations made by walking dividers, especially along the left vertical edge) to find more proportional relationships. He would take a measure of a part of the figure with the dividers and walk that measure along the height to see if the measure would fit an even number of times.
    From this drawing and others where Leonardo was working on the same type of problem it is evident that Leonardo believed there was a something like a unified field theory of design where everything in nature was related by numerical and geometrical design systems.
    He was one of the original ID thinkers.”
    – Dr. Ford
    Of note: The Vitruvian Man is a world-renowned drawing created by Leonardo da Vinci c. 1487. It is the one commonly associated with the science of physiology

    Video and verse:

    Darwinian Materialism vs Quantum Biology – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHdD2Am1g5Y

    Psalm 139:13-14
    For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well.…

  14. 14
    bb says:

    Seqenenre @ 10,

    Why would a deletirious mutation be more likely to be passed on?

    Because that is precisely what we observe. The deleterious mutations are 98% more likely to occur, and they are more frequently than not passed on because they are rarely bad enough to be fatal, i.e. eligible for selection.

    EDIT:
    Diabetes is a genetic condition that we know has been around long before the means to treat it. While many that had it were selected out, many weren’t and so it is passed on generation after generation.

  15. 15
    ET says:

    Earth to Seversky-

    There isn’t any scientific theory of evolution. If you think I am wrong then please link to it, tell us who the author was, when it was published and what journal it was published in.

    Or admit that you have been fooled and don’t have a clue.

    Thank you

  16. 16
    blip says:

    Sev@12

    Bencze’s argument is not fixing a specific target to hit. He is simply pointing out an F (death) won’t cut it and, choose whatever random path you will, outside a continual counscious effort (design) to a directed goal, you will never get beyond an F (death). There are many possible paths to an A and many, many more to a C, but blindly, you won’t even get past an F to a D. In fact, your F is far more likely to degrade into total gibberish than to remain a humble F.

    Nor is Bencze claiming the theory proposes that it must make the leap from simple precursor to a complex target in a single bound. That is your erroneous interpretation. What he and other skeptics of evolution say is that Darwinian evolution can only ratchet step by step and if there is any “improvement”, it must be luckily preserved on to the next steps since there is no conscious guidance. As a result the chances of preserving the “improvement” long enough to link it in an upward trend to the next “improvement” is vanishingly small. And the longer the mindless step by step “improvement” chain, the closer to zero the chance of it happening. Because probabilities of “improvement” are at each step exponentially overwhelmed by all cases that cause no improvement, which are exponentially overwhelmed by cases that cause disaster.

    So, to make your tornado in a junkyard example more reasonable, let’s propose not a flying 747 as the final goal. Let’s leave it open to some artefact, just one, so long as it does not already exist in the junkyard. For example, if there happened to be lenses in the junkyard let’s see a telescope pop out, or a solar cooker, perhaps a microscope, or a triplet of bifocals of the triple eyed race that happens upon the junkyard and can appreciate its worth. And let’s allow not just one tornado but as many storms as have been raging across the Universe since its inception. For good measure, throw in all the junkyards you like. How about the whole Universe? Give yourself all the probabilistic resources you can muster outside of infinity. No cheating allowed.

    I suggest a simple experiment to you similar to Bencze’s thought experiment. Why not take your response @12 and “improve” upon it (survival) by mutating your letters and words one step at a time, but without any forethought in the least. And let’s allow our fellow Darwinophiles first crack at determining how your response is improving (survival). But also also without forethought on their part. No cheating.

    I’ve got all the time in the Universe, and beyond, to observe the experiment. And I’m not even asking for an improvement in grammar, let alone semantics. That would be setting a goal, after all. Deal?

  17. 17

    Seversky @12:

    In your partial definition of evolution, you assert “… Bencze’s analogy, like all such analogies, is flawed by two basic misconceptions: first, that evolution has some predetermined goal in mind … ”

    If evolution has no goals in mind, then how would you explain how the multitudes of functional designs came to be. For example, a symphony orchestra performance, complete with all of the musicians and instruments?

    Or how do you explain the flawless execution of a double play on the baseball diamond?

    These came to be through the construction and integration of multitudes of purposeful and functional machines of the lever, joint, pneumatic/hydraulic sort … and other machines like a computational brain.

    So yes, evolution, if it is to be as asserted as a valid description and explanation of the nature we all live in … must include a concept of “predetermined goals.”

  18. 18
    Bob O'H says:

    After changing a few obvious one-word mistakes, you will run into a brick wall. It doesn’t matter how clever you are or how many dictionaries and writers’ guides you have at your disposal. Only by deleting entire paragraphs and adding complete sentences would you have any chance of getting to a better essay.

    Yes, and we observe something like this in evolution, e.g. recombination and horizontal gene transfer (hm, perhaps Ms. O’Leary should send Bencze links to some of her articles about this).

  19. 19
    ET says:

    Bob- Do you really think that you can form coherent sentences by blindly and mindlessly rearranging groups of letters? Really? Or doing that and then incorporating more letters?

    How did you determine that recombination and HGT are blind watchmaker processes? Do tell

  20. 20
    Bob O'H says:

    ET –

    Bob- Do you really think that you can form coherent sentences by blindly and mindlessly rearranging groups of letters? Really? Or doing that and then incorporating more letters?

    Isn’t that what you do?

  21. 21
    ET says:

    Maybe you do that, Bob.

  22. 22
    blip says:

    Bob, horizontal gene transfer, like all other processes being discovered in biology, are exactly that, processes. Meaning, there is methodology, planning, feedback, correction, communication, information, highly coordinated and sophisticated procedures in use, on and on.

    Your “isn’t that what you do?” is “cute”. Can you provide substance beyond “cute”? How about taking a serious crack at comment 16 above? Do you have something worth sharing from a mathematical, scientific, or philosophical perspective?

  23. 23
    Bob O'H says:

    blip – yes I admit that my comment was “cute”. ET is basically a troll. FWIW, what he’s describing is how a lot of evolution works: it’s not point mutations, but larger stretches of DNA that get shuffled. This is undergrad genetics level (I know, I did undergrad genetics).

  24. 24
    blip says:

    Bob, if ET is a troll, then so are you. And the best way to show trolls for what they are is to challenge them to put up.

    Glad you did undergrad genetics. Now please, put it to use and give me a plausible response to 16.

    I’m still waiting. Get Sev and anyone else in on it too. Please note I’m going easy on you by letting you start with debris which might already include lenses, pipes, and circuit boards. In other words, you aren’t even being asked to make your own dust.

    Well?

  25. 25
    ET says:

    Bob O’H:

    ET is basically a troll

    Nice projection

    FWIW, what he’s describing is how a lot of evolution works: it’s not point mutations, but larger stretches of DNA that get shuffled.

    That is true. But how did you or anyone determine those are just accidents, errors and mistakes?

    Also Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution. Evolution by design is still evolution, Bob.

  26. 26
    Bob O'H says:

    blip @ 24 – I already gave a response at 18 which is more than plausible, it’s been widely demonstrated. Transposons and viruses can also shuffle around larger blocks of DNA.

    If you’re genuinely interested, then the cartoon guide to genetics is a good place to start to learn about these topics.

  27. 27
    ET says:

    Yes, Bob, and your cowardly equivocation has been duly noted.

    Do you have anything else besides that?

  28. 28
    blip says:

    Bob @26. Seriously, you don’t understand probabilities. Or don’t want to understan. You provided no answer at all.

    Bobb’s great reasoning:

    I have a computer in my office. It does all sorts of amazing things. Therefore Darwinism is true.

    I have a ladder I can use to reach apples on my tree. By extending it a bit more I can provide you with a plausible way to step out on the Moon.

    Ain’t Darwinism great!

  29. 29
    Bob O'H says:

    blip – could you actually give a substantive argument rather than just state that a professor of statistics doesn’t understand probabilities. I didn’t even give a probabilistic argument!

  30. 30
    ET says:

    Bob:

    could you actually give a substantive argument…

    Pot, meet kettle. 😛

  31. 31
    blip says:

    Bob, you claim to have answered my 16 by simply stating that transposons and viruses can shuffle around larger blocks of DNA. If you don’t understand how that doesn’t solve my challenge at 16, it’s because you don’t understand mathematics, probability, or information, professorships and degrees notwithstanding.

    I can also sit in a box, stick my arms out, and imagine I’m charging through the air in my flying machine, totally oblivious to the fact that I never will fly because the math is all wrong.

    Or to transpose your transposon example into my silly ladder example, I have a ladder that can reach my tree, therefore, by extension I can reach the Moon in the same manner. You come along and shoot down my idea by saying no ladder can go that far. But now I counter: transposon ladders! Bigger segments! Get it? Maybe not with my rickety ladder, but with transposon ladders I can get to the Moon!

    The two of us couldn’t be more off base. Because we can’t just ratchet up step by step to the Moon, regardless of whether you try with rickety home ladders held together by duct tape, or fancy transposon ladders that can “shuffle the possibilities in much larger chunks”.

    You need a completely different approach, one that, first and foremost, requires information, planning, invention, teleology, the very things Darwinism excludes right off the bat.

    That’s why neither you, nor anyone else, will solve the challenge at 16 in a Darwinian fashion, with or without fancy degrees and professorships. Even though high level information was snuck in at the beginning – lenses, pipes, circuit boards; you weren’t asked to start with “dust” – you still can’t build anything. And the more you shuffle stuff around, the more everything will break. Entropy.

    I did not ask you for a probabilistic argument. I ask you to understand how probabilities work against any attempt to build anything even requiring just a handful of coordinated steps, without the help of teleology. And yet this is what Darwinism demands we swallow.

  32. 32
    bornagain77 says:

    In post 29 Bob (and weave) O’Hara states that he is a

    “professor of statistics”

    That makes him doubly without excuse. His very field of claimed expertise testifies against him!

    Another, somewhat esoteric, and interesting falsification of the reductive materialistic framework that undergirds Darwinian evolution comes from the nature of mathematics itself.

    Although it is almost universally acknowledged that mathematics exists in some transcendent “Platonic” realm,

    Platonic World vs Physical World
    https://i2.wp.com/abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/platonic_physical.gif

    Mathematical Platonism
    Excerpt: Mathematical platonism enjoys widespread support and is frequently considered the default metaphysical position with respect to mathematics. This is unsurprising given its extremely natural interpretation of mathematical practice.
    http://www.iep.utm.edu/mathplat/

    Mathematical Platonism
    Mathematical platonism is the view on which mathematical objects exist and are abstract (aspatial, atemporal and acausal) and independent of human minds and linguistic practices. According to mathematical platonism, mathematical theories are true in virtue of those objects possessing (or not) certain properties. One important challenge to (of) platonism (to reductive materialism) is explaining how biological organisms such as human beings could have knowledge of such objects. Another is to explain why mathematical theories about such objects should turn out to be applicable in sciences concerned with the physical world.
    https://philpapers.org/browse/mathematical-platonism

    ,,, and although every rigorous theory of science requires verification from mathematics, and experimentation, in order to be considered scientific in the first place,

    “No human investigation can be called real science if it cannot be demonstrated mathematically.”
    – Leonardo da Vinci

    ,,, the reductive materialism that Darwinian evolution is based upon denies the existence of anything beyond the material realm.

    What is the difference between naturalism and materialism?
    Excerpt: Naturalism is the view that the world can be explained entirely by physical, natural phenomena/laws. Naturalists either assert that there is no supernatural (or metaphysical) existence, or that if there is, it has no impact on our physical world.,,,
    Materialism is the related view that all existence is matter, that only matter is real, and so that the world is just physical. It simply describes a view on the nature of the universe, while the different branches of Naturalism focus on applications of effectively the same view.
    Thus, the difference between the two is the purpose of the definition – materialism makes an argument about the ontology of the universe, while naturalism takes a premise (effectively that of materialism) to make an argument on how science/philosophy should function.
    https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/2406/what-is-the-difference-between-naturalism-and-materialism

    There simply is no place for the immaterial realm of mathematics to find grounding for its reality in the reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought.

    What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018
    Excerpt: In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities.
    https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html

    Platonic World vs Physical World
    https://i2.wp.com/abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/platonic_physical.gif

    As David Berlinski states, “There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time….”

    An Interview with David Berlinski – Jonathan Witt
    Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time….
    Interviewer:… Come again(?) …
    Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects.
    http://tofspot.blogspot.com/20.....-here.html

  33. 33
    bornagain77 says:

    Therefore, besides Darwinian evolution already being shown to be mathematically impossible (by Sanford, Dembski, Marks, Axe, Behe, Durston etc.. etc..),,,

    The waiting time problem in a model hominin population – John Sanford
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....PMC4573302 /

    LIFE’S CONSERVATION LAW: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information – William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II
    http://www.evoinfo.org/publica.....ation-law/

    Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds – Doug Axe
    http://www.toriah.org/articles/axe-2004.pdf

    Waiting Longer for Two Mutations – Michael J. Behe
    http://www.discovery.org/a/9461

    Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins – Kirk K Durston
    https://tbiomed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-4682-4-47

    etc.. etc..

    ,,,, Darwinian evolution is further falsified by mathematics as being a scientific theory since Darwinism denies the very reality of one the thing it most needs, i.e. mathematics, in order to be considered scientific in the first place.

    Darwinian Evolution vs Mathematics – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3gyx70BHvA

    Thus, to repeat, our illustrious ‘professor of statistics’ is doubly without excuse

    Romans 1:20
    For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

    2 Corinthians 4:18
    So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

  34. 34
    blip says:

    Indeed BA, indeed.

    If Bob were arguing that loads of design snuck in up front can create a system that uses randomization to achieve some moderate improvements, sure, I would agree.

    For example, genetic algorithms. But the only reason they work somewhat is because someone(s) did an enormous effort front-loading the system to make it function so that, starting at point x, with the goal at point y, where the space including the path(s) from x to y is essentially smooth, continuous, and uphill all the way (or downhill), there is a decent chance the system will get to the desired goal.

    Think about some things that were included to achieve this:
    A goal, a starting point from where the goal can be reached in a fairly straightforward manner (otherwise the system would fail very quickly), a complex program in a complex language, a complex operating system in possibly another complex language, complex hardware to run the software, complex power generation systems to energize the hardware, complex fuels to provide the energy…

    And none of this begins to address the systems that had to be built to extract and process the fuel, create the power generation plants, machines to create microscopic hardware to take advantage of quantum phenomena, logic, mathematics, communication, on and on. In other words, second order systems, third order systems, …

    And all of the above, plus all the intermediate steps that were not listed but are, nonetheless essential… all of it pales in comparison to the complexity, intricacy, sophistication of the “simplest” life form known.

    But am I supposed to see genetic algorithms or some other flavor of the month algorithm pop out some result and suddenly feel compelled to genuflect to the god of Darwinism? Few things could be more foolish. But oh! Isn’t it so tempting! Because if Darwinism is “god” … then … then “God” is not! YES! (The blip translation of Romans 1)

    It’s information, planning, teleology, mind. All the way up and all the way down. Darwinism plays absolutely no role in any of it. If it did, nothing in the long chain above would work. Nothing. Right out the gate the horse would keel over, dead.

    (Odd how Romans is right.)

    Wait, who let it in here anyway! We are sophisticated! Don’t need any of that myth. We have degrees! And professorships! And anyone who is anything agrees with us!

    (sigh)

  35. 35
    Bob O'H says:

    I can also sit in a box, stick my arms out, and imagine I’m charging through the air in my flying machine, totally oblivious to the fact that I never will fly because the math is all wrong.

    It might help, then, if you provide your maths, rather than waving your arms around. Your argument at 16 doesn’t present any actual maths.

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    As to:

    “you provide your maths,”

    And exactly why does Bob (and weave) O’Hara want immaterial mathematics to prove that the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution cannot produce immaterial information when reductive materialism denies the existence of immaterial realities in the first place?

    What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018
    Excerpt: reductive materialism,,, says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories.
    As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents.
    In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities.
    https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html

    Thus Bob (and weave) O’Hara himself, by demanding,,,

    “you provide your maths,”

    ,,, concedes the primacy of the immaterial realm of mathematics in science, and thus undercuts his very own argument for his materialistic Darwinian worldview in the process.

    Moreover, just how is it that the supposedly ‘material mind’ of Bob (and weave) is able to contemplate these immaterial abstract concepts of mathematics in the first place?

    “Either mathematics is too big for the human mind, or the human mind is more than a machine.”
    – Kurt Godel As quoted in Topoi : The Categorial Analysis of Logic (1979) by Robert Goldblatt, p. 13

    “In materialism all elements behave the same. It is mysterious to think of them as spread out and automatically united. For something to be a whole, it has to have an additional object, say, a soul or a mind.”
    Kurt Gödel – Hao Wang’s supplemental biography of Gödel, A Logical Journey, MIT Press, 1996. [9.4.12]

    Moreover, as much confidence as Bob (and weave) may have in the immaterial realm of mathematics to differentiate between what is true and what is false, the immaterial realm of mathematics is not sufficient within itself to warrant such confidence on Bob’s part.

    As Gödel proved, mathematics is ‘incomplete’ and therefore is not sufficient within itself to provide us with the answer, and confidence, for why we intuitively know mathematics to be true.

    A BIBLICAL VIEW OF MATHEMATICS
    Vern Poythress – Doctorate in theology, PhD in Mathematics (Harvard)
    15. Implications of Gödel’s proof
    B. Metaphysical problems of anti-theistic mathematics: unity and plurality
    Excerpt: Because of the above difficulties, anti-theistic philosophy of mathematics is condemned to oscillate, much as we have done in our argument, between the poles of a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge. Why? It will not acknowledge the true God, wise Creator of both the human mind with its mathematical intuition and the external world with its mathematical properties. In sections 22-23 we shall see how the Biblical view furnishes us with a real solution to the problem of “knowing” that 2 + 2 = 4 and knowing that S is true.
    http://www.frame-poythress.org.....thematics/

    Taking God Out of the Equation – Biblical Worldview – by Ron Tagliapietra – January 1, 2012
    Excerpt: Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties.
    1. Validity … all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning.
    2. Consistency … no conclusions contradict any other conclusions.
    3. Completeness … all statements made in the system are either true or false.
    The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He (Godel) summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem.
    Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. It was shocking, though, that logic could prove that mathematics could not be its own ultimate foundation.
    Christians should not have been surprised. The first two conditions are true about math: it is valid and consistent. But only God fulfills the third condition. Only He is complete and therefore self-dependent (autonomous). God alone is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28), “the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:13). God is the ultimate authority (Hebrews 6:13), and in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3).
    http://www.answersingenesis.or...../equation#

    Thus, basically, in his appeal to immaterial mathematics to try to make Darwinian evolution seem remotely plausible, Bob (and weave), in actuality, ends up acknowledging that he needs God in order to be able to deny God.

    “Hawking’s entire argument is built upon theism. He is, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face.
    Take that part about the “human mind” for example. Under atheism there is no such thing as a mind. There is no such thing as understanding and no such thing as truth. All Hawking is left with is a box, called a skull, which contains a bunch of molecules. Hawking needs God In order to deny Him.”
    – Cornelius Hunter

    Photo – an atheist contemplating his ‘mind’
    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-H-kj.....0/rob4.jpg

  37. 37
    blip says:

    Bob, you know the arm waving you claim I’m doing came from a silly skit I told for the purpose of making the point that it’s you who does the arm waving by just claiming that Darwinism is capable of such amazing things and throwing around transposons and viruses as if they happened by sheer dumb Darwinian luck. No, you first have to provide evidence that transposons and viruses come about by sheer dumb Darwinian luck. Bank vaults and cryptographic algorithms also work, in part, on a randomizing component and they don’t come about except by design. So just because there is a randomizing element to something such as a virus, that fact alone doesn’t prove the virus came about by sheer dumb Darwinian luck.

    But the fact that you pick my story to claim I’m arm waving instead of addressing the long, though incomplete, list of processes I noted, all of which requires intelligence every step of the way, reveals your disingenuous attitude. Sorry, but you ask for it, time and again. Goes to show you’re not stuck on evidence but on willful blindness.

    That said, if you can get past your obfuscation some day, and really want to own the math, start first with Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics, published 2017. It is well referenced with peer reviewed papers.

    I also recommend this https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-017-1190-x

    You can start with those. What I have mentioned in this discussion is a subset of what is discussed in the book.

    If you’re serious about understanding, study the book. Ask if you have questions. But dismissal? Don’t come back, then.

  38. 38
    Bob O'H says:

    blip – Yes, I’ve read Basener & Sandford. It has maths in it. it shows (amongst other things) that mutation and selection can increase the mean fitness of a population.

    My original point was that transposons & recombination move around larger chunks than individual base pairs. I don’t need maths for that argument, because it’s a biological observation. I wan’t attempting to defends the whole of evolutionary biology; it would take too long (after all, other people have written whole books doing that).

  39. 39
    bornagain77 says:

    Fitness itself, although it figures centrally in the equations of population genetics, has no universally agreed upon measure so as to tell us exactly how fitness is to be numerically quantified into a rigorous, i.e. mathematically useful, measure:

    Where is the purposelessness of evolution? – 23 March 2012,
    Excerpt: The only way variation is seen as random is that it is random in respect to the effect variation has on fitness.
    The major problem with this is that the precise meaning of fitness has not been settled. There is still a major debate about what exactly fitness is supposed to mean (see this post for more on this issue).
    John O. Reiss notes also make the following interesting remark:
    “The rigor of this approach, however, is lessened because there is as yet no universally agreed upon measure of fitness; fitness is either defined metaphorically, or defined only relative to the particular model or system used. It is fair to say that due to this lack, there is still no real agreement on what exactly the process of natural selection is. This is clearly a problem.”
    Without a proper definition of fitness, we can’t really say what natural selection is in the first place. Also, without a proper definition of fitness we can’t really make any sense of how variation can be random relative to fitness in the first place.,,,
    https://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Where-is-the-purposelessness-of-evolution-20120322

    Moreover, the more precise one tries to be with measuring fitness, the more ‘fitness’ evaporates into thin air as a supposed useful tool for Darwinists to use as a rigorous mathematical measure:

    Is Darwinism Collapsing? Fitness Is Unmeasurable – Sept. 2017
    Excerpt: Key concepts like fitness and survival of the fittest are coming under attack, say evolutionists who suggest the theory needs “critical improvements.”,,
    “Variability in Fitness Effects Can Preclude Selection of the Fittest.” The very title suggests that core concepts underlying neo-Darwinism (fitness and selection) are in trouble.,,,
    “Evolutionary biologists often predict the outcome of natural selection on an allele by measuring its effects on lifetime survival and reproduction of individual carriers. However, alleles affecting traits like sex, evolvability, and cooperation can cause fitness effects that depend heavily on differences in the environmental, social, and genetic context of individuals carrying the allele. This variability makes it difficult to summarize the evolutionary fate of an allele solely on the basis of its effects on any one individual. Attempts to average over this variability can sometimes salvage the concept of fitness. In other cases, evolutionary outcomes can be predicted only by considering the entire genealogy of an allele, thus limiting the utility of individual fitness altogether.”
    ,,, you see a “see-saw between advantage and disadvantage” as individuals (vertical axis) vary over time (horizontal axis). Look at the blue line labeled “mean fitness”. The average fitness of the population goes up, down, up, down. The orange line “Fitness variance” is a constant: i.e., there is no net fitness gain. Darwin would have a fit over “fitness” that goes nowhere!
    https://crev.info/2017/09/darwinism-collapsing-fitness-unmeasurable/

    Moreover, due to epistatic interactions, fitness effects are experimentally found to be highly unpredictable (which is directly contrary to what is a-priori assumed in the mathematics of population genetics).

    Prehoda’s Goof: Mutational Fitness Effects Cannot Be Predicted – November 28, 2016
    Excerpt: The new PNAS paper by Bank et al., “On the (un)predictability of a large intragenic fitness landscape,” takes a serious look at the effects of mutational interactions.,,,
    The point of the study is that epistatic interactions are profoundly unpredictable. By performing one of the largest-ever surveys of epistasis on engineered mutations to Hsp90, a well-known protein, they concluded that it is extremely difficult to predict what will happen.,,,their conclusion has far-reaching implications for all evolutionary predictions,,,,
    “our results highlight the inherent difficulty imposed by the duality of epistasis for predicting evolution. In the absence of epistasis (i.e., in a purely additive landscape), evolution is globally highly predictable because the population will eventually reach the single-fitness optimum, but the path taken is locally entirely unpredictable. Conversely, in the presence of (sign and reciprocal sign) epistasis evolution is globally unpredictable,”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....03316.html

    Moreover, even if ‘fitness’ were a realistic mathematical measure of an organism, instead of just some ill defined pipe dream in the Darwinist’s head, and as it is currently used in population genetics, fitness would still undermine Darwinian evolution in that if ‘fitness’ were the true means by which all species were created, i.e. “survival of the fittest”, then all our perceptions and beliefs about reality would become illusory and unreliable.

    In the following video and article, Donald Hoffman has, through numerous computer simulations of population genetics, proved that if Darwinian evolution were actually true then ALL of our perceptions of reality would be illusory.

    Donald Hoffman: Do we see reality as it is? – Video – 9:59 minute mark
    Quote: “,,,evolution is a mathematically precise theory. We can use the equations of evolution to check this out. We can have various organisms in artificial worlds compete and see which survive and which thrive, which sensory systems or more fit. A key notion in those equations is fitness.,,, fitness does depend on reality as it is, yes.,,, Fitness is not the same thing as reality as it is, and it is fitness, and not reality as it is, that figures centrally in the equations of evolution. So, in my lab, we have run hundreds of thousands of evolutionary game simulations with lots of different randomly chosen worlds and organisms that compete for resources in those worlds. Some of the organisms see all of the reality. Others see just part of the reality. And some see none of the reality. Only fitness. Who wins? Well I hate to break it to you but perception of reality goes extinct. In almost every simulation, organisms that see none of reality, but are just tuned to fitness, drive to extinction that perceive reality as it is. So the bottom line is, evolution does not favor veridical, or accurate perceptions. Those (accurate) perceptions of reality go extinct. Now this is a bit stunning. How can it be that not seeing the world accurately gives us a survival advantage?”
    https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY?t=601

    The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality – April 2016
    The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions.
    Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.”
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/

    “Fitness” also undermines the reliability of our beliefs about reality

    Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism – Mike Keas – October 10, 2012
    Excerpt: Survival is all that matters on evolutionary naturalism. Our evolving brains are more likely to give us useful fictions that promote survival rather than the truth about reality. Thus evolutionary naturalism undermines all rationality (including confidence in science itself). Renown philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued against naturalism in this way (summary of that argument is linked on the site:).
    Or, if your short on time and patience to grasp Plantinga’s nuanced argument, see if you can digest this thought from evolutionary cognitive psychologist Steve Pinker, who baldly states:
    “Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth; sometimes the truth is adaptive, sometimes it is not.”
    Steven Pinker, evolutionary cognitive psychologist, How the Mind Works (W.W. Norton, 1997), p. 305.
    http://blogs.christianpost.com.....ism-12421/

    Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself – Nancy Pearcey – March 8, 2015
    Excerpt: Steven Pinker writes, “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false.
    To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion — and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value.
    So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself.,,,
    Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality.
    The reason so few atheists and materialists seem to recognize the problem is that, like Darwin, they apply their skepticism selectively. They apply it to undercut only ideas they reject, especially ideas about God. They make a tacit exception for their own worldview commitments.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....94171.html

    Thus in conclusion, when Darwinists speak about ‘fitness’ they are not speaking about a rigorous, i.e. mathematically useful, measure that is rigorously quantified. They are basically speaking about some mythical thing that is in their imagination that has no rigorously defined relationship with the real world.

    Moreover, even if Darwinists were speaking about something that could be rigorously quantified, ‘fitness’ would still falsify Darwinian evolution in that all our perceptions and beliefs about reality would become unreliable and illusory.
    ,,, Especially including supposed unquestionable beliefs about Darwinian evolution itself would become illusory and unreliable! As Nancy Pearcey stated, “The theory undercuts itself”,,,

    One final note:

    Bob (and weave) stated this in post 38:

    Yes, I’ve read Basener & Sandford. It has maths in it. it shows (amongst other things) that mutation and selection can increase the mean fitness of a population.

    And that is exacly why I nicknamed him Bob (and weave). Bob (and weave) completely omits the biggest finding of the paper which is directly at odds to what he apparently wants others to falsely believe. Bill Basener and John Sanford actually demonstrated that “Our paper shows that Fisher’s corollary is clearly false, and that he misunderstood the implications of his own theorem. He incorrectly believed that his theorem was a mathematical proof that showed that natural selection plus mutation will necessarily and always increase fitness. He also believed his theorem was on a par with a natural law (such as entropic dissipation and the second law of thermodynamics). Because Fisher did not understand the actual fitness distribution of new mutations, his belief in the application of his “fundamental theorem of natural selection” was fundamentally and profoundly wrong – having little correspondence to biological reality.”

    Defending the validity and significance of the new theorem “Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection With Mutations, Part I: Fisher’s Impact – Bill Basener and John Sanford – February 15, 2018
    Excerpt: While Fisher’s Theorem is mathematically correct, his Corollary is false. The simple logical fallacy is that Fisher stated that mutations could effectively be treated as not impacting fitness, while it is now known that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious, providing a downward pressure on fitness. Our model and our correction of Fisher’s theorem (The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations), take into account the tension between the upward force of selection with the downward force of mutations.,,,
    Our paper shows that Fisher’s corollary is clearly false, and that he misunderstood the implications of his own theorem. He (Fisher) incorrectly believed that his theorem was a mathematical proof that showed that natural selection plus mutation will necessarily and always increase fitness. He also believed his theorem was on a par with a natural law (such as entropic dissipation and the second law of thermodynamics). Because Fisher did not understand the actual fitness distribution of new mutations, his belief in the application of his “fundamental theorem of natural selection” was fundamentally and profoundly wrong – having little correspondence to biological reality. Therefore, we have reformulated Fisher’s model and have corrected his errors, thereby have established a new theorem that better describes biological reality, and allows for the specification of those key variables that will determine whether fitness will increase or decrease.
    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp.....rs-impact/

    Thus, once again, the more rigorously one tries to bring Darwinian assuptions into line with biological and physical realities, the more those biological and physical realities falsify those Darwinian assumptions.

  40. 40
    blip says:

    BA @ 39, thanks for providing that awesome quote. I was tempted to include it but then decided not to in order to test what Bob would do.

    Sure enough he took the bait: “Yes, I’ve read Basener & Sandford. It has maths in it. it shows (amongst other things) that mutation and selection can increase the mean fitness of a population.”

    Thereby leaving the impression the paper supports Bob’s position when, in fact, the paper contradicts Darwinism.

    By your posting the quote after Bob took the bait, your comment unequivocally shows Bob for the deceiver he is. Mission accomplished.

    Enough said.

    Thanks!

Leave a Reply