Re: The Reason the Theory of Evolution is Not True

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 8:46:28 AM UTC-7, Greg Guarino wrote:
> On 8/22/2016 6:35 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 2:16:30 PM UTC-7, Greg Guarino wrote:
> >> On 8/20/2016 5:32 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 7:16:38 AM UTC-7, Alan Kleinman
> >>> MD PhD wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 2:22:40 AM UTC-8, The Masked
> >>>> Lapavenger wrote:
> >>>>> I was thinking that those suitably qualified in this
> >>>>> discussion (a category to which I don't belong, I hasten to
> >>>>> add) should submit a technical comment to the paper in which
> >>>>> he butchers natural selection. This thing is going to mislead
> >>>>> students and scholars from other fields who are unfamiliar
> >>>>> with the subject.
> >>>>
> >>>> Bill Rogers is suitably qualified, he understands how to do a
> >>>> simple binomial probability problem however he does not
> >>>> recognize that rmns is a nested binomial probability problem.
> >>>> You think I've butchered how natural selection operates? Why
> >>>> does my mathematics match every real, measurable and repeatable
> >>>> empirical example of rmns? [snip....]
> >>>
> >>> By admitting to the existence of RMNS you've undermined your own
> >>> topic title: "The Reason the Theory of Evolution is Not True."
> >>> Worse, you're unable to see the contradiction.
> >>>
> >>> The phrase "theory of evolution" means "the theory of HOW
> >>> evolution OCCURS" (= RMNS). So according to our highly
> >>> credentialed author, RMNS exists but the theory is not true.
> >>
> >> I have little regard for Kleinman's arguments, but you have not
> >> identified a *logical* problem with his position.
> >
> > I have identified a logical problem in his argument. It's confirmed
> > as such in my mind by the fact that he has ignored, evaded. I've kept
> > track of his replies, or should I say non-replies, carefully.
> >
> > In the second message in this mega-topic, posted by Robert Camp, he
> > invoked the concept of "cumulative selection" as defeating Alan's
> > claims. IF RMNS exists then Robert is correct.
> >
> > The ToE doesn't CLAIM to explain ALL biological phenomena, or that
> > ALL lines of evidence align and confirm (hence Alan's mathematics).
> > The ToE claims that RMNS causes micro-evolution and in turn these
> > modifications accumulate over time. Then, by extrapolation, a wide
> > range of biological phenomena receives satisfying explanation. Notice
> > I said "wide range" as opposed to "nearly all" or "all." So the
> > concepts of extrapolation and accumulation are dependent and tethered
> > to the basic unit of change----micro-evolution. If micro-evolution
> > exists then the entire theory is true by way of the ensuing logical
> > constructs of accumulation and extrapolation.
> >
> > Alan admits that micro-evolution occurs by way of RMNS. But says the
> > theory of accumulation and extrapolation is false. Since the theory
> > is based only on the micro unit of change, he could not be anymore
> > wrong, his numbers be damned.
>
> If you followed Kleinman's arguments over the last couple of years, you
> know that I agree that he has misapplied the math. But you are arguing
> that if there is any sort of microevolution, then evolution must be
> without limit.
>
> I disagree. I think that evolution is capable of having produced the
> diversity we see on Earth in the allotted time, but that does not mean
> that there can be no limitations.

What I said was that accepted evolution (Darwinian evolution) claims to explain a wide range of biological phenomena based on the micro unit of change accumulated and extrapolated. So "wide range" does not mean "no limitations" as I'm sure you'd agree.

>
> In fact, the limitations of biological evolution are one of the better
> arguments for common descent. If we saw thousands of dissimilar
> configurations among the various hands, feet, paws, flippers and wings
> of tetrapods, we might have to conclude for individual design. Evolution
> cannot make wholesale "redesigns"; it tweaks a bit at a time. The
> striking similarity among those "pods", despite their differing
> functions, is testament to a process with limitations; one more likely
> to stretch and bend rather than replace, like a designer would.
>

As an aside: Your assumptions about design are subjective.

> > Anyone can "prove" anything with
> > numbers alone. Extrapolation and accumulation are logical constructs,
> > they are TRUE as long as the basic unit of change remains TRUE.
> >
> > No patronizing intended, but I think Alan is a really smart person.
> > Yet he is here arguing standard Young Earth Creationism nonsense:
> > micro-evolution true, macro-evolution false. This long stale argument
> > is defeated by the CLAIMS of Darwinian evolution. Notice I said
> > "claims." The theory had long been accepted by scientists before the
> > advent of modern genetics and the accompanying mathematics. It was
> > Darwin that caused science to accept micro-evolution. And there is no
> > shortage of scholarly books that say Darwin remains correct. The
> > theory is still identified as "natural selection" ("On The Origin Of
> > Species By Means Of Natural Selection" 1859).
> >
> > Therefore Alan's claim that RMNS exists, but the theory is false, is
> > illogical, contradictory.
> >
> >>
> >> Kleinman accepts that random mutation and natural selection exist;
> >> assuming he really treats infectious diseases, it would be
> >> impossible not to. But he argues that probability math restricts
> >> what they can accomplish to relatively simple things that involve
> >> few genetic changes and populations large enough to make the
> >> mutations likely, like (some kinds of) antibiotic resistance.
> >
> > Disease and resistance are intelligent phenomena therefore they
> > cannot be evolutionary or unintelligent. And mutation, in and of
> > itself, is NOT evolution.
>
> You say they are intelligent, but how are they intelligent? Do the
> bacteria knowingly decide to become resistant? Does God tweak them
> Himself to thwart our antibiotics whenever it suits him to do so? And if
> He does, why does He disguise his efforts - His one useful mutation -
> in a sea of billions of useless ones?

The point is an alleged unintelligent process (RMNS) cannot be stumping our most brilliant medical minds concerning mutating resistance. Therefore resistance is a designed phenomenon. Alan has refused to enter into second rebuttal with me----the place where refutation usually occurs----because he can't answer my points. And because he has already followed the Piper and described resistance as occurring by RMNS he will defend to the death.

Yet Alan undoubtedly sees some design in nature, but can't explain why God created unintelligent phenomena?

Ray

[....]

[Ray Martinez]

I didn't start this topic; I answered in the Alan Kleinmman topic!

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cc206b06-2a24-4555...@googlegroups.com...

The only explanatinon required is the obvious fact that God never had and
never will have anything to do with the universe..God is a spirit with no
power in the affairs of the universe.

But fundies are stubborn creatures that hold their own against atheists.

Science is neutral wrt the question whether a god had or have anything with
the universe and biology to do. I say no, That's outside of God's domain.
God is a spirit, and Ray is clueless on that subjct like on most other
relevant subjects.

Construction of dichotomies and antonyms is Ray's profession. He isn't even
good at it.

Rolf

> Ray
>
> [....]
>
>
>
>