Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

YouTube

Interview with bias and opinions.
I watched this after I posted it here.
Enjoyed it.

I watched just a small part of it and the part I watched said a load of nonsense personal opinions from a book writer who obviously didn't understand evolution let alone being an expert in it.
Meanwhile, evolution is a proven scientific fact.
If you claim there is some valid evidence against evolution presented in this very long boring video can you just state what it is and give a weblink showing its source?
If not, you make no point.
-and, no, I will not waste hours of my time watching the very long boring video.

@humy said
I watched just a small part of it and the part I watched said a load of nonsense personal opinions from a book writer that obviously didn't understand evolution let alone being an expert in evolution.
Meanwhile, evolution is a proven scientific fact.
If there is some valid evidence against evolution presented in this very long boring video can you just state what it is and giv ...[text shortened]... you make no point.
-and, no, I will not waste hours of my time watching the very long boring video.

I actually don't care what you think if only a few moments was all you could watch.
You obviously were not going to like it no matter what.

@kellyjay said
I actually don't care what you think if only a few moments was all you could watch.

You wouldn't care anyway.
You didn't answer my question and that says it all.

@humy said
You wouldn't care anyway.
You didn't answer my question and that says it all.

Had you watched it you would have known it is an interviewed conversation between three different authors, that don't agree with each other on many topics. Watch the video the link was provided, I'm not going to spoon feed you like a little child who is refusing to eat is dinner.

@KellyJay
Well I watched the whole thing and they did impart one realization to me.
That the origin of life and the origin of species is a question we cannot answer today.

Bringing up intelligent design without saying Goddidit, I suspect if pressured they would admit in this stage of our scientific development the only way out for them is to say Godidit since they cannot formulate any other way.

I think there IS another way, and intelligent design is certainly there, just not a god.
I think the molecules of DNA and such and all the 'junk codon's' that were thought to be junk now turns out to be not so junky.
I think the intelligence is inherent in the cells themselves.

And of course you will argue nay nay but you do that with only your bible to guide you not reality.
The original link you posted posited there was not enough time in the early history of Earth to allow for the ORIGIN of life and these guys are saying the Cambrian explosion is also a too short time frame for the explosion of life forms that occurred in some millions of years, 70 million, 10 million, whatever, the idea again being not enough time for random changes to give something useful in the way of the next generation.

Seems the same argument in both cases.
But any intelligence in my view is coming from the life forms themselves.
I don't personally see a huge difference between the moth that turns black in a few generations after millions of years white or the beak of a bird changing length, there is not a huge step from just making a new species. The intelligence was in my view in the cells all along.

For instance, a potato gene is WAY bigger than human gene code in total yet it is a plant with a tuber we can eat. I think buried in that inexplicable (so far) code is the biological equivalent of a computer that uses information gleaned from the environment, is it getting dryer, is it getting colder, hotter, whatever, there is a section of code that will pop in changes and dam fast from a geologic sense of time.

This of course is just my view and I expressed that view here years ago and I think that will be what science will figure out maybe in another 100 or 200 years assuming our civilization lasts long enough without getting whacked off in some environmental or war disaster where those questions will not be answered for another 10,000 years or some such.

Hopefully we will still have thriving science 200 years from now. Of course my daisies will be pushing up daisies by then but that is what it seems to me the way science will go in evolutionary theory.

@sonhouse said
@KellyJay
Well I watched the whole thing and they did impart one realization to me.
That the origin of life and the origin of species is a question we cannot answer today.

Bringing up intelligent design without saying Goddidit, I suspect if pressured they would admit in this stage of our scientific development the only way out for them is to say Godidit since they canno ...[text shortened]... g up daisies by then but that is what it seems to me the way science will go in evolutionary theory.

Kudos sonhouse, we don't have to agree on any point but your heads and shoulders above others here in my eyes. It more than likely doesn't mean much, but still there it is.

@KellyJay
Time will tell if my view on this is right though. Of course not enough time for me to have heard it since I expect it will take a LOT more time than I have left on this planet.
But I think the advent of AI like Alpha Go and such where they are MUCH better than any human can play any game, It think between that kind of computer and perhaps quantum computers combined with the strongest conventional supercomputers AND human analysis, combined we might figure it out.
It seems so far human intelligence is not enough but we kind of intellectually self evolve so that is our strength and we may do it.
One point is if we do and for instance find there is some kind of feedback intelligence built into cells, destroying the biblical creation story, what will that do to religion?
Will they continue to believe Goddidit no matter WHAT is found?

There are no "mathematical challenges" to the theory of evolution. If anything is unclear I'm happy to explain further.

@kazetnagorra said
There are no "mathematical challenges" to the theory of evolution.

And anyone that thinks there is "mathematical challenges" to the theory of evolution hasn't understood what the theory of evolution says.

@kazetnagorra said
There are no "mathematical challenges" to the theory of evolution. If anything is unclear I'm happy to explain further.

Watch it and explain the complaints, or don't.

@kellyjay said
Watch it and explain the complaints, or don't.

Nah, I don't think so. You can summarize any "complaint" here if you wish.

@sonhouse said
@KellyJay
Time will tell if my view on this is right though. Of course not enough time for me to have heard it since I expect it will take a LOT more time than I have left on this planet.
But I think the advent of AI like Alpha Go and such where they are MUCH better than any human can play any game, It think between that kind of computer and perhaps quantum computers combi ...[text shortened]... ory, what will that do to religion?
Will they continue to believe Goddidit no matter WHAT is found?

We can say the same thing about hardcore believers in evolution too couldn't we? They will believe what they will regardless of what is found. As you can see in the two threads I started here, some cannot even acknowledge the possibility what they believe may not as true as they think it is, so they avoid challenges to it, refusing to look at things that they might have to think about.

@kazetnagorra said
Nah, I don't think so. You can summarize any "complaint" here if you wish.

I thought as much!

@KellyJay
Just because a cadre of academics are skeptics doesn't mean evolution is dead.
Unexplained Cambrian explosion doesn't make Darwin wrong.
It is like UFO's. Someone sees something flying in the sky they can't explain, it is an unidentified Flying object.
So here we have a UEE, unidentified Evolution events.
That doesn't mean you throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Here is one problem with that analysis, they throw out ID as if that is an explanation, when in fact that is just another conjecture because they don't know what would allow such intelligence, they throw that out with no other evidence then they say that is the way it has to be simply because computer scientists invent code so they use that as an analogy but they don't go any further than that.
Til then, it is an academic exercise.