The Evolution Theory is a Myth Equivalent to the Flat Earth Theory

You appear to be in the difficult position of showing mathematically that the bee can't fly. Unfortuantely for you the bee, even though it has no mathematical training, knows that your numbers are wrong and goes about its business regardless.

I wasn't showing mathematically that the bee can't fly, but instead, that the flying function of the bee cannot result from the molecular recombinations in a gene pool of the population which lacks this function. You should read the article again.The level of straw man arguments in this topic is staggering.Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

Well thank goodness irony isn't dead.

I applied the laws of air resistance to insects, and I arrived with Mr. ST LAGUE at the conclusion that their flight is impossible.
Antoine Magnan 1934 Either you have no sense of irony and analogy or you have no knowledge of science and science history. Most likely both.To simplify the concept for you, telling people that you have mathematical proof of something that is a factual reality points to your sums being wrong, not reality being wrong.

It seems to be a common characteristic of creationists that they cannot grasp the difference between reality and the symbols that we use to imperfectly describe it.

To spell out more explicitly what others have said: You're not showing mathematically that evolution can't happen, but instead that your strawman version of evolution can't happen.

But in fact it is exactly the people with the most scientific knowledge, (i.e. scientists) who say that evolution is good science and that creationism is a crock of shit. Which means that it is creationism that resembles flat-earthism in this respect.Your "math" is of course crap, which may go some way to explaining why scientists don't take you people seriously.

Hi forexhr, and welcome to the fray, So sorry, but math is just a model, it is not reality, and when the model and reality are at odds it is the model that is wrong. Usually due to a faulty assumption. As others have said, the map is not the reality.Science uses models, like hypothesis, to make predictions, and when those predictions fail or are contradicted by evidence, it is the model/hypothesis that is demonstrated to be wrong and in need of correction or being discarded. Evolution happens, it happens every day in the world around us in every generation. Perhaps your error is in your concept of what evolution is and how it works. There are a couple of sites that can help determine this, my favorite being An introduction to evolution, by Berkeley University.Enjoy

I think this is true, but I also think nobody here is getting what you are saying either, and there's little hope they ever will. I find it a little hard to follow you but I think you've done a pretty good job of being clear anyway and it's just my lack of familiarity with your reasoning processes that makes it hard for me, In fact I think you are making more sense than most creationists who come here and I'm impressed. But even if you got it said to absolute perfection they won't get it. I've only read a few paragraphs of your article, in which I suppose you mean to provide the knowledge so that the mythical nature of the ToE will become obvious, but I know from experience that nobody here will get it no matter how clear you manage to make it.You are quite right. There are indeed four processes that are called evolutionary processes in everything I've read, which implies that those four processes should be able to produce brand new features and functions if the ToE is true and if those are in fact the processes of evolution. I've also made use of the idea of those four processes in my own arguments but in a different way.Mutation, migration, natural selection and genetic drift are indeed offered as the Processes of Evolution. They do account for change, that is, as you put it: ,they do work, they do bring about change, but only within the range of possibilities already present, they cannot produce anything new, and producing something new is essential if evolutionary theory is true.I think you are quite right about the main point you are making but you'll never get anywhere convincing anyone here. You are right they aren't even getting the basic idea, it's all straw man misreadings. Just getting across the main outline of your point here is probably not going to happen.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He said something really very simple: that in a population or its gene pool that lacks the flying function, there is no way the molecular reconbinations can ever produce that function.And it is implied from what he has said previously, that there are four evolutionary processes that supposedly account for all the changes required by the ToE, but in the example he gives here of a population/gene pool that lacks a particular function there is no way those processes could produce that function.He says he wants to try to prove this through e coli experiments? At this rate he'll never be able to get to that part of his argument, he's just going to keep having to deal with all these straw man misreadings of what he's trying to say.

Nothing that anybody says here can stop him from doing experiments. If he did bring experimental data to back up his claims, he might have a leg to stand on. As it is, he's just re-interpreting the data from somebody else's experiments. That's a tired old creationist ploy and it isn't likely to get much respect here.

I didn't say he was going to DO experiments, he believes experiments that have already been done prove his point.But I may be getting him wrong so I hope he'll come back and explain.

Well of course recombination can't do that.Mutation and selection, on the other hand ...

Did you just claim that mutation can't produce anything new?

I'm saying he SHOULD do experiments. Why would he understand the experiments better than the people who DID them?The scientific approach would be to devise his own experiments to show How and why the original experimenters' conclusions were invalid.