Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 62 (9106 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: sensei
Post Volume: Total: 907,306 Year: 4,187/14,231 Month: 902/2,209 Week: 66/324 Day: 13/53 Hour: 2/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Do you really understand the mathematics of evolution?
mike the wiz
Posts: 4722
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 46 of 239 (876781)
05-28-2020 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Kleinman
05-19-2020 4:12 PM

Kleinman writes:
So, do you really understand the mathematics of evolution, in particular, DNA evolution?
Can't say I do, but what type of, "evolution" do you mean. For example do you think the bacteria in these experiments have shown descent by modification in undergoing anatomical changes at the macro level proving that all of the designs of anatomy into the millions, can come about this way?
I know the maths that count; bacteria + bacteria = bacteria.
How about the maths of the transitional species for macro evolution? How many would have to have existed in the past? That would be an interesting study for someone like you. Do you know why?
Because the disparity of animal phyla in the Cambrian precedes diversity but Darwin's tree would predict the opposite.
That's because to get to the level of phyla FROM something like your bacteria as an example, would take a very long time indeed, and there would have to be a lot of evolutionary diversity before reaching the phyla level, because to evolve differences at the phyla level would take hundreds of millions of years.
So mathematically since you know maths and I don't, you are my go-to man, in explaining to me what is the number of transitional species that would have had to exist across all of evolutionary time COMPARED to the ones they propose they have found?
I am going to say my guess leads me to below 5%.
Logically that means it would be slothful induction fallacy to infer macro evolution is true mathematically, when most of the evidence is conspicuously absent.
Why below 5%? That's easy to figure out even for a non-math guy like me. Because if they PROPOSE they've found about 300 transitionals on their transitional list, then even if only 3000 transitionals existed over the full span of evolutionary history, that would only be 10%.
But to say 3000 transitionals existed over the full course of the history of life on earth would be LOGICALLY PREPOSTEROUS.
Ergo, there would likely have been hundreds of thousands, ergo the percentage of transitionals they have found has to be tiny ergo evolution truly is limited to turning bacteria into bacteria, according to logical reasoning I DO KNOW.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Kleinman, posted 05-19-2020 4:12 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Kleinman, posted 05-28-2020 8:26 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 49 by Taq, posted 05-28-2020 11:39 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 176 by driewerf, posted 06-27-2020 8:15 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023