Top Mathematicians Challenge Darwin’s Theory of Evolution (Prove evolution is fucking impossible)

So you think we evolved from tadpoles?

:retards:

Wow, 4 Creationists having a circle jerk while 99% of scientists continue to accept the validity of evolution.

Evolution is directly observable. You're not going to make it disappear by playing with math.

Wow, 4 Creationists having a circle jerk while 99% of scientists continue to accept the validity of evolution.

Evolution is directly observable. You're not going to make it disappear by playing with math.

The only thing Darwin got right was his observation of Natural Selection, which he mistakenly attributed to his theory of evolution between species.

Natural Selection, is in essence evolution of a species to a similar but different path of development creating a new "branch", but a finch is still a finch, and a bird is still a bird, and was never a fish.

Good video.

Now, I'm a little disappointed in their answers to the one guy who wasn't keen on Intelligent Design.

His argument was purely theological, from the perspective that there's a lot of bad in the world.

That one guy who's in favor of Intelligent Design needed to point out that the existence of an INTELLIGENT design and a PERFECT design are completely different questions ... that can be argued separately.

If I read a novel and decide that it's crap, that still doesn't mean that I conclude there it was not written with an intelligence behind it. Also, it does not preclude that the designer set the design into motion and then it later decayed on its own (the entropy principle that the one guy DID bring up).

Denying intelligent design is like saying that you could get a billion monkeys and set them out with typewriters, and that one of them could come up with the complete works of Shakespeare by banging randomly on keys. Not even an monkeys to a trillion powers could be counted on to whip out Shakespeare, or even an intelligible short story for that matter.

But, no evolution is worse, they claim that ONE monkey just randomly banged out the complete works of Shakespeare. If evolution were random, for every ONE single successfully species, you'd have 10s of thousands of failures. For every primate that has two eyes perfectly spaced apart to give you 3D vision, you'd have 10,000 monkeys that had one eye on its ass and another on the sole of its foot.

Random evolution is absolutely statistically and mathematically IMPOSSIBLE. There's just no other way to slice it.

No problem bro! You should check out these hilarious comedy series, I think they're called: peer reviewed scientific journals.

Pretty clear that life has evolved through random mutations, just by looking at the sometimes very awkward and convoluted solutions to biological problems that life has found. Not to mention that only a complete sadistic monster would have come up with some of the creatures and parasitic lifestyles.

Also pretty clear that the universe as a whole is alive and that there is some sort of divine intelligence and purpose to it.

It also seems pretty clear that there is a hands-off approach to life at least on this planet - meteors and stuff have regularly come in and wiped out most advanced life forms including humans.

Seems a pretty cavalier attitude to have if you ask me - unless I suppose that there are a million other similar experiments going on at the same time - even then it's got to be pretty distant 'supreme being' that lets a whole planet be wiped out by a random chunk of rock.

"Peer review" is, almost literally, a true "Circle Jerk."

Science by consensus, gatekeeping and backscratching.

Good video.

Now, I'm a little disappointed in their answers to the one guy who wasn't keen on Intelligent Design.

His argument was purely theological, from the perspective that there's a lot of bad in the world.

That one guy who's in favor of Intelligent Design needed to point out that the existence of an INTELLIGENT design and a PERFECT design are completely different questions ... that can be argued separately.

If I read a novel and decide that it's crap, that still doesn't mean that I conclude there it was not written with an intelligence behind it. Also, it does not preclude that the designer set the design into motion and then it later decayed on its own (the entropy principle that the one guy DID bring up).

Denying intelligent design is like saying that you could get a billion monkeys and set them out with typewriters, and that one of them could come up with the complete works of Shakespeare by banging randomly on keys. Not even an monkeys to a trillion powers could be counted on to whip out Shakespeare, or even an intelligible short story for that matter.

But, no evolution is worse, they claim that ONE monkey just randomly banged out the complete works of Shakespeare. If evolution were random, for every ONE single successfully species, you'd have 10s of thousands of failures. For every primate that has two eyes perfectly spaced apart to give you 3D vision, you'd have 10,000 monkeys that had one eye on its ass and another on the sole of its foot.

Random evolution is absolutely statistically and mathematically IMPOSSIBLE. There's just no other way to slice it.

You left out politically correct dogma. Nothing else is allowed.

Evolution is not random. That's what natural selection is all about. Any monkey fetuses that have eyes on their feet aren't even going to live to be born. And mutations are hardly ever that major, anyway.

How is evolution not directly observable? The food chain is an instant proof.

Thanks for the

Did you even watch the video?

100% false. The hypothesis is pre-genetic science, and there is zero evidence 110,000 genera with closed-reproductive systems originated from the same single cell. There is localized speciation, but not morphological genusation. Darwin would never have hypothesized it with today’s scientific awareness. He doubted it then. The Tree of Life is propaganda at this point.

Agnosticism is the only way.

Peter Robinson discusses it with David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer, who have raised doubts about Darwin’s theory in their two books and essay, respectively The Deniable Darwin, Darwin’s Doubt, and “Giving Up Darwin” (published in the Claremont Review of Books).