Evolution

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

Here is a great article by a mathematician I think you would enjoy Clark....katherine the great too!

http://math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/mathint.html

Those critiques have long been answered. And I'll notice you've not answered the original questions. The problem with the probabilistic critique is that it doesn't analyze all paths nor how reaching a point on one path affects probabilities. Put simply you can't calculate the probabilities merely by looking at final state without calculating the path traversals. Not sure if you understand that, but if not, then I wouldn't appeal to mathematics you don't understand.

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

Please explain this mechanism of evolution.....is it survival of the fittest or genetic mutation?....or something else? 

I was always taught these were the mechanisms.  I just find it incredible that there are no sufficient mathematical models to explain the rise of life and Darwinian evolution...or am in incorrect? 

You are incorrect on the mathematics. Here's one article on the topic.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/mathematics-shows-how-to-ensure-evolution-20180626/

As for mechanism, changes in DNA are the mechanism. Selection is just the feedback deciding what DNA gets passed down to further generations. Selection is not random. Mutations technically aren't either. If you're near a radioactive source you'll have more. Ditto obvious chemical pollution. But also mutations due to radiation or chemical disruption aren't the only way DNA changes. Viruses also take over replication mechanisms in cells. That can cause parts of viruses to end up in the DNA of the host. The estimate is that 5 - 8% of human DNA is actually bits of viruses that corrupted the DNA. So in a certain sense the same way you get gene flow between bacteria that develops bacterial evolution happens in multicellular life as well.

2 hours ago, snowflake said:

I don't deny that micro evolution occurs, tiny differences in the shape of the wing?  This is evidence against evolution....200 generations later and you still have........fruit flies. 

There is no such thing as micro/macro evolution. There's just change. The evidence for over time large changes is again by looking at the fossils. You see things slowly change over time.  The whole micro/macro distinction is just a dodge because it's trivial to show evolution in the lab. So the goal posts move and what people want is to see big changes. (What counts as a big change carefully left undefined so that they goal posts can always be moved again)

What you're critique just ignores what constitutes a species. All that matters are really big changes. But of course we get really huge morphological changes as well. Just look at the differences in the family of say broccoli. You have very significant morphological differences with pretty obvious DNA similarities. So you have to decide what matters? Morphology or DNA? Pick one. You can just alternate as you want. If you say DNA then clearly DNA changes. If you change the parts of DNA especially dealing with gene expression (basically turning on or off big blocks of DNA often tied to environmental triggers) then you can get radical morphological changes.

Honestly I've never understood this desire to distinguish micro from macro evolution in an age of genetic engineering when small changes are constantly shown to have major changes in behavior, capabilities and morphology. Once you see all those changes are done via changes in DNA, once you show how DNA changes you've pretty well demonstrated the path evolutionarily. Take two somewhat similar creatures and compare the DNA. There. You've shown via the differences how macroevolution happens.

If you claim probability isn't enough (which of course the people making the argument can't do) then all you've established is at best that evolution is true but that mechanism is slightly more complex. But you've accepted evolution.

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

Stephen C Meyer, David Burlinski, here is a group of scientists who don't believe in Darwinian evolution. 

https://evolutionnews.org/author/pnelson/

You conveniently left out the part about their place as scientists in their fields. i.e. their publication history in prominent journals. Certainly there are people with degrees who don't believe in evolution. But that wasn't the original claim.

Meyers was a geophysicist not even a biologist. His degree came from Whitworth College. He has no publications on evolution in legitimate journals.

Burlinski is a philosopher although he did act as an assistant in molecular biology at Columbia. He has no publications on evolution in legitimate journals.

Nelson is a philosopher. He has no publications on evolution in legitimate journals. He also acknowledges that his young earth views overwhelmingly are at odds with the scientific evidence. 

Now certainly one can critique the mechanisms of evolution. Indeed evolutionists do that all the time as they attempt to refine things, much as physicists look at say the Standard Model. However the basic process of evolution is always held. However the three you list really are poor fits.

Edited December 12, 2018 by clarkgoble

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, snowflake said:

Stephen C Meyer, David Burlinski, here is a group of scientists who don't believe in Darwinian evolution. 

https://evolutionnews.org/author/pnelson/

You forgot to include Kent Hovind, the tax evader, in your list. He avoided a half million in SS tax by paying his employees in cash. (Probably at his Dino Land). "Kent Hovind, whose life’s mission is to debunk evolution, says he and his employees are workers of God and therefore exempt from paying taxes. He pays his employees in cash and does not withhold their taxes or pay his share as an employer." Although, he insists that only the KJV is correct, he doesn't seem to believe in Jesus' admonition to render unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's.

- sorry, couldn't help it. But, when you reject evolution, you are putting yourself in the camp with people like Kent who believes man ran around with the dinosaurs, but who apparently rejects australopithecines as an evolutionary link of man. I should challenge him to put an australopithecine fossil model in his Dino  Land complete with a foramen magnum at the base of its skull....

[katherine the great]

3 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

In defense of @snowflake, one leading heart surgeon I know of believes similarly to him:

“...to think that man evolved from one species to another is, to me, incomprehensible. Man has always been man. Dogs have always been dogs. Monkeys have always been monkeys. It’s just the way genetics works.”

-Russell M. Nelson, 2007

President Nelson is not a "leading" scientist. He used to be a very fine heart surgeon who was likely extremely expert on heart/circulatory system anatomy. His general background in biology/evolutionary theory goes way back to the 1940's and I don't believe he has ever published any papers regarding evolution. (and his statement here is simply incorrect)

I will add an addendum: In a sense, President Nelson is correct. A monkey never gives birth to an ape. A human never gives birth to a monkey. Evolution happens in populations over time. At some point, a population of Old World monkey-like catarrhines separated from the parent group and set off on their own evolutionary path. They became larger bodied and lost their tails. They evolved a different dental pattern. They later diverged into the great apes we know now with many groups becoming extinct along the way. Deep time often results in large changes.

Edited December 12, 2018 by katherine the great
addendum

[katherine the great]

3 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

 

Edited December 12, 2018 by katherine the great
Duplicate

[katherine the great]

2 hours ago, snowflake said:

It can't tell you if it reproduced, it can't tell you if it relocated from somewhere, and no you are incorrect, tooth shape gives you zero information on what the diet of an organism was....for example....look at my wife's grill.........is she a vegan, or on the adkin's diet .....all of this is speculation no? 

Science doesn't care what your wife ate for breakfast. Dentition tells us about the ecological niche of a species. And isotope analysis of your wife's teeth/dental calculus can tell us (if we really care, which we don't) whether she was a vegetarian or carnivore or some combination of both.

[SouthernMo]

23 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

President Nelson is not a "leading" scientist. He used to be a very fine heart surgeon who was likely extremely expert on heart/circulatory system anatomy. His general background in biology/evolutionary theory goes way back to the 1940's and I don't believe he has ever published any papers regarding evolution. (and his statement here is simply incorrect)

I will add an addendum: In a sense, President Nelson is correct. A monkey never gives birth to an ape. A human never gives birth to a monkey. Evolution happens in populations over time. At some point, a population of Old World monkey-like catarrhines separated from the parent group and set off on their own evolutionary path. They became larger bodied and lost their tails. They evolved a different dental pattern. They later diverged into the great apes we know now with many groups becoming extinct along the way. Deep time often results in large changes.

My defense of snowflake’s position was sarcastic.

But, I understand how people can align themselves with authorities from outside the field, and anchor themselves to a determination - evidence and reason be damned.  There’s a certain sense of righteousness and security that comes from rigidity.

[katherine the great]

2 hours ago, snowflake said:

Please explain this mechanism of evolution.....is it survival of the fittest or genetic mutation?....or something else? 

The primary drivers of evolution: Genetic drift, gene flow, mutation and natural selection. "Survival of the fittest" is not a proper description of a mechanism of evolution because people misunderstand it to mean "strong or aggressive". The individual who is the "fittest" is the one who leaves behind the most descendants. The trait that makes that happen can suddenly become "unfit" when the environment changes. For instance: Being small bodied may be a disadvantage when there is plenty of food and lots of large predators or where the opposite sex prefers large bodied individuals. However, if the group moves to an island environment where there are limited resources, the individuals who are small bodied may find themselves with the advantage because they don't need as much food to survive and reproduce. Over time, the entire population may become mostly small bodied--they have become the most fit for the environment.

Mutation is the only means to introduce brand new genetic material into a population. It is thought to be crucial to speciation but there is also no universally accepted definition of "species" so there is still a lot to learn.

[Ouagadougou]

5 hours ago, snowflake said:

Now you have a lot of faith......you mean from a fossil you can tell what somebody ate?  You can tell how they walked around? Were they married, did they have children? All i'm saying is that you have a lot of faith....not a lot of evidence for your theory. Your theory which is embraced by "all the scientists" also says that there is no God.....are you willing to embrace this too?.....Because all the scientists say so. 

Not just fossils but:

"Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented."

There is TONS of evidence that proves this (outside of faith). 

[snowflake]

On 12/12/2018 at 2:34 PM, RevTestament said:

You forgot to include Kent Hovind, the tax evader, in your list. He avoided a half million in SS tax by paying his employees in cash. (Probably at his Dino Land). "Kent Hovind, whose life’s mission is to debunk evolution, says he and his employees are workers of God and therefore exempt from paying taxes. He pays his employees in cash and does not withhold their taxes or pay his share as an employer." Although, he insists that only the KJV is correct, he doesn't seem to believe in Jesus' admonition to render unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's.

- sorry, couldn't help it. But, when you reject evolution, you are putting yourself in the camp with people like Kent who believes man ran around with the dinosaurs, but who apparently rejects australopithecines as an evolutionary link of man. I should challenge him to put an australopithecine fossil model in his Dino  Land complete with a foramen magnum at the base of its skull....

Wow....quite a rant there. 

Hovind's biggest rejection of evolution is based on his rigid belief in the bible as an accurate God breathed text.  And I will admit that much of my rejection of evolution is based on this as well, I see the theory of evolution as a direct attack on the book of Genesis. And in Genesis we have many events that nobody saw......it is  a religous belief that the text and events are correct, true and accurate. That being said, much of what is being discussed in this thread is about events that took place in the past, that nobody has been able to see.   

If genetic mutation as the only way to introduce new genetic material into a population, it's a pretty weak explination for the amazing diversity we see.  I find this explination on par with my religous faith.  How can a genetic mutation explain the development of a circulatory system? Oh yes.....I forgot......billions of years......it takes a lot of faith to believe in that. How did the genetic code get started? The scientific explination for this is completely based on faith as well. 

[snowflake]

On 12/12/2018 at 2:46 PM, katherine the great said:

President Nelson is not a "leading" scientist. He used to be a very fine heart surgeon who was likely extremely expert on heart/circulatory system anatomy. His general background in biology/evolutionary theory goes way back to the 1940's and I don't believe he has ever published any papers regarding evolution. (and his statement here is simply incorrect)

I will add an addendum: In a sense, President Nelson is correct. A monkey never gives birth to an ape. A human never gives birth to a monkey. Evolution happens in populations over time. At some point, a population of Old World monkey-like catarrhines separated from the parent group and set off on their own evolutionary path. They became larger bodied and lost their tails. They evolved a different dental pattern. They later diverged into the great apes we know now with many groups becoming extinct along the way. Deep time often results in large changes.

For a genetic mutation to be passed on to the next generation and introduced into a population, the individual with that specific genetic mutation would have to reproduce with another individual who has that specific mutation as well correct? Then the offspring would have to survive, grow to maturity and find another individual whose parents had developed the same mutation and that mutation would need to be beneficial to the individual to influence the gene pool in a population.  Am I understanding this correctly? 

 

It seems to me that natural selection actually leads to the elimination of these types of genetic mutations and not encourage them. 

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

Wow....quite a rant there. 

Hovind's biggest rejection of evolution is based on his rigid belief in the bible as an accurate God breathed text.  And I will admit that much of my rejection of evolution is based on this as well, I see the theory of evolution as a direct attack on the book of Genesis. And in Genesis we have many events that nobody saw......it is  a religous belief that the text and events are correct, true and accurate. That being said, much of what is being discussed in this thread is about events that took place in the past, that nobody has been able to see.   

If genetic mutation as the only way to introduce new genetic material into a population, it's a pretty weak explination for the amazing diversity we see.  I find this explination on par with my religous faith.  How can a genetic mutation explain the development of a circulatory system? Oh yes.....I forgot......billions of years......it takes a lot of faith to believe in that. How did the genetic code get started? The scientific explination for this is completely based on faith as well. 

It isn't a weak explanation--it's very powerful. It connects every living organism into a family tree of sorts. If we were talking about simple point mutations then I would agree with you but there are other types of mutations that cause much larger changes (such as regulatory gene mutations and fused chromosomes).  I'm glad you admit that your objection to evolution is faith based rather than the scores of "leading scientists" you stated earlier. You need to study the issue in much more depth and then craft your own scientific objection if you want to sound credible.

Genesis is my favorite book in the Bible but it was never intended to be a science book. Like evolutionary theory it establishes connections between all living things but its focus is our purpose on earth and our instructions on how to connect ourselves to God.

 

[katherine the great]

6 minutes ago, snowflake said:

For a genetic mutation to be passed on to the next generation and introduced into a population, the individual with that specific genetic mutation would have to reproduce with another individual who has that specific mutation as well correct?

No.

[snowflake]

3 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

No.

?  please explain....and thank you for you answers.. you seem very honest with me and i appreciate that!

[pogi]

I think that the biggest challenge to neo-Darwinian evolution is the discovery of convergent genetic evolution in separate lineages of organisms to produce complex organs by following the same genetic path.  That simply doesn't align with the theory at all. 

Quote

The team's results demonstrate that the evolution of overall gene expression underlying convergent complex traits may be predictable. This finding is unexpected and could indicate unusually strong constraints: The probability of complex organs evolving multiple times with similar trajectories should be vanishingly small, noted Oakley. Yet the team's novel bioinformatic approaches indicate the evolution of convergent phenotypes is associated with the convergent expression of thousands of genes.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141021135020.htm

So apparently the improbable happened not just once, but over, and over, and over, and over, and over again (X several thousand times) to produce a seemingly "predictable" genetic path of evolution in complex organ systems of separate lineages of organisms.  The genetic evolution of seperate lineages are supposed to be divergent according to the theory of evolution, not convergent. 

Remember, we are talking about genetic, not phenotypic, convergence of seperate lineages. 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2018 by pogi

[katherine the great]

43 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

Remember, we are talking about genetic, not phenotypic, convergence of seperate lineages. 

 

 

Yes we do see that pattern sometimes. Life is amazing!

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

?  please explain....and thank you for you answers.. you seem very honest with me and i appreciate that!

An organism with a mutation does not need to mate with another organism with the same mutation. A person with dimples doesn’t have to marry a person with dimples to pass that trait on. 

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, snowflake said:

Wow....quite a rant there. 

I just see Kent Hovind as a bit of a hypocrite - not a very good spokesman for the "creationist" interpretation.

Quote

Hovind's biggest rejection of evolution is based on his rigid belief in the bible as an accurate God breathed text.  And I will admit that much of my rejection of evolution is based on this as well, I see the theory of evolution as a direct attack on the book of Genesis. And in Genesis we have many events that nobody saw......it is  a religous belief that the text and events are correct, true and accurate. That being said, much of what is being discussed in this thread is about events that took place in the past, that nobody has been able to see.   

I don't see belief in evolution as an attack on Genesis or the Bible at all. I believe it is inspired of God. As for "God breathed" what does that mean? That God doesn't give "false" symbolism meant to be interpreted? Didn't Jesus say he would return in this generation? What does that mean to you? In Genesis 2 God seems to define the days of creation as the generations of the earth - not the generations of a man. I have more issues with the flood story than the creation story.

Quote

If genetic mutation as the only way to introduce new genetic material into a population, it's a pretty weak explination for the amazing diversity we see.  I find this explination on par with my religous faith.  How can a genetic mutation explain the development of a circulatory system? Oh yes.....I forgot......billions of years......it takes a lot of faith to believe in that. How did the genetic code get started? The scientific explination for this is completely based on faith as well. 

I believe the earth was formed from matter in the solar system through the power of God. I don't see that as a problem at all. The Bible says God created the animals so they bring forth after their own kind. How did He do this? By designing a system of genetics. Genes do mutate. We see that in genetic testing. If genes mutate, that gives a mechanism for change. What's wrong with that? So God created the creatures so that they can fulfill the measure of their creation, and fill the habitats of the earth. I think that speaks to the wisdom of God - not some attack on God. I just don't see a conflict. I think the conflict you perceive is in your one way rigid interpretation of Genesis. I believe you create a conflict where there need not be any. Knowledge is increased, and now we better understand how God did it, and that is supposed to be some huge problem or attack on God? We are moving beyond some simplistic interpretation, and it is sad to me that man perceives that as a problem - but I think it is because Bible believers are stuck on a particular rigid interpretation, that we know is no longer true. 

Man is wrong about much more in the Bible - I wonder if when they see it, they will throw up their arms, and disbelieve the Bible, or finally realize that they have inherited lies? Tradition is not always right.... Cheers.

[SouthernMo]

2 hours ago, katherine the great said:

An organism with a mutation does not need to mate with another organism with the same mutation. A person with dimples doesn’t have to marry a person with dimples to pass that trait on. 

I remember learning that and proving that to be true when I was in 8th grade when we cross-pollinated different colored carnations! 

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I think that the biggest challenge to neo-Darwinian evolution is the discovery of convergent genetic evolution in separate lineages of organisms to produce complex organs by following the same genetic path.  That simply doesn't align with the theory at all. 

Could you expand upon this a bit more? I confess I don't see the conflict with evolution here. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you mean by neo-Darwinian?

To me it just means either we're not calculating the path probabilities correctly or else there are additional selection pressures going on we're unaware of. 

4 hours ago, snowflake said:

It seems to me that natural selection actually leads to the elimination of these types of genetic mutations and not encourage them. 

As others noted this wasn't correct. My apologies, but while I'm sure your a very nice person, you really are tremendously ignorant of what evolution or genetics say. Given that ignorance it might be wise to think twice about whether there is a conflict. 

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Could you expand upon this a bit more? I confess I don't see the conflict with evolution here. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you mean by neo-Darwinian?

To me it just means either we're not calculating the path probabilities correctly or else there are additional selection pressures going on we're unaware of. 

Selection pressures can explain phenotypical convergence, however the theory of evolution is based on the principle of random genetic mutation which leads to genetic divergence rather than genetic convergence.  These mutations are not driven by selection pressures, according to the theory of evolution.  It is everything that happens after the mutation that is driven by selection pressures.  The theory of evolution predicts that the more distant two species are from their parent species, the more genetic divergence we will see.  We would not expect to see any genetic convergence, let alone thousands of cases of genetic convergence in one functional organ system.  In other words, these two species independently evolved this organ system which produces bioluminescence following the same genetic path in a seemingly predictable way (thousands of times).  That is simply inexplicable in the theory of evolution.  Given the  random mutation of genes, the probabilities are "vanishingly small". 

It is almost like a creator is guiding evolution or something...weird! 

 

Edited December 14, 2018 by pogi

[katherine the great]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Selection pressures can explain phenotypical convergence, however the theory of evolution is based on the principle of random genetic mutation which leads to genetic divergence rather than genetic convergence.  These mutations are not driven by selection pressures, according to the theory of evolution.  It is everything that happens after the mutation that is driven by selection pressures.  The theory of evolution predicts that the more distant two species are from their parent species, the more genetic divergence we will see.  We would not expect to see any genetic convergence, let alone thousands of cases of genetic convergence in one functional organ system.  In other words, these two species independently evolved this organ system which produces bioluminescence following the same genetic path in a seemingly predictable way (thousands of times).  That is simply inexplicable in the theory of evolution.  Given the  random mutation of genes, the probabilities are "vanishingly small". 

It is almost like a creator is guiding evolution or something...weird! 

 

I would point out that this is one study done by one scientist and his grad student. It's just and abstract. I don't know what type of statistical analysis they used so I can't even express an opinion about their conclusions. That aside, I don't see how you can hold this up as "anti-evolutionary theory". I've never heard it posited that there will never be any genetic convergence anywhere in the animal kingdom. That doesn't even make any sense.

[nuclearfuels]

I find that when I stop trying to reconcile irreconcilable philosophies, reality becomes so much more clear.

I've also found Berlinski to be insightful on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berlinski#Evolution

[katherine the great]

2 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

I find that when I stop trying to reconcile irreconcilable philosophies, reality becomes so much more clear.

I've also found Berlinski to be insightful on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berlinski#Evolution

Oh yay! An 80 year old philosopher telling biologists why they are all wrong!  

[darrenskywalker]

20 hours ago, katherine the great said:

An organism with a mutation does not need to mate with another organism with the same mutation. A person with dimples doesn’t have to marry a person with dimples to pass that trait on. 

The problem here is the mistake of looking at evolution and not perpetual speciation. The mating you refer to with the 2, lets say at human-type level, haven't presumed speciation, just mutation(the key to evolution). You mistakenly assume Snowflake's point where I believe he is insuiating speciation. Say male 1 has speciated, via mutation that actually is beneficial and involves the creation of a new partial chromosome(just as an example and in the general theory of evolution would have to happen at some point in the grand scheme of things) that is actually beneficial and can still reproduce if only.....and also thus reproductively isolated from every non same genotype person and can't mate without mating with some female 1 that has the exact same mutation and also for thus chromosomal pairing. So you have someone with said mutation(say 1/billions) who has to find 1(the finding of .....say 1/billions) said counterpart who also has said mutation (say 1/billions) where also this genetic line would also have the next 1/nigh probability impossibility added to this line of perpetual speciation and so on and so forth(1/even more nigh probability impossibility). I would dare say there isn't enough time in Joseph's Smith's 2,555,000,000 years of this "system" nor in conventional science's 4.5 billion years of the earth. It would be approaching infinity because of the exponential increase in probability with evolution implied perpetual speciation. As you can tell I believe in mutations/evolution just not perpetual speciation to explain the origin of man etc...That's simply that Adam is literally a son of God.

For those who consult the scriptures and the earth and have questions, what does the spirit and or your conscious tell you? To believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God or not to believe? There are many nuggets of information in the scriptures that don't contradict science and by science I mean science is in it's infancy, has changed drastically in the last 100 years of this millions of years old earth and science will change and be updated drastically still and has a long ways to go. Just an idea from Eric Skousen, In D&C 77 (We are to understand that as God ^bmade the world in six days, and on the seventh day he finished his work, and ^csanctified it, and also formed man out of the ^ddust of the earth, even so, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years will the Lord God ^esanctify the earth,). What does sanctify mean? Could it mean the law of entropy was working naturally but God suspended this chaotic state and terrestialized the earth? Could it mean the all previous life on the earth ended(though many forms could and would have also ended previously millions of years before as well)?  

Consider the teaching of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young that the earth was created near Kolob and after said Fall fell to it's current orbit? How is a scientist supposed to understand the mind of the Galaxy's Creator who's power allows Him to comprehend all matter, physical and dark, everywhere and it obeys him? Baurau or organize(akin to what we would call telekensis but on a whole other level) with the omniscience of the fullest of truth and science and  of eternal intelligences where His power is His Honor and all the very elements, and most intelligences, obey Him, converting water to wine and He comprehends it all? Either you believe in God or you don't. Either you believe Joseph Smith was/is a prophet of God or you don't. Just because we have a partial, incomplete knowledge of some isolation of science that pales in comparision to the truth, doesn't mean we have God's level of understanding. It comes down to can there be a God at all who has all knowledge and truth and power? If you say yes, then your faith could be that God is never going to contradict true science, just that we are far away from knowledge at that level. We would basically have to have God's level of understanding and power to truly comprehend it all ourselves. The only way to truly understand God's mind in the way science approaches it, would be to be like God ourselves. The cool thing is, that's God's plan, to have us become like Him. Yes we are going to have to study and understand a lot.....after this life. But we'll also need to be endowed with His power which isn't going to be given to anybody that doesn't learn to be like Jesus Christ. D&C 121. God is the greatest Scientist. He's just much more than that.

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, darrenskywalker said:

The problem here is the mistake of looking at evolution and not perpetual speciation. The mating you refer to with the 2, lets say at human-type level, haven't presumed speciation, just mutation(the key to evolution). You mistakenly assume Snowflake's point where I believe he is insuiating speciation. Say male 1 has speciated, via mutation that actually is beneficial and involves the creation of a new partial chromosome(just as an example and in the general theory of evolution would have to happen at some point in the grand scheme of things) that is actually beneficial and can still reproduce if only.....and also thus reproductively isolated from every non same genotype person and can't mate without mating with some female 1 that has the exact same mutation and also for thus chromosomal pairing. So you have someone with said mutation(say 1/billions) who has to find 1(the finding of .....say 1/billions) said counterpart who also has said mutation (say 1/billions) where also this genetic line would also have the next 1/nigh probability impossibility added to this line of perpetual speciation and so on and so forth(1/even more nigh probability impossibility). 

Wow. You mistakenly think my point was to correct Snowflake. My point is that people who don't even have a basic understanding of biology (your post indicates that you fall into this category) should not participate in debates about evolution. That includes mathematicians.