Maths and evolution

[Stuu]

You want axioms of evolution?

1. Species come from other species

3. Species are naturally found near similar species

4. Species are found geographically close to fossils that most resemble them

5. Creatures found as fossils in rock are not identical to organisms alive today

6. Fossils deeper in rock strata (older), look less like animals alive today than those from shallower rocks(younger)

I would have called these principles or laws rather than axioms. But what you call them makes no difference to the compelling body of evidence that justifies them.

Stuart

 

[6days]

IOW, via the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection, populations evolve.

Huh. :think:

If you mean observable change based on pre-existing genetic information... Yes. (Creation model)

If you mean unobservable change based on common ancestry beliefs... No.

 

[Alate_One]

Yes, they are. Do you know what the word means?

No they're not and you admitted it by saying "at macro scales".

Which is of exactly zero relevance.

Sure it is, you asked for an axiom/law.

If you mean observable change based on pre-existing genetic information... Yes. (Creation model)

If you mean unobservable change based on common ancestry beliefs... No.

It's quite observable in the patterns of DNA (similarities and differences) and the fossil record.

Can an individual physically see it happen? No, but there is plenty of evidence to tell you it does. Much as you can observe the formation of river deltas and coral reefs happening bit by bit.

And you certainly can't observe your super fast speciation after the flood (because it doesn't happen). And that rate would actually be fast enough for a human to observe. But there's zero scientific evidence for it AND zero Biblical evidence for it.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I agree. If there was a citation of the source then there might be more to discuss. As it is, it is just a random, anonymous quote that means nothing.

Asked.

Answered:
http://thegoldengnomon.blogspot.com/



AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Is convincing people even your goal?

Some minds are like concrete — thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.

AMR

 

[User Name]

Some minds are like concrete — thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.

Yes, but whose?

 

[gcthomas]

Feel free to engage rationally.

How can we engage with the OP when your only engagement with it is to snipe from the sidelines as usual? Cone on 'tripe, add some value.

 

[gcthomas]

Really?

Can you find an exception to the inverse-square law for objects on a macro scale?

The inverse square law is hedged with limitations, only strictly applying for spherically symmetrical, non-rotating objects.

You did know that, didn't you? :dunce:

 

[Jose Fly]

If you mean observable change based on pre-existing genetic information... Yes. (Creation model)

Then if we see populations change by adding "genetic information", that would negate the "creation model", wouldn't it?