On 22/05/2026 14:27, sticks wrote:Of course.This book by Vox Day is his work on the subject title, MITTENS, and it is quite convincing. He begins by giving a full history lesson on the 1966 Wistar Institute Conference where this concept was debated between biologists and mathematicians. The biologists had no answers for the math, but the math side wasn't very good at pressing this and the debate was considered a draw. Nothing much has been done in the years since then on this, as it was largely ignored by the evolution crowd. Day details this all in depth.I suspect that the sycophancy of AI is more relevant here than its love of consensus.
>
He has updated the formulas and with his background come up with some compelling reasons to believe it simply couldn't have happened. Not enough time for the genetic changes needed to have been the method of creating species. He is not saying he believes evolution didn't happen, he is saying natural selection was not the method. That should make Martin happy. I think he would be considered a Theistic Evolutionists, but he calls it IGM, Intelligent Genetic Manipulation and doesn't really pick a manipulator. His main objective is in proving the math doesn't work for selection. If correct, this is a death sentence for Darwinian evolution which relies on natural selection.
>
Though I don't agree with IGM theory, I found his math on selection impressive. I decided to check into his models and whether or not they had been reviewed and objections leveled. He does have chapters in this book that preempt such reviews and challenges. All the objections I and with the help of AI could find, were addressed in the book. The consensus loving AI even accepted his math and his assumptions were said to be completely valid. I have not found anything that adequately refutes his findings. As back in 1966, it just gets ignored.
Did Fisher make that claim from his grave since he died before Day was born?Day's understanding of the problem, his research, and his method is quite impressive in my view. He simply lays it all out there. I also found his willingness to call out biologists and their complete lack of understanding and/or use of math in their research refreshing. He basically says they're a bunch of idiots, and then goes on to show why.Ronald Fisher, a biologist, was one of the founders of the field of statistics. Theodore Beale makes an elementary statistical error (the lottery fallacy).
I read a 6 part review of the book back in January.I did say below I would be interested in comments from actual readers of the book, and to be honest I'm not sure whoever wrote your review actually did read it. It appears not.
Among the highlightsNo. He is NOT arguing evolution could not have happened and is improbable. Quite the opposite actually. He is arguing it could not have happened by chance through natural selection, and shows why. Calling this a lottery fallacy simply is an attempt at getting the eye off the target.
1) in chapter 7 he commits the lottery fallacy.
2) in chapter 8 he offers unfixed traits (CCR delta 32, lactase persistence, Genghis Khan's Y-chromosome) in support of his position. That seems to me to be a problem for any version of intelligent design that denies the sufficiency of natural selection.No. He uses these examples of unfixed traits to show the difficulty and improbability of even the most obvious propagation cases of genetic mutations becoming fixed. Note that instead of debating his actual point, this is simply using a talking point and ignoring it to again get off target.
3) he incorrectly assumes that all the DNA fixations are independent (read up on selective sweeps).Crazy statements if you actually read the book. He covers both these objections, and even shows where some of the research data he uses that comes from evolutionists, already take these into account. Your reviewer clearly did not read the book.
4) he fails to account for genetic drift operating in parallel with natural selection.
That's the point of the book. His model does so according to him, and he shows why. His actual models and specific points are not being reviewed. Kinda makes me wonder why that is?I could probably give much more on this book, but nobody is gonna read it anyway, so in case Martin or MarkE are interested in this stuff, it is a worthwhile read. If anyone has read it and wants to comment I would love to hear about it. I sincerely believe his math has not been seriously refuted.Forget about his math. Does his model accurately reflect reality?
>
But, I've read the book and just thought MarkE might be interested in the findings, too. It's all easy to look into. He's not hiding anything and his assumptions are made clear.
--
Science Doesn’t Support Darwin. Scientists Do
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.