From Newsgroup: talk.origins

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.

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.

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.

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.
--
Science DoesnrCOt Support Darwin. Scientists Do

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 5/22/2026 8:27 AM, sticks wrote:

This book by Vox Day is his work on the subject title, MITTENS, and it
is quite convincing.-a He begins by giving a full history lesson on the
1966 Wistar Institute Conference where this concept was debated between biologists and mathematicians.-a 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.-a Nothing much has been done in the years since
then on this, as it was largely ignored by the evolution crowd.-a Day details this all in depth.

He has updated the formulas and with his background come up with some compelling reasons to believe it simply couldn't have happened.-a Not
enough time for the genetic changes needed to have been the method of creating species.-a He is not saying he believes evolution didn't happen,
he is saying natural selection was not the method.-a That should make
Martin happy.-a I think he would be considered a Theistic Evolutionists,
but he calls it IGM, Intelligent Genetic Manipulation and doesn't really pick a manipulator.-a His main objective is in proving the math doesn't
work for selection.-a 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.-a I decided to check into his models and whether or not they
had been reviewed and objections leveled.-a He does have chapters in this book that preempt such reviews and challenges.-a All the objections I and with the help of AI could find, were addressed in the book.-a The
consensus loving-a AI even accepted his math and his assumptions were
said to be completely valid.-a I have not found anything that adequately refutes his findings.-a As back in 1966, it just gets ignored.

Day's understanding of the problem, his research, and his method is
quite impressive in my view.-a He simply lays it all out there.-a I also found his willingness to call out biologists and their complete lack of understanding and/or use of math in their research refreshing.-a He basically says they're a bunch of idiots, and then goes on to show why.

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.-a If anyone has read it and wants to comment I
would love to hear about it.-a I sincerely believe his math has not been seriously refuted.

As you note the Wistar conference occurred in 1966. MarkE tried to make
the same claim in his recent "Chimp to Human evolution..." thread.
MarkE failed for the same reason your argument fails. We could not
sequence DNA in 1966. There was growing doubt that natural selection
could account for all the genetic variation that protein sequencing was finding. Kimura's Neutral Theory had not yet been proposed. Genetic
drift and founder effects had been proposed to explain evolution of
things that needed to go through a deleterious phase before fixation
like chromosome abnormalities. MarkE failed in his attempt because we
can now sequence full genomes. We know the mutations that needed to
occur between chimps and humans as they diverged from a common ancestor,
and all the millions of mutations are consistent with neutral theory and
the mutations that needed to occur in order to be selected for obviously
have occurred during the time since we shared a common ancestor with
chimps. The Wistar conference is old news. The issue today is that we
still do not know enough to construct the mathematical tools that we
need to deal with the complexity of evolution based on any new genetic variation has to work within what already exists. Some believe that
genetic drift has more to do with the evolution of the diversity of life
on earth than natural selection. Dembski failed in his mathematical
efforts. You should understand that to be true. You have no evidence
that some designer is required. That is the state of things at this
time. All that we know is that our current understanding can account
for all the DNA differences between chimps and humans. We just do not
know how many of the mutations needed to be selected for in order to
make us into what we are.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 22/05/2026 14:27, sticks wrote:

This book by Vox Day is his work on the subject title, MITTENS, and it
is quite convincing.-a He begins by giving a full history lesson on the
1966 Wistar Institute Conference where this concept was debated between biologists and mathematicians.-a 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.-a Nothing much has been done in the years since
then on this, as it was largely ignored by the evolution crowd.-a Day details this all in depth.

He has updated the formulas and with his background come up with some compelling reasons to believe it simply couldn't have happened.-a Not
enough time for the genetic changes needed to have been the method of creating species.-a He is not saying he believes evolution didn't happen,
he is saying natural selection was not the method.-a That should make
Martin happy.-a I think he would be considered a Theistic Evolutionists,
but he calls it IGM, Intelligent Genetic Manipulation and doesn't really pick a manipulator.-a His main objective is in proving the math doesn't
work for selection.-a 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.-a I decided to check into his models and whether or not they
had been reviewed and objections leveled.-a He does have chapters in this book that preempt such reviews and challenges.-a All the objections I and with the help of AI could find, were addressed in the book.-a The
consensus loving-a AI even accepted his math and his assumptions were
said to be completely valid.-a I have not found anything that adequately refutes his findings.-a As back in 1966, it just gets ignored.

I suspect that the sycophancy of AI is more relevant here than its love
of consensus.

Day's understanding of the problem, his research, and his method is
quite impressive in my view.-a He simply lays it all out there.-a I also found his willingness to call out biologists and their complete lack of understanding and/or use of math in their research refreshing.-a 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. Among the highlights

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.
3) he incorrectly assumes that all the DNA fixations are independent
(read up on selective sweeps).
4) he fails to account for genetic drift operating in parallel with
natural selection.

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.-a If anyone has read it and wants to comment I
would love to hear about it.-a I sincerely believe his math has not been seriously refuted.

Forget about his math. Does his model accurately reflect reality?
--
alias Ernest Major

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Fri, 22 May 2026 08:27:22 -0500, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:

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.

On Wistar:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/failures-of-mathematical-antievolutionism/legacy-of-the-wistar-conference/A5FC42FAB03A7B7D01064674F691D96D

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,

And why do you think that is?

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.

It seems that natural selection is the solution, not the problem. See https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1016207107

Though I don't agree with IGM theory,

Why not?

I found his math on selection
impressive.

You mean you didn't understand it and it agreed with you.

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.

Even YECs have accepted evolution by natural selection, i.e.,
"microevolution."

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.

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.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 5/22/2026 3:36 PM, Ernest Major wrote:

On 22/05/2026 14:27, sticks wrote:

This book by Vox Day is his work on the subject title, MITTENS, and it
is quite convincing.-a He begins by giving a full history lesson on the
1966 Wistar Institute Conference where this concept was debated
between biologists and mathematicians.-a 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.-a Nothing much has been done in the
years since then on this, as it was largely ignored by the evolution
crowd.-a Day details this all in depth.

He has updated the formulas and with his background come up with some
compelling reasons to believe it simply couldn't have happened.-a Not
enough time for the genetic changes needed to have been the method of
creating species.-a He is not saying he believes evolution didn't
happen, he is saying natural selection was not the method.-a That
should make Martin happy.-a I think he would be considered a Theistic
Evolutionists, but he calls it IGM, Intelligent Genetic Manipulation
and doesn't really pick a manipulator.-a His main objective is in
proving the math doesn't work for selection.-a 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.-a I decided to check into his models and whether or not
they had been reviewed and objections leveled.-a He does have chapters
in this book that preempt such reviews and challenges.-a All the
objections I and with the help of AI could find, were addressed in the
book.-a The consensus loving-a AI even accepted his math and his
assumptions were said to be completely valid.-a I have not found
anything that adequately refutes his findings.-a As back in 1966, it
just gets ignored.

I suspect that the sycophancy of AI is more relevant here than its love
of consensus.

Of course.

Day's understanding of the problem, his research, and his method is
quite impressive in my view.-a He simply lays it all out there.-a I also
found his willingness to call out biologists and their complete lack
of understanding and/or use of math in their research refreshing.-a 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).

Did Fisher make that claim from his grave since he died before Day was born?

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 highlights

1) in chapter 7 he commits the lottery fallacy.

No. 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.

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).
4) he fails to account for genetic drift operating in parallel with
natural selection.

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.

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.-a If anyone has read it and wants to comment I
would love to hear about it.-a I sincerely believe his math has not
been seriously refuted.

Forget about his math. Does his model accurately reflect reality?

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?

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 DoesnrCOt Support Darwin. Scientists Do

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Sat, 23 May 2026 09:18:04 -0500, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:

On 5/22/2026 3:36 PM, Ernest Major wrote:

On 22/05/2026 14:27, sticks wrote:

This book by Vox Day is his work on the subject title, MITTENS, and it
is quite convincing.a He begins by giving a full history lesson on the
1966 Wistar Institute Conference where this concept was debated
between biologists and mathematicians.a 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.a Nothing much has been done in the
years since then on this, as it was largely ignored by the evolution
crowd.a Day details this all in depth.

He has updated the formulas and with his background come up with some
compelling reasons to believe it simply couldn't have happened.a Not
enough time for the genetic changes needed to have been the method of
creating species.a He is not saying he believes evolution didn't
happen, he is saying natural selection was not the method.a That
should make Martin happy.a I think he would be considered a Theistic
Evolutionists, but he calls it IGM, Intelligent Genetic Manipulation
and doesn't really pick a manipulator.a His main objective is in
proving the math doesn't work for selection.a 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.a I decided to check into his models and whether or not
they had been reviewed and objections leveled.a He does have chapters
in this book that preempt such reviews and challenges.a All the
objections I and with the help of AI could find, were addressed in the
book.a The consensus lovinga AI even accepted his math and his
assumptions were said to be completely valid.a I have not found
anything that adequately refutes his findings.a As back in 1966, it
just gets ignored.

I suspect that the sycophancy of AI is more relevant here than its love
of consensus.

Of course.

Day's understanding of the problem, his research, and his method is
quite impressive in my view.a He simply lays it all out there.a I also
found his willingness to call out biologists and their complete lack
of understanding and/or use of math in their research refreshing.a 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).

Did Fisher make that claim from his grave since he died before Day was born?

Presumably it's a logical fallacy that others beside Day have fallen
into.

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 highlights

1) in chapter 7 he commits the lottery fallacy.

No. He is NOT arguing evolution could not have happened and is
improbable.

So you agree that evolution could have happened and is not 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.

How is it supposedly "off the target"?

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.

Does he address Kimura and Ohta's ideas? E.g., that the average time
to fixation rate is the population size?

3) he incorrectly assumes that all the DNA fixations are independent
(read up on selective sweeps).
4) he fails to account for genetic drift operating in parallel with
natural selection.

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.

Tell us how he "covers" these criticisms.

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.a If anyone has read it and wants to comment I
would love to hear about it.a I sincerely believe his math has not
been seriously refuted.

Forget about his math. Does his model accurately reflect reality?

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?

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.

Claims from someone as far right on the political spectrum as he is
have to be viewed with caution.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 5/22/26 9:27 AM, sticks wrote:

This book by Vox Day is his work on the subject title, MITTENS, and it
is quite convincing.-a He begins by

Look at the size of the universe.

Look at an atom.

Not even an atom, look at an electron!

The odds of that electron being in any one place
within this MASSIVE universe, this universe so
large it over stresses our ability to even
conceptualize it: A billion times a trillion
AGAINST that electron being in any one spot --
the odds are even WORSE! Yet the electron
exist! It's there! You can detect it!

Mathematically it's IMPOSSIBLE!

Truth is, people who say evolution is impossible
are under achievers. Christ, you fools, THE
EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE IS IMPOSSIBLE! I mean,
it's literally something from NOTHING!

A "Quantum Field" ia SOMETHING! So even the lazy
people who throw something like that out, pretending
it avoids something-from-nothing, are delusional.

The universe. The sun. Atoms. God...

All of it came from NOTHING, according to you.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 5/22/26 6:27 AM, sticks wrote:

This book by Vox Day is his work on the subject title, MITTENS, and it
is quite convincing.-a He begins by giving a full history lesson on the
1966 Wistar Institute Conference where this concept was debated between biologists and mathematicians.-a 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.-a Nothing much has been done in the years since
then on this, as it was largely ignored by the evolution crowd.-a Day details this all in depth.

He has updated the formulas and with his background come up with some compelling reasons to believe it simply couldn't have happened.-a Not
enough time for the genetic changes needed to have been the method of creating species.-a He is not saying he believes evolution didn't happen,
he is saying natural selection was not the method.-a That should make
Martin happy.-a I think he would be considered a Theistic Evolutionists,
but he calls it IGM, Intelligent Genetic Manipulation and doesn't really pick a manipulator.-a His main objective is in proving the math doesn't
work for selection.-a 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.-a I decided to check into his models and whether or not they
had been reviewed and objections leveled.-a He does have chapters in this book that preempt such reviews and challenges.-a All the objections I and with the help of AI could find, were addressed in the book.-a The
consensus loving-a AI even accepted his math and his assumptions were
said to be completely valid.-a I have not found anything that adequately refutes his findings.-a As back in 1966, it just gets ignored.

Day's understanding of the problem, his research, and his method is
quite impressive in my view.-a He simply lays it all out there.-a I also found his willingness to call out biologists and their complete lack of understanding and/or use of math in their research refreshing.-a He basically says they're a bunch of idiots, and then goes on to show why.

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.-a If anyone has read it and wants to comment I
would love to hear about it.-a I sincerely believe his math has not been seriously refuted.

Perhaps you were unaware that evolution by natural selection is being
used regularly and profitably in design and manufacturing. Google "evolutionary algorithms" or look it up on Wikipedia. Obviously, natural selection works well enough. In fact, the fact that it continues to be
used at all shows that it works better than human intelligent design, at
least for some applications.

As for evolutionists not understanding math, look up also the Wikipedia
page on Ronald Fisher, which contains quote describing him as ""a genius
who almost single-handedly created the foundations for modern
statistical science" and "the single most important figure in 20th
century statistics."
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 5/24/2026 9:08 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:

On 5/22/26 6:27 AM, sticks wrote:

This book by Vox Day is his work on the subject title, MITTENS, and it
is quite convincing.-a He begins by giving a full history lesson on the
1966 Wistar Institute Conference where this concept was debated
between biologists and mathematicians.-a 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.-a Nothing much has been done in the
years since then on this, as it was largely ignored by the evolution
crowd.-a Day details this all in depth.

He has updated the formulas and with his background come up with some
compelling reasons to believe it simply couldn't have happened.-a Not
enough time for the genetic changes needed to have been the method of
creating species.-a He is not saying he believes evolution didn't
happen, he is saying natural selection was not the method.-a That
should make Martin happy.-a I think he would be considered a Theistic
Evolutionists, but he calls it IGM, Intelligent Genetic Manipulation
and doesn't really pick a manipulator.-a His main objective is in
proving the math doesn't work for selection.-a 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.-a I decided to check into his models and whether or not
they had been reviewed and objections leveled.-a He does have chapters
in this book that preempt such reviews and challenges.-a All the
objections I and with the help of AI could find, were addressed in the
book.-a The consensus loving-a AI even accepted his math and his
assumptions were said to be completely valid.-a I have not found
anything that adequately refutes his findings.-a As back in 1966, it
just gets ignored.

Day's understanding of the problem, his research, and his method is
quite impressive in my view.-a He simply lays it all out there.-a I also
found his willingness to call out biologists and their complete lack
of understanding and/or use of math in their research refreshing.-a He
basically says they're a bunch of idiots, and then goes on to show why.

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.-a If anyone has read it and wants to comment I
would love to hear about it.-a I sincerely believe his math has not
been seriously refuted.

Perhaps you were unaware that evolution by natural selection is being
used regularly and profitably in design and manufacturing. Google "evolutionary algorithms" or look it up on Wikipedia. Obviously, natural selection works well enough. In fact, the fact that it continues to be
used at all shows that it works better than human intelligent design, at least for some applications.

Wow...you can't seriously believe what have written is true? You are
saying natural selection, but what EA actually is are algorithms based
on the theories and principles of natural selection in an effort to
solve problems. NOT actual selection. This has absolutely ZERO to do
with natural selection as it refers to Darwinian Evolution. If
anything, with the intelligent setup, artificial fitness, and isolated variables usually used, it resembles Intelligent Design more than
natural selection!
But since you mention it, I don't recall you piping up when I wrote
about Stuart Burgess book "Ultimate Engineering" where the entire book
are his thoughts on this. In the book he describes how design engineers
are often using biological systems as templates for new and innovative designs. Of course his book IS relevant and DOES make interpretations
you would not agree with. You just won't try and counter them other
than saying, "We don't know."

As for evolutionists not understanding math, look up also the Wikipedia
page on Ronald Fisher, which contains quote describing him as ""a genius
who almost single-handedly created the foundations for modern
statistical science" and "the single most important figure in 20th
century statistics."

Wow...That settles that! You're being so ridiculous in the last two
posts I believe I've probably misjudged you. I did not say Day claimed evolutionists don't understand math. I said he claimed that,
"biologists and their complete lack of understanding and/or use of math
in their research" when referring to the issues involved in the subject
title of his book.
Bringing up someone who died several years even before the Wistar
Institute Conference has absolutely nothing to do with his claim about
the actual biologists at the conference, or the work done on the issues discussed after it. I realize you won't read this book, so you will not
be able to do much more than try and get the target moved. Noted.

What a waste of time!
--
Science DoesnrCOt Support Darwin. Scientists Do

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 5/25/26 3:00 PM, sticks wrote:

On 5/24/2026 9:08 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:

On 5/22/26 6:27 AM, sticks wrote:

This book by Vox Day is his work on the subject title, MITTENS, and
it is quite convincing.-a He begins by giving a full history lesson on
the 1966 Wistar Institute Conference where this concept was debated
between biologists and mathematicians.-a 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.-a Nothing much has been done in the
years since then on this, as it was largely ignored by the evolution
crowd.-a Day details this all in depth.

He has updated the formulas and with his background come up with some
compelling reasons to believe it simply couldn't have happened.-a Not
enough time for the genetic changes needed to have been the method of
creating species.-a He is not saying he believes evolution didn't
happen, he is saying natural selection was not the method.-a That
should make Martin happy.-a I think he would be considered a Theistic
Evolutionists, but he calls it IGM, Intelligent Genetic Manipulation
and doesn't really pick a manipulator.-a His main objective is in
proving the math doesn't work for selection.-a 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.-a I decided to check into his models and whether or not
they had been reviewed and objections leveled.-a He does have chapters
in this book that preempt such reviews and challenges.-a All the
objections I and with the help of AI could find, were addressed in
the book.-a The consensus loving-a AI even accepted his math and his
assumptions were said to be completely valid.-a I have not found
anything that adequately refutes his findings.-a As back in 1966, it
just gets ignored.

Day's understanding of the problem, his research, and his method is
quite impressive in my view.-a He simply lays it all out there.-a I
also found his willingness to call out biologists and their complete
lack of understanding and/or use of math in their research
refreshing.-a He basically says they're a bunch of idiots, and then
goes on to show why.

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.-a If anyone has read it and wants to
comment I would love to hear about it.-a I sincerely believe his math
has not been seriously refuted.

Perhaps you were unaware that evolution by natural selection is being
used regularly and profitably in design and manufacturing. Google
"evolutionary algorithms" or look it up on Wikipedia. Obviously,
natural selection works well enough. In fact, the fact that it
continues to be used at all shows that it works better than human
intelligent design, at least for some applications.

Wow...you can't seriously believe what have written is true?-a You are saying natural selection, but what EA actually is are algorithms based
on the theories and principles of natural selection in an effort to
solve problems.-a NOT actual selection.-a This has absolutely ZERO to do with natural selection as it refers to Darwinian Evolution.-a If
anything, with the intelligent setup, artificial fitness, and isolated variables usually used, it resembles Intelligent Design more than
natural selection!

Not true. Evolutionary algorithms are not based on natural selection.
Natural selection alone wouldn't accomplish anything. Evolution -- the
whole kit and caboodle of it -- is what is being used. That includes
selection (albeit it isn't really "natural" in design applications),
and, just like evolution in the wild, it also includes variation.
Evolution is being used profitably in modern business.

But since you mention it, I don't recall you piping up when I wrote
about Stuart Burgess book "Ultimate Engineering" where the entire book
are his thoughts on this.-a In the book he describes how design engineers are often using biological systems as templates for new and innovative designs.-a Of course his book IS relevant and DOES make interpretations
you would not agree with.-a You just won't try and counter them other
than saying, "We don't know."

Don't be surprised that designed things and evolved things look a lot
alike. Design is, and always has been, an evolutionary process: The
designer comes up with an idea (probably based on another design which
already exists), modifies it to account for any problems she sees with
it, modifies it more after making prototypes, etc. It's change with
variation all the way, with the good variations being selected and the
poorer ones ending in the trash.

There are differences between human-made design and evolution, to be
sure. Important differences. And those differences make it crystal
clear that natural evolution, not the intelligent design we're familiar
with from humans, is responsible for life. In particular, evolution
produces a natural nested hierarchy of traits; human design doesn't. And
the nested hierarchy is what we see.

As for evolutionists not understanding math, look up also the
Wikipedia page on Ronald Fisher, which contains quote describing him
as ""a genius who almost single-handedly created the foundations for
modern statistical science" and "the single most important figure in
20th century statistics."

Wow...That settles that!-a You're being so ridiculous in the last two
posts I believe I've probably misjudged you.-a I did not say Day claimed evolutionists don't understand math.-a I said he claimed that,
"biologists and their complete lack of understanding and/or use of math
in their research" when referring to the issues involved in the subject title of his book.
Bringing up someone who died several years even before the Wistar
Institute Conference has absolutely nothing to do with his claim about
the actual biologists at the conference, or the work done on the issues discussed after it.-a I realize you won't read this book, so you will not
be able to do much more than try and get the target moved.-a Noted.

The point is, evolutionists know a hell of a lot more about applying mathematics to the real world than the people who were at the Wistar Conference. You seem to have missed that Ronald Fisher was a biologist
using math in his research, and that much of modern statistics was
created by and for work in biology. I don't know if Day knows much
about mathematics (probably not), but he sure as heck doesn't know
anything whatsoever about biologists.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Wed, 27 May 2026 21:39:30 -0700
Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:

On 5/25/26 3:00 PM, sticks wrote:

On 5/24/2026 9:08 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:

On 5/22/26 6:27 AM, sticks wrote:

This book by Vox Day is his work on the subject title, MITTENS, and
it is quite convincing.a He begins by giving a full history lesson on >>> the 1966 Wistar Institute Conference where this concept was debated
between biologists and mathematicians.a 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.a Nothing much has been done in the
years since then on this, as it was largely ignored by the evolution
crowd.a Day details this all in depth.

He has updated the formulas and with his background come up with some >>> compelling reasons to believe it simply couldn't have happened.a Not
enough time for the genetic changes needed to have been the method of >>> creating species.a He is not saying he believes evolution didn't
happen, he is saying natural selection was not the method.a That
should make Martin happy.a I think he would be considered a Theistic
Evolutionists, but he calls it IGM, Intelligent Genetic Manipulation
and doesn't really pick a manipulator.a His main objective is in
proving the math doesn't work for selection.a 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.a I decided to check into his models and whether or not
they had been reviewed and objections leveled.a He does have chapters >>> in this book that preempt such reviews and challenges.a All the
objections I and with the help of AI could find, were addressed in
the book.a The consensus lovinga AI even accepted his math and his
assumptions were said to be completely valid.a I have not found
anything that adequately refutes his findings.a As back in 1966, it
just gets ignored.

Day's understanding of the problem, his research, and his method is
quite impressive in my view.a He simply lays it all out there.a I
also found his willingness to call out biologists and their complete
lack of understanding and/or use of math in their research
refreshing.a He basically says they're a bunch of idiots, and then
goes on to show why.

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.a If anyone has read it and wants to
comment I would love to hear about it.a I sincerely believe his math
has not been seriously refuted.

Perhaps you were unaware that evolution by natural selection is being
used regularly and profitably in design and manufacturing. Google
"evolutionary algorithms" or look it up on Wikipedia. Obviously,
natural selection works well enough. In fact, the fact that it
continues to be used at all shows that it works better than human
intelligent design, at least for some applications.

Wow...you can't seriously believe what have written is true?a You are saying natural selection, but what EA actually is are algorithms based
on the theories and principles of natural selection in an effort to
solve problems.a NOT actual selection.a This has absolutely ZERO to do with natural selection as it refers to Darwinian Evolution.a If
anything, with the intelligent setup, artificial fitness, and isolated variables usually used, it resembles Intelligent Design more than
natural selection!

Not true. Evolutionary algorithms are not based on natural selection. Natural selection alone wouldn't accomplish anything. Evolution -- the
whole kit and caboodle of it -- is what is being used. That includes selection (albeit it isn't really "natural" in design applications),
and, just like evolution in the wild, it also includes variation.
Evolution is being used profitably in modern business.

But since you mention it, I don't recall you piping up when I wrote
about Stuart Burgess book "Ultimate Engineering" where the entire book
are his thoughts on this.a In the book he describes how design engineers are often using biological systems as templates for new and innovative designs.a Of course his book IS relevant and DOES make interpretations
you would not agree with.a You just won't try and counter them other
than saying, "We don't know."

Don't be surprised that designed things and evolved things look a lot
alike. Design is, and always has been, an evolutionary process: The
designer comes up with an idea (probably based on another design which already exists), modifies it to account for any problems she sees with
it, modifies it more after making prototypes, etc. It's change with variation all the way, with the good variations being selected and the poorer ones ending in the trash.

More importantly in biology, there's no leap of "let's just scrap that
and start again", that a human Intelligent Designer would do.

There are differences between human-made design and evolution, to be
sure. Important differences. And those differences make it crystal
clear that natural evolution, not the intelligent design we're familiar
with from humans, is responsible for life. In particular, evolution
produces a natural nested hierarchy of traits; human design doesn't. And
the nested hierarchy is what we see.

As for evolutionists not understanding math, look up also the
Wikipedia page on Ronald Fisher, which contains quote describing him
as ""a genius who almost single-handedly created the foundations for
modern statistical science" and "the single most important figure in
20th century statistics."

Wow...That settles that!a You're being so ridiculous in the last two
posts I believe I've probably misjudged you.a I did not say Day claimed evolutionists don't understand math.a I said he claimed that,
"biologists and their complete lack of understanding and/or use of math
in their research" when referring to the issues involved in the subject title of his book.
Bringing up someone who died several years even before the Wistar Institute Conference has absolutely nothing to do with his claim about
the actual biologists at the conference, or the work done on the issues discussed after it.a I realize you won't read this book, so you will not be able to do much more than try and get the target moved.a Noted.

The point is, evolutionists know a hell of a lot more about applying mathematics to the real world than the people who were at the Wistar Conference. You seem to have missed that Ronald Fisher was a biologist using math in his research, and that much of modern statistics was
created by and for work in biology. I don't know if Day knows much
about mathematics (probably not), but he sure as heck doesn't know
anything whatsoever about biologists.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2