Posted on 02/26/2006 9:12:24 PM PST by ibme
The Official Death of the Theory of Evolution – 2/25/2006
Theorem Name: The Illusion of Evolution DOA Theorem Note: This Theorem looks at the Theory of Evolution from a completely abstract point of view. The formulas and discussion are presented from an Evolutionist point of view. This doesn’t necessarily represent the view of the author. AoU – age of the Universe. (1) AoU = 10 billion = 10,000,000,000 years In the whole age of the Universe, there are only about 1 Trillion opportunities for something to evolve to a different state – eventually Man. (this is very generous)(3) MM - Mega Millions Jackpot Odds In order to believe the Theory of Evolution, you have to believe the odds of going from Rock to Man are only 5,691 times greater than winning the Mega Millions Jackpot.
Note: If something is wrong with the math, please show me. The numbers are not presumed to be absolutely correct. You can play with the numbers. Throw in a few million here and there. No matter what numbers you consider, there aren’t enough reproductive life cycles in the projected age of the Universe to produce the simplest form of life.
Theorem: There are not enough reproductive life cycle generations available in the projected age of the Universe to allow even the most basic form of evolution.
AvRpdCyc - average reproductive life cycle generation (2)(3)
TotalRpdCyc – total reproductive cycles in the age of the Universe.
AvRpdCyc = 100 per year (2)(3)
TotalRpdCyc = AoU * AvRpdCyc = 1,000,000,000,000 = 1 Trillion
MM = 175,711,536
TotalRpdCyc / MM = 1,000,000,000,000/175,711,536 = 5,691
I’m taking into consideration that the Theory of Evolution is based on things moving from simple states to more complex. Some cells reproduce quickly. Mankind would be around 12 years at the best. (3)
Hi.
Can you decipher this
Yes.
and 'splain it in REAL simple terms so that I can understand it?
Unlikely.
I think it says that your beloved faith in evolution is wrong.
No, it says that the author doesn't understand the first thing about the subject he's so incompetently attempting to critique, but that doesn't matter to his intended audience anyway, because they don't understand it either, nor do they want to actually educate themselves on the topic, they just want to cling to any fancy-sounding excuse they can find to reinforce their preferred beliefs, no matter how invalid the argument. I've seen this behavior over more than three decades of dealing with anti-evolutionists, and it's very consistent. I have yet to meet an anti-evolutionist who understood the topic well enough to not make extremely elementary errors concerning it, and yes, that includes such folks as those worshiped by the anti-evolutionists, including Behe and Spetner and Dembski.
But it uses the cover of science and research to make appear like, uh, researched science.
Yes, exactly! The author's mathematical mumbo-jumbo bears no resemblance to the reality he's trying to argue against, it flings some numbers and some invalid calculations around in an attempt to use "the cover of science" (but not "research" -- he clearly hasn't *done* any nor is his rambling post based on any) to "make it appear" like his post bears some resemblance to actual science, when it does not.
Kinda like the way evolutionists do.
No, they do real science. Try reading some science journals for a change instead of creationist pamphlets.
Funny...
It might be funny if it weren't so incompetently pathetic, and cynically dishonest. Instead, it's just as tiresome as a Michael Moore screed, and for exactly the same reasons.
The main problem with the author's "analysis" is that it doesn't even attempt to mathematically model the process of evolution at all, therefore whatever numbers it produces do not have any relevance to evolution. It's as if I had simply counted the number of crows in the world, past and present, then declared, "therefore, it is impossible for crows to eat corn", without having once actually examined the issue of corn-eating. The author merely (poorly) estimates a number of generations, without once actually pondering (or calculating) what this number does or does not mean to the process of evolution, nor what it does or does not mean to the question of what evolution could or could not produce given that number of generations. It's ludicrously childish, and bone-headedly irrelevant to any questions of evolutionary processes, but the author seems bizarrely impressed with his own lame work, and so do a great many creationists who don't know enough about how to do a real analysis to be able to tell s*** from Shinola. Not, of course, that they care, they just care that someone has spit in the eye of actual science again, which is all they care about, no matter if it's on the level of a retarded child "disproving" quantum mechanics by waving a stick around in a pot of his own urine then smugly asking the physicists, "If something is wrong with my analysis, please show me."
Cue the photo of the "aw jeez, not *this* s*** again" guy.
Like almost every other bit of "analysis" by an anti-evolutionist, the author has so many idiotic errors in his "analysis" that, like the child brandishing his smelly stick, it's barely even worth wasting any time "refuting" him, but I've got nothing better to do this morning, so what the heck...
He writes:
The Official Death of the Theory of Evolution – 2/25/2006
The reality of evolutionary biology is supported by such a vastly overwhelming volume of evidence and research, along so many multiple and independently cross-confirming lines, that anyone who thinks they can establish its "official death" by armchair farting around with some numbers during his lunch-break is, quite frankly, a moron. It's like someone playing around on his calculator and "disproving" that the sky is blue. You just want to slap him a few times and say, "hey, dolt, why don't you step outside and take a look upwards, then ponder that perhaps you f***ed up something in your analysis?" The same goes for the endless waves of anti-evolution creationists who "disprove" things that have been observed actually occurring in biology countless times over -- case in point, the moron's next statement:
Theorem: There are not enough reproductive life cycle generations available in the projected age of the Universe to allow even the most basic form of evolution.
The stupidity of this comment is just mind-boggling. He claims that he has discovered something that eliminates the possibility of "even the most basic form of evolution", and yet "even the most basic form of evolution" -- not to mention forms well beyond "basic" -- have been observed and examined in countless studies over the past century. For just a few examples out of countless:
Directed evolution of biosynthetic pathways. Recruitment of cysteine thioethers for constructing the cell wall of Escherichia coliJust how ignorant of basic science *is* this guy? Do we even need to try to stifle our laughter from this point forward, or bother refuting his pap? He's on the level of the guy who confidently declares that he has "disproved" the "blue sky" observation.Molecular evolution of an arsenate detoxification pathway by DNA shuffling
The evolutionary origin of complex features
Bacterial evolution and the cost of antibiotic resistance
Mild environmental stress elicits mutations affecting fitness in Chlamydomonas
The emergence and maintenance of diversity: insights from experimental bacterial populations
Pleiotropic effects of beneficial mutations in Escherichia coli
The Rate of Compensatory Mutation in the DNA Bacteriophage X174
Evolution and Information: The Nylon Bug
Spontaneous mutations in diploid Saccharomyces cerevisiae: more beneficial than expected
Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection
Note: This Theorem looks at the Theory of Evolution from a completely abstract point of view.
Well, that's *one* way of describing it -- the author's so-called analysis is from such a "completely abstract point of view" that it forgets to include *any* form of analysis of "the Theory of Evolution" at all. The only thing the author does is (mis)count generations. Period. He "forgets" to actually apply this number to "the Theory of Evolution" in any way, much less demonstrate what effect it may or may not have on evolution. What a maroon.
The formulas and discussion are presented from an Evolutionist point of view.
ROFL!!! No, they're not. The "evolutionist point of view" is to actually examine real-world cases of genetic change, and to actually model evolutionary processes (among many other ways to test and examine hypotheses) -- two things which the author of this nonsense hasn't even bothered to do.
This doesn’t necessarily represent the view of the author.
Ah, so even the *author* doesn't "necessarily" believe what he's posting. Got it.
AoU – age of the Universe. (1)
AvRpdCyc - average reproductive life cycle generation (2)(3)
TotalRpdCyc – total reproductive cycles in the age of the Universe.
AoU = 10 billion = 10,000,000,000 years
AvRpdCyc = 100 per year (2)(3)
TotalRpdCyc = AoU * AvRpdCyc = 1,000,000,000,000 = 1 Trillion
In the whole age of the Universe, there are only about 1 Trillion opportunities for something to evolve to a different state – eventually Man. (this is very generous)(3)
The author claims that this is "very generous", but actually, it's stupendously, idiotically tiny compared to the actual number of "opportunities for something to evolve to a different state". The author's results are based on the enormously stupid presumptions that:
1. At any given time, there is only one reproductive organism alive anywhere in the entire universe. Just how stupid *is* this guy? Oh, right, he's an anti-evolution creationist, so the answer to that question is obvious.
2. This single, lonely one-in-the-whole-universe organism only produces one offspring in its entire life.
3. In the entire universe, the act of reproduction only occurs a single time every three days or so. (This dude has obviously never taken an introductory biology course, where even the most beginning student gets an opportunity to observe several *billion* acts of reproduction occurring in a petri dish in the course of a single hour of class).
Again, just how ignorant of reality *is* this guy? Does he not get out much? Does he imagine that fruit flies, for example, check their watches and say to each other, "hey Fred, according to my appointment book it's your turn to reproduce today, the rest of us will hold off for now and check again in three days to see which one of us might have a turn again then"...
I was about to call his analysis "grade-school level", but frankly, I doubt even a second-grader could make as idiotic a mistake as this guy has. The average second-grader (heck, a *retarded* second-grader) is most likely aware that there is more than one thing alive at any given time, and that in any given day countless different organisms are all reproducing, things which are apparently totally unknown to this bone-headed anti-evolutionist who wrote this time-wasting piece of horse crap (and his fellow anti-evolutionists who read it and go, "yup, sounds good to me, them scientists must all be stupid not to see this!")
To show just how amazingly wrong his figures are, in actual fact the number of living things at any given time is not "one", as in this anti-evolutionist's drug-addled fantasy, the number of living things is on the order of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, which the last time I checked was a *lot* bigger than "one". Heck, there are around 100,000,000,000,000 living things IN YOUR INTESTINES ALONE, and that's just *yours* -- multiply that by 6,000,000,000 to get the number living in the guts of all humans combined. I wish anti-evolutionists would bother to crack open a biology book at least once in their lives before they attempt to critique that field of science, but unfortunately that wish seems to be a futile one -- they seem to *like* attacking biology from a position of gross ignorance.
Furthermore, unicellular organisms reproduce far faster than "once every three days" -- under good conditions, the actual generation time is more on the order of fifteen minutes, about 300 times faster than the author describes. So among unicellular organisms alone, the author's answer of "one trillion (1,000,000,000,000)" grand total "opportunities for something to evolve" in the entire history of the universe is laughably, idiotically, ignorantly understated. The actual number just for Earth alone is on the order of 3.8 billion years (amount of time unicellular life has existed on Earth) times one generation per fifteen minutes (unicellular generation time) times the number of unicellular organisms (see above), which comes out to 1.33x1044, or 133,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, which is a "mere" 133,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times larger than the author's laughably incorrect figure.
MM - Mega Millions Jackpot Odds
MM = 175,711,536
TotalRpdCyc / MM = 1,000,000,000,000/175,711,536 = 5,691
This is just... Moronic. Even if the "one trillion" figure had been correct -- and it's not, it's understated by a factor of 1.33x1032 -- this calculation would say nothing at all about the feasibility of evolution, since it in no way incorporates any model of evolution whatsoever. It's just a calculation that if life on Earth had collectively bought a lottery ticket once every three days, it would have won over five thousand times by now. What does that have to do with what evolution could or could not accomplish via evolutionary processes? Oh, right, nothing whatsoever. Evolution is not about buying lottery tickets, it's about accumulating genetic change. Let's have the author get back to us when he understands enough about that process to calculate something *relevant*.
But just for fun, despite its ludicrous inappropriateness, let's correct the author's "lottery example" for the *real* number of "evolutionary opportunities", shall we? If life on Earth had bought a lottery ticket every time something had reproduced and had a "evolutionary opportunity", it would have actually won the lottery 1.33x1044 divided by 175,711,536, equaling 757,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times by now. That's a s***load of lottery winnings, wouldn't you say? Life would have won the lottery at a rate of 6,316,276,920,097,952,633 times every second. Where can I get a slice of that action?
Anti-evolutionists have *no* clue just how vastly many opportunities for evolutionary change occur on a daily basis. That's because they've never bothered to open a science journal, and rely on "learning" about biology from other anti-evolutionists, such as this dolt. Big mistake.
In order to believe the Theory of Evolution, you have to believe the odds of going from Rock to Man are only 5,691 times greater than winning the Mega Millions Jackpot.
No, in order to "believe the Theory of Evolution", you have to be familiar with the actual mountains of evidence and research which has been accumulated over the past 140+ years. To be an ANTI-evolutionist, on the other hand, you have to believe that only one thing lives on the planet at any given time, and that it passes on its genes by buying lottery tickets. You also have to believe that jacking around with your calculator without any real knowledge of biology will allow you to "disprove" an entire well-established field of science. That's just... disturbed.
This doesn’t take into consideration; no one has ever seen a rock do it. This doesn’t take into account; the Human Body consists of 10 Trillion individual cells. We haven’t considered the complexity of the Human Body. We haven’t considered the complexity of reproduction. We haven’t considered a distribution curve. We haven’t considered any deviation. (On odds of 1/Trillion there would have to be a massive deviation.) (4) We haven’t considered other forms of life. We haven’t taken into consideration that it’s a lot easier to pick lottery balls than produce a live entity able to reproduce itself.
Well, it's certainly nice of the author to admit that he isn't actually up to the task of modeling the *real* processes, so he just wasted everyone's time yakking about lottery results instead, then waved his hands about how this might or might not have any application to evolution after all... Then, of course, he slapped a grossly misleading title onto his lottery ramblings like "The Official Death of the Theory of Evolution", in the hopes that no one would notice the bait-and-switch. Not very honest of him, was it? But then, that's par for the course for anti-evolutionists.
Evolution has been intently studied for over 100 years and there is no evidence of anything evolving in the last 100 years.
Wow, he really *is* pig-ignorant of biology... No evidence, eh? Little does he know how little he knows.
Note: If something is wrong with the math, please show me.
You mean, other than the fact that it leaves out the most significant factors (like population size) while failing to actually bother to make any calculations which model the actual process he wants to examine (evolution)? Nah, nothing wrong with it other than being completely irrelevant. He has, however, shown that you can become a multimillionaire by playing the lottery every three days for a billion+ years, though.
The numbers are not presumed to be absolutely correct.
Gosh, then why was this piece entitled, "The Official Death of the Theory of Evolution", as if he was under the impression it was so correct as to make the "Death of the Theory of Evolution" an "official" thing?
You can play with the numbers.
...like this guy, or you can go out and do some real research on real-world cases of evolution, like the biologists do.
Throw in a few million here and there. No matter what numbers you consider, there aren’t enough reproductive life cycles in the projected age of the Universe to produce the simplest form of life.
What, 133,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 life cycles aren't enough? Why not? The author has "forgotten" to explain why it wouldn't be. He has just babbled on about playing the lottery a single time each generation, while failing to do even the most rudimentary analysis of the actual process he's pretending to critique.
For an idea of how to *competently* analyze the required rates of evolutionary change versus the observed or theoretically possible rates (as well as abiogenesis calculations, which the author alludes to), see for example:
Morphological rates of changeThe author is invited to try again if he ever bothers to actually learn something about this subject to the point where he finally knows his posterior sphincter from a hole in the ground. Of course, then he would have trouble fitting in with his anti-evolution peers.Probability of Abiogenesis FAQs
Rates of Evolution: Effects of Time and Temporal Scaling
Evaluation of the Rate of Evolution in Natural Populations of Guppies (Poecilia reticulata)
Mutation rates in mammalian genomes
Lineage-Specific Gene Duplication and Loss in Human and Great Ape Evolution
Structural and evolutionary analysis of the two chimpanzee alpha-globin mRNAs
Adaptive Evolution of MRG, a Neuron-Specific Gene Family Implicated in Nociception
Inferring Deleterious-Mutation Parameters in Natural Daphnia Populations
Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans
New estimates of the rates and effects of mildly deleterious mutation in Drosophila melanogaster
Mutation rates in mammalian genomes
Allele frequency distribution under recurrent selective sweeps
Pleiotropic effects of beneficial mutations in Escherichia coliComparison of human to chimp genome and rate of divergence
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome
Not this again.
Neck deep in the big muddy. Just keep breathing.
Ichy you protest too much * zillion..
Unable to find a flaw in the material, I see, so you resort to just flinging homilies in the hopes someone will mistake it for actual rebuttal.
Come back if you can ever discuss the material on its own merits.
[Thunderous applause!]
I read every line! :-)
Excellent post!
(I saved it off to my HD)
I learn so much from your posts!!! Thank you. (I don't mind at all saying this here for all to read)
I see you brought your stick to the party.
You're in denial if you think WE can ever agree on these matters.. You know we can't.. Yeah you do.. You're a DNA'osaur and I am not..
Oh, wait, yes it was. Good job.
LMAO
Sorry but... our pamphlets/books and documents are based off evolutionary scientific books, research, reports, and "facts" of their theories! Science is mostly based off hypothetical equations till proven.... and coming to an assuming conclusion is not a fact ( and evolution is still just a theory,,, not enough proof)....which most evolution science studies end up at.... just more relative theories!
Excuse me for getting obnoxious! But where in the world do you SIR think we get our information. We don't pull it out of our moon cracks! We get it from Evolution/science books, studies, documtentaries, reported research.. and more!!!! How stupid was that comment in your post!
I'm sorry... that was just too lame to not respond too!
Not really.. Ichy pinged me so I responded.. but I'm into a 1st reality and ichy is into a 2nd..
I never check the numbers before I check the model. "Garbage in, garbage out" and all that.
There's certainly no need to check the arithmetic on this one.
Yes, but only in the same way that Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" was "based on" current events... I have yet to read anti-evolution material that hasn't grossly misrepresented the science it attempts to critique, and I've been reading that stuff for several decades. Follow the link in my post for many examples.
Science is mostly based off hypothetical equations till proven.... and coming to an assuming conclusion is not a fact ( and evolution is still just a theory,,, not enough proof)....
Oh look, case in point -- you have grossly mispresented how science actually works. Science does not deal in "proof", nor is "proof" even an achievable standard in the real world (not just for science, but for *any* endeavor). Proof is only possible in artificial realms like mathematics. If you want to learn how science actually *does* demonstrate the validity of its tenets, however, read this: Explaining the Scientific Method.
and which most evolution science studies end up at.... just more relative theories!,/i>
Wow, you really *have* relied on the AECreationist pap, haven't you? No, your statement is quite incorrect.
Excuse me for getting obnoxious!
No, I won't excuse you for it.
But where in the world do you SIR think we get our information.,/i>
I *know* where you get it. I've been reading that crap for 30+ years, and have often tracked it to its source.
We don't pull it out of our moon cracks!
Actually, yes, often "you" do. Other times the AECreationists print their distorted misunderstandings of the actual science, other times they simply lie about it.
We get it from Evolution/science books, studies, documtentaries, reported research.. and more!!!!
...and then wildly distort it. For example, here are *hundreds* of example of just *one* kind of creationist distortion:
The Quote Mine Project: Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote MinesWand more? Here is an excellent example of repeated distortions of the actual science by an AECreationist book filling children's heads with gross mispresresentations: Skeletons in Your Closet.The Revised Quote Book: Looking at how Creationists Quote Evolutionists
Creationist Arguments: Misquotes
Quote-Mining...The Tradition Continues - ICR Representative Frank Sherwin Visits Eureka College
Misquotations in the Creation Book
Creationist "Out of Context" Quotes
Famous Quotes found in books (and misused by creationists)
And: A Creationist Exposed.
And: ICR Whoppers. From the Talk.Origins Archive
And: Lying For Jesus: Duane Gish, InterVarsity, and Creationism at Rutgers
And: Some Verifiable Instances of Creationist Dishonesty
And: Creationism: Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience?
And: Lucy's Knee Joint: A Case Study in Creationists' Willingness to Admit their Errors
And: Missing Supernova Remnants as Evidence of a Young Universe? A Case of Fabrication
And: Icons of Evolution FAQs (creationist Wells spends a whole book distorting science)
And: Creationist Lies and Blunders
...how many more would you like? AECreationists have grossly mispresented science thousands upon thousands of times. I can keep this up all day long.
How stupid was that comment in your post!
Not at all, it was entirely accurate and I stand by it. It is based on very long experience with both the AECreationist propaganda, and the actual science it incompetently/dishonestly attempts to critique, usually through the use of gross distortions and misrepresentations. It's like an evangelical version of Michael Moore.
I'm sorry...
I concur that you are.
that was just too lame to not respond too!
And your response was just too misguided and flawed not to respond to.
That's a strange thing to say, since I base my conclusions on an extensive examination of reality itself, whereas you get yours from a book. How does that make yours "1st reality" and mind "2nd reality"? Mine's a lot more first-hand with respect to reality than yours.
Not only that, but mount man's list includes at least one dead guy...
And your accreditation is????? HMMMMMM??????* * *
Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
* * *
The lurker should absorb this carefully, then amuse himself by rereading all the posts accepting the self-purported value of this guy's wish-dream.
You have the patience of a secular saint.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.