The Official Death of the Theory of Evolution – 2/25/2006

PowerBASIC Forums ^ | 2/25/2006 | SDurham

[ibme]

The Official Death of the Theory of Evolution – 2/25/2006

Theorem Name: The Illusion of Evolution DOA Theorem
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.

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)
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)

MM - Mega Millions Jackpot Odds
MM = 175,711,536
TotalRpdCyc / MM = 1,000,000,000,000/175,711,536 = 5,691

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.

• 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.

1. Some say 20 billion years – based on scientific estimation.
2. I’m using 100 average reproductive cycles per year.
   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)
3. This is overly fair. Evolution has been intently studied for over 100 years and there is no evidence of anything evolving in the last 100 years.
4. Check the Mega Millions statistics for reference.

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.

[js1138]

I'm just curious why , living as you do, on a separate planet, why you hose these threads with arguments that are irrelevant in the terms argued by science.

You also have an infinite capacity to learn from history, form the innumerable times religion has had to adapt its interpretations to new knowledge of the physical world.

Evos are accused of hating God and hating religion, but I can imagine nothing more destructive to faith than insisting that people abandon faith if they cannot believe things that are demonstrably not true.

[b_sharp]

Well done!

It seems the anti-evolutionists love to throw around figures that are based on ...basically nothing ... and pretend they have meaning in the real world. It's surprising the number of times this is done without considering the basics of evolutionary mechanisms yet is claimed to authoritatively address evolution.

[b_sharp]

"(I don't mind at all saying this here for all to read)

You suckup!

[b_sharp]

If you have all this information at hand, why do you not apply it to your calculations?

[curiosity]

Wow. I'm amazed you had the patience to write that. It seems like such a waste of your talents to spend so much time debunking the nonsense of crackpots. Your efforts are much appreciated nonetheless.

[b_sharp]

Sorry to interrupt.

From what I gather, at some time in the past a theistic philosopher decided there were two realities, one with God - which he called the 1st reality and one without God - which he labeled 2nd reality. Of course the existence of these two realities is completely based upon the philosopher's personal opinions, which are highly biased towards his self labeled 1st reality.

With a little application of an 'appeal to emotion' fallacy (a touch of poisoning the well, a smidgen of prejudicial language) the philosopher has managed to convince others that if and only if you believe in God do you reside in the 'good' reality (1st reality) while others live in the despicable 2nd reality. (Those that live in the 2nd reality are obviously out of touch with the 'real' reality (1st reality) so don't recognize it)

Personally I prefer to live life in the 3rd reality - all reality outside my consciousness is an emergent property of some recently ingested underdone potatoes. I start cooking my potatoes fully and the rest of you disappear.

[b_sharp]

"But not bigger than 1⁷⁰⁰

Do you realize that the probability of someone posting the above number in a probability thread is exactly 1⁷¹¹?

[Coyoteman]

Do you realize that the probability of someone posting the above number in a probability thread is exactly 1⁷¹¹?

Only on FR. Its less elsewhere.

[aceintx]

Your argument leaves out one important fact in the discussion about evolution that is separate from the mathematical probabilities but equally as relevant.

1) The moth that you describe is still a moth after it mutated.

2)The Canine that you described is still a Canine.

I contend that Micro evolution is clearly a fact and no scientist has ever and will never prove Macro Evolution, (A dog becoming a Lion) has ever occurred.

I challenge you to recite one instance where it can be proven scientifically, (Observed) that any species has ever become another species trough evolution.

I won't hold my breath!

[aceintx]

If evolution is scientific ie observed and tested, give me one instance where it has ever been proved that any species was created from any other other than by definition by "Scientists" who are trying to cover obvious flaws in their theory.

When was it ever observed and tested that something can spring from nothing in a big bang.

Give me an instance where it has hever been observed and tested to prove that matter can evolve from less complex to more complex organisms in direct contravention of the second law of thermo dynamics?

The theory of evolution is always evolving therefore it must be true....Give me a break!

BTW
Save your insults for a time when you can prove that you can truly know it all

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" 1) The moth that you describe is still a moth after it mutated."

Moth isn't a species designation. Also, the peppered moth studies did not deal with mutations that occurred that gave one coloration an advantage, but with two already existing color schemes in a species of moth. There never was a claim that a new species was formed. The studies showed how natural selection can work to change the allele frequencies of populations depending on the environmental conditions.

" 2)The Canine that you described is still a Canine."

Canine is also not a species name.

"I contend that Micro evolution is clearly a fact and no scientist has ever and will never prove Macro Evolution, (A dog becoming a Lion) has ever occurred."

Strawman. Nobody ever suggests that a dog is going to change into a lion, or anything close to that kind of leap is going to happen in one speciation event.

"I challenge you to recite one instance where it can be proven scientifically, (Observed) that any species has ever become another species trough evolution.

I won't hold my breath!"

Hold your breath if you wish, speciation has already been observed.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" When was it ever observed and tested that something can spring from nothing in a big bang."

The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution.

"Give me an instance where it has hever been observed and tested to prove that matter can evolve from less complex to more complex organisms in direct contravention of the second law of thermo dynamics?"

The 2nd law says no such thing. Not even close.

[hosepipe]

[ Personally I prefer to live life in the 3rd reality - all reality outside my consciousness is an emergent property of some recently ingested underdone potatoes. I start cooking my potatoes fully and the rest of you disappear. ]

Cute.. very creative.. I go the other way. I prefer Zero reality.. The 1st, 2nd and aleged 3rd reality(s) are for humans for a time.. Zero reality is what some will end up with, I think..

I search for that one.. and hope to find it..

[Coyoteman]

I challenge you to recite one instance where it can be proven scientifically, (Observed) that any species has ever become another species trough evolution.

Which is it, "proved scientifically" or "observed?" Or did you mean "proved" as a layman might use the term?

If you truly meant "proved scientifically" then here is an answer to your challenge:

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

But if you meant "proved" as a layman might use the term, or "observed" as in "I won't believe it if I didn't stand there myself and watch it happen and probably not even then," well happy strawman to you!

[Ichneumon]

[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. ]

You just want to argue Ichy..

No, actually, I'd rather come to an understanding.

But I must confess to having misread your last post. When I replied to it, I had read it as saying that yours is the "1st reality", as in the primary one, and mine was the "2nd reality", as in somehow "second class" or inferior. I had either missed the "a" in the phrase "I'm into a 1st reality", or I had read it as if it were a "the", which would alter the meaning.

Now that I look at it again, however, I see that that's not what you were saying, you were just saying that we've got two different "realities", and you weren't saying that one was "more real" than the other. I apologize for the misreading, which was responsible for the direction of my response.

You know we live on different planets..

I know what you're trying to say here, but I disagree with it, as well as the idea behind the "different realities" comment.

Unless the internet reaches a whole lot farther than advertised, we *are* on the same planet, we *do* live in the same actual reality, even though we look at it differently. I highly doubt you are a postmodernist, subscribe to the Whorf Hypothesis, or follow a form of new-age or idealist philosophy which has "personal realities" as a tenet, so it's unlikely you actually believe this in a literal sense. And if there is one reality which we all inhabit, it's important for all of us to do our best to determine what it is, rather than to employ excuses for avoiding that task like shrugging about how reality is just "different" for each of us because we view it differently.

You could care less what I believe..

Incorrect.

I know where you are coming from, more or less,

I don't think you know that nearly as well as you believe you do. For example, you raise doubts when you say things like:

you would have become "born again" to vaguely understand me.. I know that..

Actually, I don't have any trouble understanding the "born again".

So I accept you on that level.. And you accept me as a Moonbat..

No, I just don't think you're putting enough effort into it.

Thats the way its supposed to be.. Everything is just the way its supposed to be..

You forgot to sing "Kumbaya" at the end of that.

The Sheep MUST be separated from the goats.. and they ARE..

I know you believe this. See, I *do* understand you.

Ugh OH!.. I feel a prayer rising up from within me.. I'm grabbing the arms of my chair.. HERE IT COMES>>>.

Be careful when it's time to handle the snakes.

[ml1954]

It's amazing the things one finds when searching on the keyword 'evolution'. It's even more amazing that people actually believe this stuff. But then, I'm amazed at the commercials I see on television, too. I'm amazed that they actually persuade some people to buy the 'product'.

[Ichneumon]

Your argument leaves out one important fact in the discussion about evolution that is separate from the mathematical probabilities but equally as relevant.

1) The moth that you describe is still a moth after it mutated.

That's not "one important fact", that's irrelevant to the claim. His moth example *is* an example evolution. Period. The fact that it didn't manage to make a moth into a "non-moth" doesn't change that. You know, you *really* ought to toodle off and *learn* something about evolutionary biology before you attempt to critique it.

2)The Canine that you described is still a Canine.

Yeah, so? And humans, which evolved from ape ancestors, are still primates. It's still evolution. Do you even *know* what evolution is? You seem not to.

You're playing one of the creationists' favorite pointless word games. If we show you domestic dogs evolved from wolf ancestors, you ignore the fact that it's no longer a wolf and you whine, "but it's still a canine, so that don't mean nothin'". When we show you the overwhelming evidence that canines evolved from non-canine ancestors, you whine, "it's still in the carnivore group, so that don't mean nothin'". When we show you the overwhelming evidence that the carnivores evolved from non-carnivore ancestors, you whine, "it's still a mammal, so that don't mean nothin'". When we show you the overwhelming evidence that mammals evolved from reptilian ancestors, you whine, "it's still a vertebrate, so that don't mean nothin'". Rinse, repeat.

I contend that Micro evolution is clearly a fact and no scientist has ever and will never prove Macro Evolution, (A dog becoming a Lion) has ever occurred.

First, science does not deal in proof. Nor is "proof" an obtainable standard for any endeavor in this real world.

Second, the truth of "Macro Evolution" has been established by vast mountains of overwhelming evidence along multiple independently cross-confirming lines -- I guess the creationist pamphlets you got your "education" from sort of "forgot" to mention that to you.

Furthermore, only someone grossly ignorant of science would think that anyone has ever claimed that lions evolved from dogs, or that one would have to establish the truth of that transition in order to "prove Macro-Evolution".

In short, it would be nice if you knew what in the hell you were talking about.

I challenge you to recite one instance where it can be proven scientifically, (Observed) that any species has ever become another species trough evolution.

Glad to oblige: Within human observation the mammal species on the left has split/branched to spin off the mammal species on the right:

Sure, they're both still canids, but the point is that the domestic dog is *not* a gray wolf any longer, they're now something else -- a different species. Domestic dogs are not wolves.

For other examples, see Observed Instances of Speciation and Some More Observed Speciation Events. If you want something even more drastic, however, you're making an unrealistic request -- the amount of evolutionary change that can be observed over human history (on the order of thousands of years) will be relatively small compared to long-term evolutionary change which requires on the order of millions of years. It's like asking geologists to "directly observe" a full mountain range forming starting from flat terrain, or asking astronomers to "directly observe" the full life cycle of a star.

Nonetheless, there are many ways to confirm the existence and behavior and reality of long-term processes such as these, and the evidence for evolutionary common descent is vast and overwhelming. For a description of how such scenarios are confirmed beyond reasonable doubt, see Explaining the Scientific Method, which discusses scientific validation methods in general, and specifically in the context of evolution.

You should also read that in order to clear up a massive misunderstanding you have -- you wrote, "scientifically proven, (observed)", as if you were under the impression that direct observation of a process is synonymous with being able to "scientifically prove" it. This is entirely false.

I won't hold my breath!

And I won't hold *my* breath that you'll gain any illumination from the many replies you'll receive.

[Nova]

"I'm amazed that they actually persuade some people to buy the 'product'."

Oh, like you don't absolutely have to have a "Pocket Fisherman" and a "Mr. Microphone"

[hosepipe]

[ Be careful when it's time to handle the snakes. ]

Snakes!.. LoL.. Oh! I handle snakes all the time on Free Republic..
Kinda like snakes, used to be one..

Don't mind me Ichy I just like to spit on my betters shoes..
Drives them nutz.. I know I'm a bad man, a sinner really..
Is playing with snakes a bad thing?..

[Lexinom]

I am flattered and humbled that this englightened person has deigned to grace such poor imbeciles with such a thorough rebuttal. <sarcasm>

The real reason he, and others, expend such time and energy convincing themselves is rooted in the dire implications for them of the truth of the contrary. It's not what is true. It's what do I wish to be true. The fact such a large body of respected men, driven by this desire (read summaries of their biographies), makes it that much easier.

There's no reason I can't take the most absurd theory - that the earth is made of cheese - and interpret all incoming evidence to support that postulate. This one - biological macroevolution - just happens to fill, if true, a common desire among many: to obviate final accountability to a supreme and righteous Diety. That is the real reason for its popularity, and why it has become the dominant hermeneutic for interpretation of natural evidence.