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.

[Lexinom]

That liberation from, say, Ten Commandments morality shines through the posts of avid creationists.

If this means what I think it means, you have just bolstered my main point in 220: you don't want ultimate accountability, therefore you believe evolution because it's the most credible alternative to the obvious default (that we were made, there there is meaning and purpose, that man is special, etc.)

[VadeRetro]

Sorry for all the big words. The evolutionists for good or ill have coupled themselves to physical evidence, rigorous models, and peer-reviewed literature.

Creationism is practiced by coming back dumb as a stump with arguments refuted 1000 times before, willful misinterpretation of data, fanciful remembering, word-twist games, and other delights of Satan. But do carry on.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

And your description of "data dump" is correct. Data. Facts. Evidence. Its all there.

.data dump...facts..evidence...it's all there

[curiosity]

Evolutionary theory in its purest form begins with the [faith] assumption that there is no God.

Wrong. Evolutionary theory has nothing to say about God.

[Ken H]

"Contemplate this on the Tree of Woe"

[Coyoteman]

Nice rebuttal. My point is just devastated by your posting a picture of a train wreck. /sarcasm

But really, why don't you take a look at some of the data that was posted, rather than ridiculing it sight-unseen?

[Lexinom]

Reinforcement syndrome redux.

I maintain that evolution is primarly an emotion-driven movement per the point in 220. Asimov himself admitted as much with regard to his atheism (see his quote on my profile page, in red.)

[Lexinom]

Consider the implications. You're intelligent. Unpack it.

[VadeRetro]

There is nothing magic about your 220. Read some of the replies to it a little more carefully sometime.

Out for the night.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

But really, why don't you take a look at some of the data that was posted, rather than ridiculing it sight-unseen?,

Because the arguments are based on faith. Not logic.

[Coyoteman]

But really, why don't you take a look at some of the data that was posted, rather than ridiculing it sight-unseen?

Because the arguments are based on faith. Not logic.

Let me get this straight. Is it your claim that all of the facts and theory supporting evolution are a matter of faith?

What about the scientific method, which is shared by all sciences? Are all sciences equally based on "faith?"

Are you really saying that all of science is trash and that we should be getting all of our learning from some other source? Tarot cards? Enrails? (Yech!)

I can't believe that this is what you are saying.

I prefer Heinlein's words myself:

What are the facts? Again and again and again - what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what 'the stars foretell,' avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable 'verdict of history' - what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your only clue. Get the facts!

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

[Lexinom]

I read them all. They all beg the question and do not address the matter of motive, which I did. They morever assume evolution is driven by evidence, when the reverse is closer to the truth, to wit, evolution drives the selection and interpretation of the evidence. Have a good weekend.

[Virginia-American]

...an ape with a shorter tail....

Do any apes have tails?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Re-read my post. I said that Crick rejected spontaneous generation."

Which has nothing to do with evolution.

" "Everybody believes it so it must be true" is the mark of one who lacks the ability to think independently."

Since I never said that, your ad hominem has nothing to do with me.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

What about the scientific method, which is shared by all sciences? Are all sciences equally based on "faith?"

Are you really saying that all of science is trash and that we should be getting all of our learning from some other source? Tarot cards? Enrails? (Yech!)

I strongly believe in science. But the "Darwinists" are not engaged in science. They are engaged in speculation based on faith.

[Virginia-American]

Consider this: If evolution IS reality, we should be able to copulate openly, steal, lie, cheat, everything to advance myself.

I think you're making a common anti-evo mistake: forgetting that other people are part of the environment we're adapted to.

Think of two tribes of cavemen (or earlier hominids). One of them has an ethos of cooperation and mutual respect. The other's is totally self-centered.

Now tell me, which one is more likely to gang up on and eat a mammoth? IE, which one has the selective advantage here? IE whose genes survive?

[Coyoteman]

I strongly believe in science. But the "Darwinists" are not engaged in science. They are engaged in speculation based on faith.

Darwinists? The only folks who use that term are coming from a particular religious belief, and use it as a term of derision. You know, demonize your enemy... (This casts doubt on your claim of belief in science, as evolution follows the scientific method.)

I studied evolution and closely related fields for half of my time in grad school, all of the way through to the Ph.D. exams.

Are you saying that I am "engaged in speculation based on faith" rather than doing science based on fact and theory?

What is your basis for this statement?

[Ken H]

Dover shows the entrenchment of Darwin within the system - not within the public. And as much as it does not wish to come out of the system, it is going to. Your hope is to make dover look like a loss for Creationists. No, it's a bump on the road for a new theory.

1. Would you state what the new theory is?

2. Are you using the term theory with the following meaning:

 

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.)

If not, what definition of theory are you using?

3. What time frame do you see before evolution is removed from the system?