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]

The study of evolution and the ToE does not create 'non-believers', it is just the examination of observed phenomena, but the interpretation that accompanies the very existence of evolution leads some to believe it creates non-believers.

It's the causal priority that's under challenge. Is it really evidence -> conclusion? Or is it conclusion -> evidence? I submit it is the overarching theory which provides the epistomological slant on the evidence - both in its interpretation and its selection.

I don't have time to get into this any more this evening because of other obligations. Feel free to rebut, I'll respond as able.

[Dimensio]

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

I believe that you are mistaken regarding the intent behind Asimov's statement. Moreover, Asimov's statement has no bearing on the theory of evolution. Evolution is not atheism.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

I prefer physical anthropologists, geneticists, evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, and a wide variety of other such terms--because those are the folks who are studying and advancing the theory of evolution.,

Too long. Surely you can provide a short word that includes the above for the sake of bandwidth.

[Havoc]

I am using the word theory in it's proper sense, not the doped up, redefined sense concocted by evos in order to reframe the debate and dumb down the audiences expectations. ID is a theory. And how you think it is so important to whether ID is on it's way out or not is beyond me.

[Dimensio]

On the contrary, it's a critical component of the driving force behind evolution, to wit, to try to explain the universe absent a Primary Mover.

This is an extreme overstatement of the scope of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution covers only diversification of life from common ancestry. It does not explain anything within the universe beyond this. This means that evolution does not cover the origin of the first life forms, or the origin of planets, stares, solar systems or matter itself.

You will say to me, "Evolution says nothing about God." There are those who try to combine the two, it is true. But in its purest form, evolution is the foundation of atheism, and the latter will consume your soul.

This is also untrue. The theory of evolution has no implications regarding the existence of deities. Moreover, atheists existed well before Darwin published his theory.

[b_sharp]

Thank you for that post. I'm not fully sure why but the knowledge that a scientist gave such a convincing and eloquent lecture lifts my spirits.

It reinforces my respect for the sciences to know that rational thought is common and well within reach.

[Virginia-American]

The very frame of your example presupposes evolution as fact

I assumed was the existence of primitive ancestors. I argued that those who valued cooperation would fare better than those who valued undisciplined individualism.

To the extent that behavior depends on genetic factors, this would be an example of "Micro" evolution, simple adaptation without speciation

What, if anything, is wrong with the example I gave?

Don't you have any cavemen in your family tree?

I will readily cede, before you ask, that ex-nihilo Creation will not be repeated in a laboratory

That's nice. Do you think that it's legitimate for astronomers to study neutron stars?

The very frame of your example presupposes evolution as fact

As a general rule, when one is discussing the consequences of something, one assumes it to be true. You claimed that the ToE leads to immoral behavior. I argued that it doesn't.

How could I have proceded without assuming that the ToE is true, if only for the sake of argument?

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

But lets avoid blanket condemnations--they usually are not very accurate and just serve to fan the flames.

I wasn't aware the term "Darwinist" was a comdemnation. I thought most scientists wore that label proudly. Am I in error?

[Ken H]

I am using the word theory in it's proper sense, not the doped up, redefined sense concocted by evos in order to reframe the debate and dumb down the audiences expectations.

I ask again, what is the definition of theory you are using?

Also, would you state what the new theory is you referred to?

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

[Havoc]

Sorry, No. I'm not being dragged into what I consider a taniential argument. As for predictions of a specific date, I have none at the moment that I care to share.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

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

..about 50,000 years

[b_sharp]

"It's the causal priority that's under challenge. Is it really evidence -> conclusion? Or is it conclusion -> evidence? I submit it is the overarching theory which provides the epistomological slant on the evidence - both in its interpretation and its selection.

The causal priority creates atheists? Sorry, I don't follow.

However if you are asserting that 'evolutionists' are more interested in making the evidence fit the theory than testing and verifying the theory you are missing one of the points of my post - more fields than just the biological sciences contribute to the ToE,; in fact many predate Darwin and the formalization of common descent and natural selection.

Geologists that predate Darwin were aware that the Earth was magnitudes older than suggested by the Bible. 'Evolutionists' do not seek to increase dates in an attempt to justify large variations, the dates were established before evolution by non-biologists. The evidence of geology (stratification), geophysics (radiometric dating), astronomy (distance to stars + light speed) all give independent evidence for an old universe and earth.

Taxonomy in one form or another also predates Darwin, in fact it predates Linnaeus. Common descent was suspected and formalized by Linnaeus and has been verified by DNA.

The fossils found by paleontologists are not dated as old because of some nefarious desire but because the strata determines their date. The fossils are not placed in the sequences they are because there is a desire to find common descent, but are placed using the same 'common sense' methods employed by Linnaeus (bolstered by modern statistical analysis coupled with computers). For a fossil to be considered within a lineage it must share morphological features with others in the same lineage and be from a chronologically appropriate stratum that if fossiliferous, contains evidence of a predicted ecology.

If there was just one field of study contributing to the ToE it may be possible for the evidence to be forced into compliance but with as many different fields of study contributing as there are that conspiracy just doesn't wash.

[Scutter]

I'm not arguing for or against evolution, but the math here is seriously flawed, in several ways. This looks like something a 3rd grader would come up with.

For example, he calculates the number of opportunities for evolution as if there were 1 organism. There are probably trillion's of bacteria on earth, many reproducing simultaneously, not one that is reproducing in a sequential/serial manner.

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL! What a delightful post! Thank you, hosepipe!

[Ken H]

Sorry, No. I'm not being dragged into what I consider a taniential argument.

You already involved yourself in that argument when you wrote:

I am using the word theory in it's proper sense,

You were challenged to define your use of the term, and failed to do so.

As for predictions of a specific date, I have none at the moment that I care to share.

Why did you say "As for predictions for a specific date" when I asked about a time frame? Are you thinkng evolution will be removed from the system within 5 years? 10 years? 20 years?

[Havoc]

No sir. When you know my stance on ID with regard to this subject and know I've no wish to discuss it as it is irrelevant, you have attempted to pick your way an inch at a time into that subject anyway. You can stamp your feet and whine if you will; but, if you want to go joust windmills, you're on your own.

[Lexinom]

I don't recall who it was, but one of the Darwin apologists (perhaps Darwin himself) made the statement that "Evolution made atheism socially respectable" by providing a rational way to explain the universe without a need for a Deity.

Yes, professing atheists have existed for a very long time.

[Ken H]

So you make the claim that you are using theory in its proper sense, then dodge when asked to explain.

BTW, you spoke of a "new theory". I ask for at least the third time, would you state exactly what this "new theory" is you speak of? Or are you going to dodge that as well?

[Lexinom]

No arguments with your interior points: Darwin was not the father of ToE or long ages to begin with. Many far brighter lights preceeded him, incl. his grandfather Erasmus (Zoonomia).

The geological strata were created quickly by the deluge. This is why we have jumbles of fossils in places like Montana, fish on mountaintops. This is why the salt concentration in the dead sea is what it is - not what we would expect after hundreds of thousands of years of salt added (rivers) and only water evaporating, to say nothing of millions of years. There is strong evidence against an old earth. Trouble is, it doesn't fit with the evolutionary model and is therefore ignored - just like your tagline says.

You are not able to demonstrate that those stratum you mention represent millions of years. That is an assumption - an assumption of ToE that has metastasized into geology, astronomy, etc., an unprovable assumption that nevertheless must be embraced lock-step by all.

Regarding your ambivalence about the link between ToE and atheism: I maintain that the ToE lies as the foundation for respectability for atheism. I am a little disappointed that more people are not seeing the relationship between a belief A) we are just animals and accidents, therefore B) there's no basis for morality, cf. sexual revolution, drug culture, etc. Not saying ToE is sole cause, but it creates an environment that justifies "if it feels good, do it," and just abort the "consequences" (they're just animals anyways, right?)

[Dimensio]

I don't recall who it was, but one of the Darwin apologists (perhaps Darwin himself) made the statement that "Evolution made atheism socially respectable" by providing a rational way to explain the universe without a need for a Deity.

I could ask for an exact quote on the subject, however it is irrelevant because it does not demonstrate any actual intent behind the theory of evolution. Moreover, if your quote is remotely accurate, it is clearly incorrect, as the theory of evolution does not explain anything beyond the diversity of life, and it certainly does not explain events in the universe beyond that.