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.

[Elsie]

"But not bigger than 1⁷⁰⁰ Do you realize that the probability of someone posting the above number in a probability thread is exactly 1⁷¹¹?

Isn't it still just equal to 1????

[Elsie]

 

I'll see your jawbone and raise you a skull fragment!

---

---

Mammal-Like Reptiles

As previously stated, a succession of transitional fossils exists that link reptiles (Class Reptilia) and mammals (Class Mammalia). These particular reptiles are classifie as Subclass Synapsida. Presently, this is the best example of th e transformation of one major higher taxon into another. The morphologic changes that took place are well documented by fossils, beginning with animals essentially 100% reptilian and resulting in animals essentially 100% mammalian. Therefore, I have chosen this as the example to summarize in more detail (Table 1, Fig. 1).  

M. Eyes =           ?           Nose =           ?        Teeth incisors = ?       K. Eyes =           ?           Nose =           pointy    Teeth incisors = small       J. Eyes =           Medium    Nose =           stubby        Teeth incisors = BIG       I. Eyes =           Medium    Nose =           less stubby    Teeth incisors = big       H. Eyes =           smaller    Nose =           more blunt    Teeth incisors = smaller         G. Eyes =           SMALL    Nose =           Pointer    Teeth incisors = Skinny           F. Eyes =           BIG    Nose =           Blunt    Teeth incisors = Thin         E. Eyes =           HUGE!    Nose =           pointy, again    Teeth incisors = Bigger         D. Eyes =           Smaller    Nose =           Getting wider    Teeth incisors = Bigger: two!         C. Eyes =           Huge, again!    Nose =           broader    Teeth incisors = very small         B. Eyes =           less huge    Nose =           less broad    Teeth incisors = ??         A. Eyes =           bigger again    Nose =           rounded    Teeth incisors = small

Skulls and jaws of synapsid reptiles and mammals; left column side view of skull; center column top view of skull; right column side view of lower jaw. Hylonomus modified from Carroll (1964, Figs. 2,6; 1968, Figs. 10-2, 10-5; note that Hylonomus is a protorothyrod, not a synapsid). Archaeothyris modified from Reisz (1972, Fig. 2). Haptodus modified from Currie (1977, Figs, 1a, 1b; 1979, Figs. 5a, 5b). Sphenacodo n modified from Romer & Price (1940, Fig. 4f), Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 16);note: Dimetrodon substituted for top view; modified from Romer & Price, 1940, pl. 10. Biarmosuchus modified from Ivakhnenko et al. (1997, pl. 65, Figs. 1a, 1B, 2); Alin & Hopson (1992; Fig. 28.4c); Sigogneau & Tchudinov (1972, Figs. 1, 15). Eoarctops modified from Broom (1932, Fig. 35a); Boonstra (1969, Fig. 18). Pristerognathus modified from Broom (1932, Figs 17a, b,c); Boonstra (1963, Fig. 5d). Procynosuchus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4e); Hopson (1987, Fig. 5c); Brink (1963, Fig. 10a); Kemp (1979, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 14). Thrinaxodon modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4f);Parrington (1946, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 13). Probainognathus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4g); Romer (1970, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 12). Morga nucodon modified from Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney (1981, Figs. 95, 99a; 1973, Fig. 7a); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 11). Asioryctes modified from Carroll (1988, Fig. 20-3b). Abbreviations: ag = angular; ar = articular; cp = coronoid process; d = dentary; f = lateral temporal fenestra; j = jugal; mm = attachment site for mammalian jaw muscles; o = eye socket; po = post orbital; q = quadrate; rl = reflected lamina; sq = squamosal; ty = tympanic. .

 

 

 

---

---

 

Are you convinced yet?

 

Oscillating eye sizes,

head shapes that shift back and forth,

teeth that are large, then small, then large again.

 

Yeah; I believe this stuff!

---

---

(The chart is from The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation" by Clifford A. Cuffey. It is on part 5 of a multipart article. The beginning of the article is here.  )

[Elsie]

 

 

Darwin's own words - calling the docrine of "Hell" a damnable doctrine - support my point.

 

 

Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proven to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye witnesses;—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many fake religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wildfire had some weight with me. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct."

( Charles Darwin in his Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Dover Publications, 1992, p. 62. )

---

Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

"I think that generally (& more & more as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

( Quoted from Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1991, p. 636. )

---

 

[Elsie]

All we need to do is demonstrate that we know a lot more on this subject than you do, which isn't hard at all.

Rock, paper, scissors

[VadeRetro]

Fred Williams's pages have been thrown into these discussions before. He's an electrical engineer who has had numerous debates (all reproduced in agonizing detail) on his site. These are trumpeted as victories. That can be allowed in the sense that Cool Hand Luke in the movie of that name supposedly whips the character named "Dragline." (Dragline gets tired of--and revolted at--swatting the punch-drunk Luke around. He walks off, leaving Luke punching at the air.)

[Elsie]

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.


Try THIS link...

http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2004/10/dennett_evoluti.html

[Physicist]

The vast intellectual gulf that exists between what I saw and heard tonight, and what I read in the post that heads up this thread is so vast that words cannot begin to describe it.

Then turn to an abler tongue:

In search of this new world, whom shall we find
Sufficient? who shall tempt with wandring feet
The dark unbottom'd infinite Abyss
And through the palpable obscure find out
His uncouth way, or spread his aerie flight
Upborn with indefatigable wings
Over the vast abrupt, ere he arrive
The happy Ile; what strength, what art can then
Suffice, or what evasion bear him safe
Through the strict Senteries and Stations thick
Of Angels watching round?

Paradise Lost is one of the greatest intellectual accomplishments of Milton's--or any--century. And yet...and yet Milton came under harsh criticism from his fellow Puritans because his character of Satan was too nobly drawn. A work of arrant genius was put before them, and all they were able to see was how it differed from their idea of their Bible.

(They had a point, however. The scene where Satan directs the construction of the city of Pandaemonium is probably the most moving and inspiring in all Literature; it reduced--no, elevated--me to tears.)

[Elsie]

...the only people who still practice slavery are, AFAIK, middle-east Muslims.

You've never dealt with the IRS??

[Elsie]

 

[As of 29 January 2006, there are 10,230 signatures collected to date]

 

---

Sigh.........

---

 

 

Most Christians 'believe' Evolution because they do NOT know what their Bible says. 

If, as they say, they 'believe' the words of Jesus and the New Testament writers,

they have to decide what the following verses mean:

 

Acts 17:26-27

 26.  From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
 27.  God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

 

 

Romans 5:12-21
 12.  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
 13.  for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
 14.  Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
 15.  But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
 16.  Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
 17.  For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
 18.  Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
 19.  For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
 20.  The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
 21.  so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

 

 

If there were  no one man, that means SIN did NOT enter the World thru him.

 

If Adam was NOT the one man, that means SPIRITUAL DEATH did not come thru him.

 

If SIN did NOT enter the World thru the one man, that means Jesus does not save from SIN.

 

 

Are we to believe that the one man is symbolic?  Does that mean Jesus is symbolic as well?

 

 

The Theory of Evolution states that there WAS no one man, but a wide population that managed to inherit that last mutated gene that makes MEN different from APES.

 

 

 Acts 17:24-26

 24.  "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.
 25.  And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.
 26.  From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.

Was LUKE wrong about this?

---

 

 

1 Corinthians 11:8-9
 8.  For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
 9.  neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

 

1 Timothy 2:13

  For Adam was formed first, then Eve.  

 

---

 

 

Was Paul WRONG about these???

 

---

 

If so, is your GOD so puny that He allows this 'inaccuracy' in His Word??

---

NIV Romans 3:3-4
3. What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness?
4. Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge."

[kinsman redeemer]

Wow for someone who stands behind "scientific" claims, you sure have an unscientific way of proving things.

I find this characterization to be the rule rather than the exception.

[Doctor Stochastic]

"A common but dangerous approach to the study of any body of unfamiliar material is to begin by adopting a definition of terminology, either one's own or another's, and to apply this terminology to one's findings even if the two are not compatible."
- William Hays

Of course, Hays was discussing the Troping Hypothesis.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" One is the idea that there is such a thing as "beneficial mutations","

Happens all the time. It's observed all the time. Genetics has known about it for decades and decades. You are citing *info* from about 80 years ago. Try to keep up! :)

"and the other is the idea that any sort of a "selective advantage" conferred by a "beneficial mutation" will cause members of the population with the prior basis to gradually die out, presumably from jealousy."

No, from competition. For a conservative, you really have no concept of the idea.

" It's also the thing which guys like Hitler and Stalin liked about evolution."

Godwin's law.

"Hitler correctly figured that, given Darwinian assumptions, he was not doing racial stocks which he figured to be older and inferior any favors by prolonging the agony, in entirely the same manner in which Curtis Lemay noted (in justifying the firebombings) that you weren't doing a dog with a cancerous tail any favors by cutting the tail off in thin slices. In other words, Hitler was not guilty of any failure of logic, his assumptions were simply wrong."

Hitler believed that the Aryan race was the perfect special creation of God. He never believed that they evolved.

[VadeRetro]

Merely noting that your history is up there with your biology.

[VadeRetro]

Oh, look -- the (modern) human and Neandertal DNA are both equally distant from the chimpanzee DNA (about 94 sequence differences), while pretty close to each other. In fact, there are modern humans which differ genetically from each other to a greater degree than the Neandertal DNA different from that of some modern humans (35 sequence differences between one modern human and another, versus only 29 sequence differences between the Neandertal and one or more modern humans... This in no way supports salexander's falsehood about the Neandertal DNA analysis supposedly showing them "to have been glorified apes". Quite the contrary, in fact.

Any time now, Cool Hand Luke will land a solid right on air molecules somewhere in your vicinity.

[VadeRetro]

One is the idea that there is such a thing as "beneficial mutations", and the other is the idea that any sort of a "selective advantage" conferred by a "beneficial mutation" will cause members of the population with the prior basis to gradually die out, presumably from jealousy.

You have shifted your claim, or at least introduced a "new" one. It isn't very new and it certainly isn't very true.

Walter Remine begins his discourse on the Haldane dilemma by noting that in the ten million years which supposedly separate apes from us and given an average generation time of 20 years which is reasonable for chimps and humans and everything supposedly in between, you've got 500,000 generations. Suppose then a maximum possible rate of substitution of "beneficial mutations", i.e. suppose in a population of 100,000 individuals in every generation two people get the good mutation and the entire reaining 99,998 immediately die of jealousy and the two with the beneficial mutation have 100,000 kids to replace the entire herd. That would give you 500,000 substituted traits at the end of your ten million years, when is about one one hundredth of one percent of the genetic difference between chimps and us.

So a mutation happens. Then 99 percent of the population has to die. Then we reconstitute the population. Then another mutation happens. Then 99 percent of the population dies. I read your words and I see that in the description. "... [I]n every generation two people get the good mutation and the entire reaining 99,998 immediately die of jealousy and the two with the beneficial mutation have 100,000 kids to replace the entire herd." I don't want to be accused of misconstruing this wonderful scientific analysis.

C.H. Waddington, quoted on this web site, could have been talking to Remine and you, although he was talking to Murray Eden and some other math wizards at the Wistar Symposia back in 1966.

The point was made that to account for some evolutionary changes in hemoglobin, one requires about 120 amino acid substitutions...as individual events, as though it is necessary to get one of them done and spread throughout the whole population before you could start processing the next one...[and] if you add up the time for all those sequential steps, it amounts to quite a long time. But the point the biologists want to make is that that isn't really what is going on at all. We don't need 120 changes one after the other. We know perfectly well of 12 changes which exist in the human population at the present time. There are probably many more which we haven't detected, because they have such slight physiological effects...[so] there [may be] 20 different amino acid sequences in human hemoglobins in the world population at present, all being processed simultaneously...Calculations about the length of time of evolutionary steps have to take into account the fact that we are dealing with gene pools, with a great deal of genetic variability, present simultaneously. To deal with them as sequential steps is going to give you estimates that are wildly out." (pp. 95-6)

Bad model. Garbage in, garbage out. No point worrying about the arithmetic when the model isn't based on sound biology at all.

[Ken H]

No, I used language, you might look into it sometime.

You used a term that has several meanings, but refuse to say which one. That's called an evasion.

As for your lame attempt at baiting an irrelevant argument, maybe someone else will fall for it.

http://www.stmoroky.com/sirrobin/fleeing~~.au

[whattajoke]

Here's a list of 500 (at least) top scientists who refuse to buy into evolutionism. All are PHD level.

Thank you for posting the list of scientists whom you claim "refuse to buy into evolutionism." Firstly, I'd encourage you correct your mistake about them all being "PHD level." A cursory glance at the now infamous list shows us that.

But, and I encourage you to poke around yourself, a deeper look at the list reveals several things. One is, of course, the vast majority on the last are not biologists. I prefer to solicit advice from relavent scientists to a particular field I"m inquiring about. A comparison would be, "If I need braces, I go to an orthodontist, not a gynecologist." So can we agree to throw out all the astrophysicists, meteorologists, and mathematicians? Thank you.

Next, let's dig a little deeper about just what it was these guys signed. The site you linked quoted, ""We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Fair enough... and actually, I'm surprised the list stops at 500. This is not remotely close to the mistaken claim you made about these 500 "refusing to buy evolutionism." I may have missed it, but I don't see those words on the statement they signed. In fact, the statement merely raises questions about the mechanisms of evolution. I'd wager a full 80% or more of your list accept the fact of evolution, but merely aren't convinced we know of all the mechanisms. No biggie.

If you take the time and google some of the list, you'll find that they do indeed "buy evolutionism" wholeheartedly. In other words, the Discovery Institute's list is, shall we say, a bunch of crap? Thank you in advance for not posting this embarrassing link again.