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.

[BuglerTex]

How can you tell it was a he, Bones?

[VadeRetro]

If I were top of the class in med school, I wouldn't be stuck on this creaking old starship now, would I?

[Quark2005]

I hold that the probability of the development of this planet, with its liquid core, magnetic field, position relative to its star, companion planet (moon), atmosphere, temperature range, gravity, and most important, particular geological record is so abysmally low for coincidental development, that random occurrence is implausible.

Very true, the formation of a planet with conditions right for life (let alone intelligent life) is quite a remote happenstance.

Then again, all the billions of planets which don't have conditions right for life don't have beings there to ponder the odds of their planet's conditions developing...any intelligent life that does evolve on an 'acceptable' planet and adapts to its environment would be inclined to think their own planet was perfectly made for them...

(This doesn't in my mind eliminate the wonders of God; it's just a philosophical point to ponder...)

[BuglerTex]

inclined to think their own planet was perfectly made for them...

I wonder what that would be like...Here we go with inclinations again. Tree falls in the forest, etc.

[Quark2005]

I wonder what that would be like...Here we go with inclinations again. Tree falls in the forest, etc.

God knew what He was doing when He made the universe. I'm just inclined to believe that if He had a plan that didn't involve some apparent 'chance' happenstance, then why bother with the billions of stars that life can't live near...

It all just makes me more impressed with God's power (a few billion extra stars is a trivial deed for Him). He's probably just shaking His head at how silly and inconsequential the whole debate really is; compared to the real miracle that there's any existence at all here to ponder. (Pardon my musings - too much caffeine this morning)

[Junior]

Dude, I'm the archiver (archivist?)...

[b_sharp]

"I hold that the probability of the development of this planet, with its liquid core, magnetic field, position relative to its star, companion planet (moon), atmosphere, temperature range, gravity, and most important, particular geological record is so abysmally low for coincidental development, that random occurrence is implausible.

The problem with this calculation is that there are too many unknowns. How many planets exist, not just in this galaxy, but in the entire universe with liquid cores? How many of these have a magnetic field? If the reason we have the magnetic field we do is the liquid core, then most other planets with liquid cores will have a magnetic field. How many planets that have liquid cores and magnet fields are also in the 'life zone' for the particular star they orbit? How many of these have atmospheres that will support life? How many of these have a companion planet? How necessary is having a companion planet? How many different forms of life are there?

Without at least having some idea of the numbers associated with the questions listed above any supposition that our position in the universe in privileged can only be in error. This is simply because without knowing those particular numbers the probability of some planet filling our niche can be as close to 1 as it can be to 0. As long as a single planet in the universe happens to have conditions necessary to support life, then there we are.

All the conditions you have listed would be incidental to the existence of life. In other words, wherever life is found then those conditions obviously must support life. Only if we view our existence after the fact and give it precedence can it be viewed as 'special'.

These are interesting questions, questions far more open to question than that of evolution and more open to debate.

You didn't really answer my question though which was something about random selection. Any selection, whether performed by humans or simply the state of the environment is not random. Mutations, frequently viewed as random, are themselves only semi-random in the sense that some areas of the genome are more prone to mutations than other areas. The idea that biological evolution is somehow random is incorrect.

If you want to discuss evolution I would be happy to do so. If you want to discuss abiogenesis I would be happy to do so. Even if you want to discuss the probability of human existence in the larger sense I would be happy to do so.

[BuglerTex]

The idea that biological evolution is somehow random is incorrect.

Precisely.

If you want to discuss evolution I would be happy to do so. If you want to discuss abiogenesis I would be happy to do so. Even if you want to discuss the probability of human existence in the larger sense I would be happy to do so.

And no doubt do it well, I see by your links and posts. My field is in keeping things still, so I have to live in a conundrum of perpetual motion. Yet, mindful that we are prone to superstitious learning, I believe that the more we learn about science, the more we learn about Creation.

Only if we view our existence after the fact and give it precedence can it be viewed as 'special'.

Guilty as charged, made in the image of God. And in a way, that goes for all life forms, known and unknown. Now that is way off thread. (Except sheep of course, I come from a line of cattlemen.) I just happen to see God in science. Many a physicist might never venture down an asymptotic path that an engineer would pursue, expecting the end to be close enough. Perhaps that is my astochastic view. Mathmatically, in an infinite universe, the special nature of our niche is incalculable, I will agree, but having come to where we are, to know how very special is our particular time and condition of existence must make even an existentialist feel fortunate.

Sorry if I did not answer your question about random selection. Perhaps I cannot.

[whattajoke]

This thread isn't in the religion forum (yet) so I am hesitant to discuss religion here. I don't venture into those threads because I don't belong. I'm not saying you don't belong in this thread, just that you shouldn't expect a long dissertation on Christianity here. What you can expect, however, is a response to your strange post to me.

Even then, here's something to chew on, a lil personal revolation my immediate family discuss's daily!

Since you haven't been mean to me, I won't point out that you'd do well reading a spelling/grammar text in lieu of the Bible tonight. Although, I suppose reading the last chapter of the Bible would help you with one of your misspellings.

This amazing book, the Bible, is just a small insight to the "love" and "romance" of God with His Children, He sets them free

Yes, God loves children. In the first 2 books alone, he really shows his fatherly concerns:
Genesis
And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and ... offer him there for a burnt offering. -- 22:2
And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. -- 22:10
Exodus
If thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.--4:23
For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast.--12:12
At midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.--12:29
The LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast.--13:15

He is a Jealous God, He is a Vain God

Gee, sounds like fun Guy! Sign me up!

[CourtneyLeigh]

Since you haven't been mean to me, I won't point out that you'd do well reading a spelling/grammar text in lieu of the Bible tonight. Although, I suppose reading the last chapter of the Bible would help you with one of your misspellings.
But you did anyways;Typo, Whattajoke, I'd never point out something as ridiculous as a typo. I type everynite for 8-10 hours straight, and never make an error. When I'm not working, my hands and eyes are sooo tired from being on those computers all nite long. Give me a break. If you understand what I mean, then try to just over look it, please? sheesh.. a freaking typo.
sigh :( I'd never point out something that irrelevant to the posts!

Your verses make no point. The opportunity to be apart of Gods Holy Plan, so that His ultimate Glory is revealed, is an honor. And for those children that are swept out of this world of sin and death, Good for them! For the parents that can't see Gods hand as the Masters Hand in a painting that isn't finished yet, I'm sorry to them! I've never shed a tear for one life lost amongst me, but for those that cry in vain! Since a young girl, I remember thinking, why do we cry for those that die? They are only going through a stage in life. Before I even knew of the Bible, death to me, meant peace, and end to a life that was well lived, for as long as it could be lived.

To me death isn't an act of "unlove", it's just passing from one stage in our life to that which God would take us to next. We aren't to idol our livelihood on this earth, it is but a blink in time to our Lord and Creator. We are here long enough to serve a purpose, then He takes us, chapter open and closed. Simple as that to me.

Again, I've always thought death was a normal thing, and not to be thought of in disdain or as punishment. I notice, no one cries or tries to blame God of child birth. If death is soo bad, how much worse is it to have to bring a life into this world, which means dieing to self, and spending the next 20 years absorbing this other life. The woman goes through extreme bodily changes, extreme pains in giving birth, then the turmoil of raising an adult from scratch. Never having done so before in their life, parents are thrown a crying, pooping, breathing, sensitive, learning child.... to me,, this is a bigger shock to the human psyche then death. Death is just so quick and fleeting,, it hit's us so fast are response is to be angry!

But why?

And You know, so what if He asked Abraham to give up that child, God gave him Isaac to begin with. Abraham didn't own that baby, we are all Gods children, and we are all accountable to the Lords plans. Abraham showed that he didn't value human life over spiritual life, that's ultimate God/man relationship and a super understanding of Unconditional love after Gods own heart! God showed us that example with Christ, and also with Lazarus... many times did He allow His beloved followers/children Die... or tempt to die, only to prove a point.

Sorry, I know this isn't a Christian thread... but these posts are always good for interesting and quaintly intelligent conversation don't you agree? Even if they get a lil off-course! This is what I love bout this website!

[CourtneyLeigh]

Have you heard Dr. Kent Hovinds application/statements about pressurized Oxygen in the earth's atmosphere before the Flood. If we apply pure pressurized Oxygen to our body's cells today, all cells stop the "dying" process and engorge themselves on that oxygen, almost storing it like lil bees do pollen!

Our body's were created to live forever, before the curse of death. In all actuality, cells with extreme amounts of pressurized oxygen applied to them, act in their original course, maintaining all livelihood to the body.

And that would kill the idea of cancer too.

Cancer is a disease, and disease didn't come into the world, according to the accounts in Genesis, until after Adams' sin.

[ibme]

Hey Ichneumo,

This is a little beyond your grade school dialogue.

It doesn’t matter what the population of a species is.
If there is a mutation and a species starts the process of evolving into another species, the whole process starts over with a population of ONE.

There are only so many reproductive life cycles available in the allotted time frame.

[ibme]

The life tree of any one species is only a single series – straight line.

[dread78645]

Have you heard Dr. Kent Hovinds application/statements about pressurized Oxygen in the earth's atmosphere before the Flood. If we apply pure pressurized Oxygen to our body's cells today, all cells stop the "dying" process and engorge themselves on that oxygen, almost storing it like lil bees do pollen!

Oh jeezz ... please let me know if you're under eight years old?

I don't want to break the news to you about Santa ...

[Senator Bedfellow]

Let's not be hasty, now - there may be money in selling these folks canned air...

[CourtneyLeigh]

Don't insult me! You don't know everything there is to know in this universe, and neither do I! Excuse me, if I'm not upto par with you. For my age I am grateful for what I've learned so far and am interested in learning more in this life!

Maybe you've stopped learning, sir, but I'll never know it all....

Don't ever post me again, cause I have no patience or appreciation for people like you with that sort of ignorant and inconsiderate mentality!

[whattajoke]

Pssst, Courtney! Kent Hovind isn't a doctor. He's an embarrassing fraud, tax cheat, and scoflaw. It's all on the net (Google is your friend.)

Just sayin...

[Thatcherite]

Hey Ichneumo, This is a little beyond your grade school dialogue. It doesn’t matter what the population of a species is. If there is a mutation and a species starts the process of evolving into another species, the whole process starts over with a population of ONE.

You'd do well to read Ichneumon's post on this subject again, this time for comprehension. Your hypothesis bespeaks multiple incomprehensions on your part, so many that it seems unlikely that you have made any effort to understand how populations evolve. You think you've got your "gotcha" that somehow 99% of PhD biologists haven't spotted, and you don't want to let go of it. Fine. Here's a hint though; Mendelian genetics has enormously strengthened evolution, not weakened it. In Darwin's time genetics wasn't known and it was a serious potential weakness of the theory that no-one knew why beneficial differences between offspring and parent didn't just dilute through the population as time went on. Genetics explains the lack of dilution.

This is one of the sillier aspects of the creationist mindset; that you/they spot an objection to mainstream science that a 10 year old could understand, and they think therefore that they've found something that invalidates multiple scientific fields of endeavour that hundreds of thousands of people spend their working lives studying. Presumably you think that either (a) all professional biologists are stupid or (b) all professional biologists are knowingly engaged in an atheist conspiracy to destroy Christianity or (c) both (a) and (b). If you are a young-earth-creationist you can extend that to "all scientists are fools or liars or lying fools".

[CourtneyLeigh]

I've called most of the people who he mentions in his videos, the ones that use the oxygenized pressure tanks, and found out most of what he says is true.

[whattajoke]

500