Posted on 02/26/2006 9:12:24 PM PST by ibme
The Official Death of the Theory of Evolution – 2/25/2006
Theorem Name: The Illusion of Evolution DOA Theorem 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) AoU = 10 billion = 10,000,000,000 years 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 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.
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.
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.
AvRpdCyc - average reproductive life cycle generation (2)(3)
TotalRpdCyc – total reproductive cycles in the age of the Universe.
AvRpdCyc = 100 per year (2)(3)
TotalRpdCyc = AoU * AvRpdCyc = 1,000,000,000,000 = 1 Trillion
MM = 175,711,536
TotalRpdCyc / MM = 1,000,000,000,000/175,711,536 = 5,691
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)
The car is red.
Now, 'interpret' that!
But, later in life, he grew so destitute that he turned to a life of crime: a hitman.
But he was so bad at it, he could not charge very much money.
So, as it turned out, he was caught by police after strangling a trio for the Mob.
Headlines read:
You are speculating now in a field which is pretty well figured out--and not in the direction you speculate. Or, to be less polite, you're blowing smoke.
Young samples are problematical because of atmospheric contamination by atomic bombs, a condition not yet reported for the pre-World War II era. Even those young samples can now be calibrated using the Calibomb program.
The fact that young samples have atomic bomb contamination problems does not bother older samples, as Carbon-14 is absorbed into living organisms only while they are living. So you are wrong again.
The atmospheric levels of Carbon-14 are easy to establish. Find a tree (preferably one which lives a long time and in a climate where nice distinctive rings are produced) and start counting. For example, count back a thousand rings, and then date that particular ring. Do this for every tenth ring between say A.D. 1650 and 12,000 years ago (the standing dead bristlecone pines in the White Mountains of California have permitted such a study. For the most recent period, they have sampled the trees every year.)
When you have the rings all dated, create a calibration curve. This will permit accurate dating because you correct for "the precise saturation level in the atmosphere at the time specific in which the thing being dated existed." So, another of your objections is flat out wrong.
Another way of checking on the method is to date things which have a known age--organic materials from Egyptian tombs, which can be dated precisely by written records, for example.
Now contamination, that can be a problem only in certain circumstances. When you are dating at the end of the range, where the levels of C14 are so small, then contamination can be a problem. Most dates are done on the opposite end of the range. And contamination is easy to spot--just do a lot of samples and look for odd results.
But I don't think you are really interested in how radiocarbon dating works. I think you won't trust it no matter what because it helps provide evidence you do not agree with, such as an old earth and no global flood.
You don't like the message, so you shoot the messenger! But Havoc, you need a lot more education in these fields before you can find any actual problems, and there are a lot of good scientists ahead of you. For example, the problem of atmospheric fluctuations was identified by de Vries in 1958.
For the lurkers who are interested, here are some good links:
ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth CreationistsThe American Scientific Affiliation: Science in Christian Perspective Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.
Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
Tree Ring and C14 DatingHow does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
How precise is radiocarbon dating?
Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?
Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?
Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
It should come as no surprise to lurkers that objections to evolution always spread into other sciences -- anthropology, geology, physics, chemistry.
The biggest problem with critics of evolution is that they can present no coherent alternative. It isn't possible to discredit evolution without asserting that all of science is wrong.
And that's where they all end up, abandoning all reason and spamming religous verses. That or the looney bin.
balrog:
And that's where they all end up, abandoning all reason and spamming religious verses. That or the looney bin.
Utter nonsense! What you godless, materialist, commie, sodomite, kiddie-porn producing, lake-of-fire-bound fools fail to realize, because your pathetic minds are mired in this base world of flesh, is that your "science" isn't applicable to the world before the Fall. I pity you, and when you get your reward in the life to come, I shall laugh!
</creationism mode>
I understand the coffee's cold also.
Normally she would make her own but she's been sick for the last few days and since she doesn't drive it falls to me to do those type of errands.
Thunderous applause!
One ape does not "evolve" into one human, at least not according to the theory; a population of apes evolves into a population of humans
Correct.
and, in order for that to happen, you need two fairytale concepts
False.
(nobody ever said evolutionism is rational):
Sure they have, and I'll say it again now: evolutionary biology is rational, and has evidence and research supporting its many conclusions, including this one. On the other hand, "nobody ever said" that anti-evolutionists were capable of correctly understanding or describing the science they attempt to critique. Case in point:
One is the idea that there is such a thing as "beneficial mutations",
This is no "fairy tale", son:
Hey, I've got a really novel idea -- why don't you and your other anti-evolution buddies TRY LEARNING SOMETHING about biology before you shoot your mouths off about it, making confident pronouncements that are utterly and completely false?Directed evolution of biosynthetic pathways. Recruitment of cysteine thioethers for constructing the cell wall of Escherichia coliMolecular evolution of an arsenate detoxification pathway by DNA shuffling
The evolutionary origin of complex features
Bacterial evolution and the cost of antibiotic resistance
Mild environmental stress elicits mutations affecting fitness in Chlamydomonas
The emergence and maintenance of diversity: insights from experimental bacterial populations
Pleiotropic effects of beneficial mutations in Escherichia coli
The Rate of Compensatory Mutation in the DNA Bacteriophage X174
Evolution and Information: The Nylon Bug
Spontaneous mutations in diploid Saccharomyces cerevisiae: more beneficial than expected
Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection
Spontaneous mutations in diploid Saccharomyces cerevisiae: more beneficial than expected
Evolution and Information: The Nylon Bug
Punctuated evolution caused by selection of rare beneficial mutations.
PLEIOTROPIC EFFECTS OF BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS IN ESCHERICHIA COLI
The Distribution of Fitness Effects Among 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.
Wow, are *you* ignorant of how natural selection works. Nope, sorry. Go take a children's class on biology and they'll be glad to give you the very tiny and elementary amount of education required to keep you from making such stupid statements in the future. Hint: Natural selection doesn't need to make anything "die out", because everything dies soon enough anyway -- populations turn over not because natural selection "kills them off", but because things grow old and die even under the best of conditions. Instead, natural selection works via differential gene replication, even if nothing dies before its normal allotted time. Here, start to learn the very first things about this topic, instead of just relying on your own bizarre flawed presumptions:
Introduction to Evolutionary BiologyAlso, since you seem to be at least 130 years behind the times on your reading, it would help you to catch up to at *least* 1859:The Talk.Origins Archive: Must-Read FAQs
Five Major Misconceptions About Evolution
The Evolution of Improved Fitness: By Random Mutation Plus Selection
The Origin of Species, Chapter 4: Natural SelectionThat is necessary for the theory to work;
No, that's your own misconception about what would be necessary.
without it we would actually see creatures at every stage of the process of evolution still walking around, and clearly we don't.
Again, this is entirely wrong. The reason we don't see "at every stage of the process of evolution still walking around" is because genes change and instances of prior gene combinations die of old age or other causes -- it is not necessary for natural selection to "kill" anything in order for modern populations to no longer resemble ancestral populations. Your logic is flawed.
It's also the thing which guys like Hitler and Stalin liked about evolution.
You have just triggered Godwin's Law, congratulations. In any case, no, sorry -- Hitler based his genocide on the Bible, and Stalin persecuted and jailed and executed actual Darwinists, not "liked" them. Try to learn some history also while you're toodling off to come up to speed on biology.
In real life, when some microevolutionary process occurs, then humans of different races or finches with different beak adaptations simply continue about their business into the future; in the evolutionary scheme, the "selective advantage" of the better causes the worse to die out.
No, nice try. Read the above resources. It's about differential propagation of genes, not causing anyone or anything to "die off" due to natural selection acting as a "reaper".
Haldane's paper dealt with "genetic death" -- a particular allele dropping out of the population -- not "death" in the sense of an animal turning into a corpse. You and ReMine are trying to model the latter, Haldane was modeling the former, and the former is more difficult to model and get right the first time without a *lot* of careful checking for sources of error.
Walter Remine begins his discourse on the Haldane dilemma by noting that in the ten million years which supposedly separate apes from us
It's closer to six million years.
and given an average generation time of 20 years which is reasonable for chimps and humans and everything supposedly in between,
Too long, actually. Or are you under the bizarre impression that apes or prehistoric man followed the customs of 20th century urban dwellers?
you've got 500,000 generations.
Close enough within an order of magnitude, anyway.
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
EERRRNTT!! Mistake #1. The number of beneficial mutations per generation in a population of that size is far higher.
and the entire reaining 99,998 immediately die of jealousy
EERRRNTT!! Mistake #2. "Dying of jealousy" is an incredibly stupid model of how natural selection works and what it accomplishes and by what means.
EERRRNTT!! Mistake #3. You started this scenario by saying you were going to try to make it the "maximum possible rate" of evolution, but you've just SLOWED IT DOWN by many orders of magnitude by killing off 99.998% of your genepool every generation and making the population start from scratch every generation. That's stupid, and destroys your entire scenario right there. This is the core reason why your "model" is completely invalid as a model of how fast evolution can actually accumulate genetic change over 500,000 generations. Nice try!
and the two with the beneficial mutation have 100,000 kids to replace the entire herd.
EERRRNTT!! Mistake #4. This also invalidates your model, and produces SLOWER evolutionary change than if you had modeled how populations *actually* work.
That would give you 500,000 substituted traits at the end of your ten million years,
Yes, because you subjected your hypothetical population to trials and tribulations which would have TOTALLY SCREWED UP their ability to evolve at normal rates. Congratulations!
when is about one one hundredth of one percent of the genetic difference between chimps and us.
How on earth did you calculate *that* percentage? Show your math and all your presumptions. This should be funny!
Furthermore:
EERRRNNTT!! Mistake #5. Haldane's analysis only relates to traits ACQUIRED BY SELECTION. There is *no* "genetic cost" to traits acquired by genetic drift. You falsely conclude that 500,000 SELECTED traits is not enough to account for the difference between man and the other apes, but it may well be (even a far smaller number may well be), since an *unlimited* number of *un*selected traits can also have been generated in 10 million years and account for a huge percentage (even 99% or more) of the differences between man and ape. For example, there's no reason to presume that our relative hairlessness -- one of the more obvious things which separates us from the other apes -- is a trait acquired by *selection*. It may well just be the result of genetic drift instead. The same goes for (X-500,000) of the (X) traits which separate us from the apes, EVEN IF your analysis is correct, and it's not, and this alone would resolve your alleged "total disproof of evolution". Oops! You sort of "forgot" to consider that.
So when you show us your detailed calculations on exactly how many traits separate us from the apes, be sure to show us exactly how you determined what fraction of those had to be *selected* traits as opposed to neutral traits (and remember that neutral traits are "free" -- have a zero cost -- relative to "Haldane's Dilemma"). We'll wait.
In a rational world, that should be as far as most people need to read.
In a rational world, you wouldn't even be able to make an argument this flawed, irrational, and contrary to known facts, then laughably try to pass it off as indisputable rationality.
That basically says that even given a rate of evolutionary development which is fabulously beyond anything which is possible in the real world,
ERRRNNTT!! Mistake #6. No, sorry, see above -- you have instead DRASTICALLY SLOWED DOWN evolutionary change via your "kill 'em all" method. Hey, genius, answer me this -- if that's actually how one raises "rates of evolutionary development" to levels "fabulously beyond anything which is possible in the real world", then why don't agronomists and animal husbandry experts achieve fantastic results by SLAUGHTERING ALL BUT TWO INDIVIDUALS OF THEIR STOCK every generation? Here's why -- they know something that you don't know: That it would be insane, it would *destroy* most of the genetic variation in their breeding stocks, *AND* cause the following generations to be horrifically inbred.
starting from apes, in ten million years the furthest you could get would still be an ape.
Well sure, if you murdered them at every opportunity and tried to keep only a SINGLE BREEDING PAIR on hand at any given time for ten million years. If plant breeders tried something that stupid, we'd still have only one variety of rose in existence. Duh.
Nonetheless the evolutionists still argue.
Because we're faced with having to debunk stupid s**t like this all the time from know-nothing squareheads.
What, they ask, will be the effect of substituting many mutations through the herd simultaneously, rather than sequentially as in the example. Surely that will save our precious lifestyle support system.
Yes, surely it will, as vast amounts of research, computer simulations, mathematical analyses, and practical experience by countless animal and plant breeders amply demonstrates.
For some reason, though, the idiotic anti-evolutionists think that they don't have to bother having a look at the real world, they just need to dream up moronic scenarios like, "what would happen if we committed mass genocide on a breeding population instead of looking at how things work in real populations under realistic conditions?"
As it turns out, it won’t, and as I mentioned it’s basically the logical requirements of the evolutionists own theory which prevents anything from being saved.
Hey, stupid -- yeah, I'm talking to you -- try cracking open a science journal for a change, so you can see all of the vast amounts of real-world studies which establish that on this point, we're right and you and your anti-evolution buddies have got your heads up your rectums.
Haldane basically did the math for this idea of selective advantages causing the old stock to die out at each step of an evolutionary process.
...which DESTROYS the genetic diversity that allows evolution to occur in parallel, and achieve more in large populations than it can in lineages teetering on the edge of extinction. Get a clue, Einstein.
And don't try to blame Haldane for your goofy scenario. *HE* wasn't the one who tried to model things with a "kill all but two every generation" scenario. Haldane was far brighter than that. It is creationist ReMine who dreamed up *that* bit of stupidity. Haldane's argument was far more subtle -- but also prone to having subtle errors somewhere in it, and they did.
Here is Haldane's original analysis: The Cost of Natural Selection. The astute reader is invited to read it and get a good laugh about how absurd "salexander's" childish attempted description of "Haldane's Dilemma" is compared with what Haldane *actually* wrote.
When you subtract out every other source of "genetic death",
...*AND* every other source of genetic recombination...
you're left with the cost of substitution for one trait
Yes, you're left with *just* the cost and *not* the advantages provided by the rest of the breeding population. Is it any wonder your scenario doesn't profit?
and if you start trying to substitute more than one trait at one time, the cost becomes prohibitive and the population becomes extinct.
No, sorry. Haldane had an excuse for his oversimplified and ultimately incorrect model -- he lived before population genetics was well studied and understood, and before countless real-world studies had been done to establish how things *really* work under different scenarios. You don't have that excuse, so there's no excuse for *your* ignorance.
The only assumptions being made in Haldane's analysis are the basic assumptions of the theory of evolution itself.
EERRRNNTT!! Mistake #7. Evolution in no way has a "basic assumption" that all but two individuals die off every generation without passing on any of their genes, nor is this what Haldane actually examined. Haldane lived in an age before computer models were possible, and before any real-world studies had been accumulated, so in order to greatly simplify the issue enough (without introducing a fatal flaw in the process, he hoped) that the simplified scenario could be quickly analyzed in an age when slide-rules were the state of the art computing devices, he introduced a number of assumptions to his shortcut model. He was wrong, as it turns out, for reasons which have been explored in-depth in the decades since.
So again, Haldane had an excuse -- *YOU* and your clueless anti-evolution buddies who keep clinging to Haldane's mistake and swearing it's gospel have no such excuse. You're perfectly able to just OPEN A BOOK and see how Haldane's presumptions don't match reality when real-world populations have actually been studied, and how ReMine's scenario turns out to have a CRIPPLED evolutionary rate in comparison to more realistic population scenarios when populations are modeled in computers or tested in the lab or in field studies -- and how Haldane's presumptions turned out not to be the case.
GET. A. CLUE.
As is well known, Haldane arrived at the conclusion that substituting ANY genetic change to fixation amongst humans would take something like 300 years minimum,
You mean "300 generations", of course, not years. And you're misrepresenting what Haldane actually said -- he was referring only to *selected* traits, not all acquired traits of any kind. Oops, you screwed up *again*!
and that something like 1700 genetic changes could be substituted through the human race or anything starting out to become the human race, in ten million years.
Again, the reason this conclusion is flawed is because it applies *only* to *selected* traits (an *unlimited* number of unselected traits can fix in ten million years), and because there are *multiple* traits working towards fixation in the population at any given time (this invalidates ReMine's stupidity), *and* there are many other more subtle invalidating flaws in Haldane's analysis (see below). ReMine's "1700" calculation is based on quite a few flawed presumption that only one trait can be doing that at any given time, and that the next mutation must "wait" until the prior one is "done" before the "new" one can show up or start working towards fixation. This is obviously an invalid presumption, and the fact that anti-creationists can think it makes sense is yet more evidence of just what dolts they are, and how grossly ignorant of real-world biology they are. Not, of course, that this surprises any of us.
Haldane's similar result (which is *not* based on the kind of stupid reasoning you have presented here, Haldane's actual argument is far more sophisticated, albeit still flawed) is flawed for more complicated reasons (see below).
Yet another mistake you and ReMine make is to blame Haldane for the goofiness of ReMine's "kill 'em all" analysis. This is *not* how Haldane performed his calculations, or the reasoning he gave for it. I asked you to explain "Haldane's Dilemma" in your own words, and said that I was asking it so that you could make a fool of yourself. And you did! I also said that I would then tell you what's wrong with your explanation. And I have.
That's just one total disproof of evolution by the way;
ROFL!!! Congratulations, you're a tiresomely predictable anti-evolutionist. You ramble on giving a ludicrously flawed, totally unrealistic argument (while trying to pin it on poor Haldane), then sit back smugly and arrogantly declare that you have a "total disproof of evolution" which all those working biologists must have overlooked, despite the fact that it's entirely obvious that you haven't even bothered to learn as much biology as the average sixth-grader, and are totally unacquainted with any research results newer than the 1750's...
You guys would be hilarious if you weren't so obnoxiously annoying, and so *common*. Instead it just becomes tiresome.
there are a number of others.
I await your other "total disproofs of evolution" -- I enjoy showing arrogant know-nothings just how foolish they are.
In a rational world, the theory of evolution would have been abandoned 50 - 70 years ago.
In a truly rational world, people would bother to learn the first thing about a field of science, like at the very least the vast amount of evidence and research supporting it, before they said astoundingly stupid and false things about it like how it should have been "abandoned", while patting themselves on the back about how "rational" they're being for dismissing something based on their own ignorance and misunderstandings... And yet, anti-evolutionists do this kind of wildly irrational thing all the freaking time.
Here, if you want to get a clue what Haldane *actually* argued (instead of ReMine's goofy misunderstanding of it), along with an analysis of it and how it doesn't stand up to examination and why, see the link to Haldane's original paper (above), and then read:
The Cost of Natural Selection Revisited
this one HAS to be archived
Nice post! :-)
Bamboo regenerates itself like the false claims of creationism.
Let's say then, that the Bible is true, and before the world-wide flood there was a perfect amount of H2O and Oxygen combinations in the breathable atmosphere! So pure and so vital to a human body, that the intake of these elements helped maintain vitality for those cells to never have to die?
If that makes sense! lol
Even then, here's something to chew on, a lil personal revolation my immediate family discuss's daily! Even though some may perish, don't forget, everything is for His Glory. The sin, the Christ, Creation, Hell, Lucifers "rebellion"... This amazing book, the Bible, is just a small insight to the "love" and "romance" of God with His Children, He sets them free, and hopes they return to that which they were taught! Just like we teach our children, let them go, and hope we do well!
But, even as you love your child through the best and worst of their lives, So does God, and everything we do, is set in some kind of determined motion, which will only conclude to His Holy Glory being fulfilled! His honor will be seen in the end. He is a Jealous God, He is a Vain God, And He is a Righteous God! These aren't bad characteristics for HIM, He manages them well... but we are the ones that inherited these characteristics - Misuse them - and blame Him in the end!
To me... we are just a bunch of lil brats running around on His footstool, and for some reason... He sees potential in us!
I marvel at this all the time, and am grateful to have had a mother to love me as unconditionally as God loves Her! And she learned of this, and taught me to do the same!
Agreed. A keeper for sure.
The limit on oxygen intake is set by the hemoglobin content of your blood. Given normal lung function, increasing the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere will have little effect if the hemoglobin level remains the same.
Not that it means much anyhow, only 20-25% of the oxygen in the blood is actually delivered to tissue. About 3% of the remainder will be exhaled at your next breath due to the partial pressue of the diastolic phase, the rest will be recirculated.
It's not lack of oxygen that's responsible for diseased cells.
If that makes sense! lol
No. lol
very nice post
This relates to my post that the mathematical errors are so gross as to be off by a power of immense size, and the author should have his permit to operate a slide rule revoked.
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.
This is just for the opportunity to have this terrarium to make our soup in. Forget debating evolution, who cares, debate this planet's very existence.
We are here, right now at this fractional instantaeous moment in an immeasurable history, we can philosophize, we can even write. We have only been doing that for a handful of generations. Give a few monks enough time and they can calculate that without a slide rule. (Bishop Ussher was wrong - unrelated)
In just a few centuries, philosophy was well enough developed for the Book of Hebrews to be understood by Jews in Rome. It is the best Greek in the New Testament by far, and an inspired masterpiece. Statistical improbability.
Now mutations do occur, and living forms and species change, but I cannot as a scientist accept that all of the glorious diversity of life on this planet is the result of purely random combinations and accidental environmental situation responses. Environmental determinism led to agrarian failure in the Soviet Union.
Only through the Spirit can we understand the Word of God, and for my part he can have done it however he wished. I just wish we would get off this infighting and get on with His work. Sign on a little church in East Texas yesterday:
**God wants Christian fruit -
Not religious nuts**
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.