Music Banter

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/)
-   -   The mathematical Impossibility of Evolution (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/86743-mathematical-impossibility-evolution.html)

Blank. 07-05-2016 04:17 PM
The mathematical Impossibility of Evolution
 
So I was reading the book Breathless by Dean Koontz recently. I came across a portion in it where he talks about the mathematical impossibility of evolution. Decided to research the topic off which he spoke about. I came across this article.

The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution | The Institute for Creation Research

Zhanteimi 07-05-2016 05:27 PM
Great merciful bloodstained gods! Here we go.

Aloysius 07-05-2016 06:17 PM
This article shows a very poor understanding of science. "No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial" - this is utterly false. It's easiest to observe in viruses and bacteria, mostly because their generation time span is so short, making the whole process quicker. In mammals the time scales are obviously much bigger, but we can see the process in terms of current environmental fitness - people from warmer climates having darker skin being an obvious example. His example of a 200 part system is absurd - of course the chance of getting any given combination is vanishingly small. But evolution is not heading toward any one specific combination - every step of the way there are many mutations that may give that organism an advantage.

The Batlord 07-05-2016 06:55 PM
And don't forget that the Earth is apparently ten billion-years-old.

Neapolitan 07-05-2016 08:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1716858)
And don't forget that the Earth is apparently ten billion-years-old.
So what does that prove? The sun is 4.5 billion years old. Just because a space object is old doesn't make evolution more probable or possible. If that was the case there would be futuristic aliens living on the sun walking around in bathing suites, laying on the beaches of the sun trying to get a tan.

DeadChannel 07-05-2016 09:14 PM
I had no idea you were this far gone.

Frownland 07-05-2016 09:18 PM
The Institute for Creation Research strikes me as one of the finer and least biased sources you can find on evolutionary matters.

Blank. 07-05-2016 09:21 PM
Well the pro evolution sites are not going to post something that is objectively unbiased. And granted, this site isn't either, but it was the least biased without being too bad about it. Most other sites were like this is dumb and you're dumb for researching it.

Frownland 07-05-2016 09:24 PM
Well...

Blank. 07-05-2016 09:25 PM
Well, what?

Frownland 07-05-2016 09:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1blankmind (Post 1716935)
Well, what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1blankmind (Post 1716933)
you're dumb for researching it.
What are they going to do? Find God and do an interview? If anything is going to disprove evolution, it's the research of evolution itself.

Blank. 07-05-2016 09:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1716936)
What are they going to do? Find God and do an interview?
How about report on an actual theory that suggests evolution might be bul****. I mean they are suppose to be experts on it. So tell me why? And this has nothing to do with god. The site that I used happens to be a creationist site. And I posted it for the mathe,antics of it. So why bring up god? It's a theory that has nothing to do with him..

Neapolitan 07-05-2016 09:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1716932)
The Institute for Creation Research strikes me as one of the finer and least biased sources you can find on evolutionary matters.
They seem so credible. I definitely have to learn more about them.

I would like to add I think if you are a "multiverseian" scientifically you can't dismiss the YEC's claim the the Earth or the universe is only 10,000 years old. It could very well be that this universe could had spun off from another universe 10,000 years ago -- if you believe in that sort of thing.

Zhanteimi 07-05-2016 09:38 PM
Does it matter? ****!!

Frownland 07-05-2016 09:42 PM
Creation research sounds like researching creation to me. Disproving evolution isn't inherently creationist, but that site is so that's why I brought it up. Regardless, if evolution is to be disproved, I think it might be more likely for it to be disproved by people who understand and research evolution, not by (painfully obviously biased) organizations that make laughably false statements like

Quote:
Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away.
Quote:
No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial
That's before we even get into the false analogy of the 200 part system that they mention. These people are not experts (in evolution). They're either charlatans, reactionaries, incredibly naive, or stupid. Be a little skeptical of the sources you use, especially when they're "skeptical" sources, since many have taken up the term when they should be calling themselves "denialist."

Blank. 07-05-2016 09:45 PM
You say those are insane claims. Do you have a source to back it up?

Neapolitan 07-05-2016 09:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1blankmind (Post 1716952)
You say those are insane claims. Do you have a source to back it up?
Well I guess creationists believe the world is up to 10,000 years old. I think that is the outside figure. My source is Wikipedia. I guess that article is written by someone who cites source material that mentions what Creationist believe.

Frownland 07-05-2016 09:55 PM
Natural selection does not select for "good" or "bad" genes. The way they present it is very misleading and suggests that they don't understand the theory that they're criticizing (typical of anti-scientific groups).

The other one is simply an assumption that can be disproved with a quick Google search if we're going to ignore massive archives of fossil records like our source has. Here's an example off of the top of my head that I remember from grade school
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth

I don't want to explain what a false analogy is to you to disprove the 200 parts to a system "rationalization" they've got going on in there. Here's a link
False analogy - RationalWiki

You wouldn't happen to have anything from a good source that calls evolution into question? And trust me, the initial source you used is not a good one.

kibbeh 07-05-2016 10:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordwyr (Post 1716945)
Does it matter? ****!!
does anything matter????

Zhanteimi 07-05-2016 10:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pansy gayboy 69 (Post 1716968)
does anything matter????
Most definitely.

Frownland 07-05-2016 10:28 PM
Everything is matter, but nothing matters.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/ToMjG...kxhu/200_s.gif

Blank. 07-05-2016 10:30 PM
Most of these sites go into things about God and his existence. Just ignore that. This site is much more in depth on the math. Mathematical Impossibility

Frownland 07-05-2016 11:06 PM
Dude, they're starting with the result that they want and are using the research to support what they already believe! How can you not ****ing see that? Good research lets the results speak for themselves and weighs their results or conclusions against pre existing research. All of the sources that you've posted ignore the fossil record and get bent on some facetious statistics that is built off of false assumptions.

This is the same kind of thing I always see with creationists. Willfully ignoring half of the evidence presented to them, even though it disproves their unproven assumptions that are founded in heady theoretics. That source you just posted undermines the thriving complexity of life, the chaotic nature of the universe that led to that organism, and is still a bad source.

Look at this ****ing quote. Just ****ing look at it.

Quote:
We don't find mathematical support for the spontaneous generation of life through various chemicals accidentally bumping into each other.
You dumb mother****er. No. No. No! What you just walk around with a microscope and see if there are amino acids being spontaneously created in a chaotic Hadean climate? Of course you ****ing haven't seen that because you're not looking for it and given that it would disprove your little theory, you'd probably ignore that too. (Btw you is to the source, not blankmind).

Quote:
However, we do find mathematical support for the biblical claim that man has been on the earth less than 10,000 years.
No you dumb ****, that mathematical support is taken from the supposed lineage throughout the Old Testament up to a certain point. I forget exactly where. This entirely disregards carbon dating and in turn demolishes the credibility of this source, as if that was a surprise to anyone.

You ****ing people make me hate life. Have a goddamned reliable source and stick it up your ass.
NOVA - Official Website | How Did Life Begin?

kibbeh 07-05-2016 11:11 PM
talking about existence and what our purpose on this planet is always makes me hard

Blank. 07-05-2016 11:23 PM
While I get what you're upset about, i think you're ignoring the math. To prove their math they don't use the 10,000 year theory.

Quote:
Even when we work at the staggering rate of one billion trials per second throughout the whole universe for a period of 300 billion years, we can only achieve 5x10^105 combinations. That is well short of the 788x10372 combinations needed to be sure that we can arrive at the correct combination to start our very simple form of life. In fact, impossibly simple at just 200 pieces.
Here they use 300 billion years to show the imporobability.

My personal opinion on this subject comes back to how I've always felt. Which is in really have no personal opinion towards it. This theory didn't change anything. So... yeah.

Frownland 07-05-2016 11:26 PM
Too bad that the 200 part example is irrelevant. I'm gonna go with evolution being right.

And...hang on...is he trying to prove the improbability of something that legitimately happened? Is that what's going on in that quote?

Blank. 07-05-2016 11:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1717026)
Too bad that the 200 part example is irrelevant. I'm gonna go with evolution being right.

And...hang on...is he trying to prove the improbability of something that legitimately happened? Is that what's going on in that quote?
Well, the word legitimate is relative based upon beliefs. Since he is trying to use his math to prove creationism.

Frownland 07-05-2016 11:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1blankmind (Post 1717031)
Well, the word legitimate is relative based upon beliefs.
I see someone has discovered basic philosophy but hasn't gotten a grasp on applying it.

Blank. 07-05-2016 11:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1717032)
I see someone has discovered basic philosophy but hasn't gotten a grasp on applying it.
It's not philosophy. He believes in creationism, you believe in evolution. So the word legitimate would be used to mean something different to each of you on this subject.

Frownland 07-05-2016 11:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1blankmind (Post 1717033)
It's not philosophy. He believes in creationism, you believe in evolution. So the word legitimate would be used to mean something different to each of you on this subject.
Hysterical.

Blank. 07-05-2016 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1717035)
Hysterical.
How obvious what I pointed out is and your inability to see it is? Yeah, it is.

Frownland 07-05-2016 11:44 PM
See what? The bull****? Quite a bit of it here.

William_the_Bloody 07-06-2016 01:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1716932)
The Institute for Creation Research strikes me as one of the finer and least biased sources you can find on evolutionary matters.
:laughing:

I don't usually get involved in religous debates but this peaked my interest, however; Frownland has a point, the source you cited is heavily biased, and doesn't seem to be peer reviewed.

If the person proposing the thesis is a professor and has peer reviewed publications from a University, perhaps you could post them.

I find it an interesting theory, but I would like to know how he came by his data, as creationist websites are notorious for seeking an answer that reinforces their faith, as opposed to adhering to the scientific method.

I'm one of those people who believes that spirituality and evolution don't have to be at odds with each other, but the source you chose is going to raise alarm bells.

grindy 07-06-2016 02:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1blankmind (Post 1717033)
It's not philosophy. He believes in creationism, you believe in evolution. So the word legitimate would be used to mean something different to each of you on this subject.
Evolution is not a belief, it is well-proven and observable. Unlike creationism. There are various books that comprehensively debunk creationist arguments. Why don't you read one?

Aloysius 07-06-2016 02:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1blankmind (Post 1717023)
While I get what you're upset about, i think you're ignoring the math. To prove their math they don't use the 10,000 year theory.



Here they use 300 billion years to show the imporobability.

My personal opinion on this subject comes back to how I've always felt. Which is in really have no personal opinion towards it. This theory didn't change anything. So... yeah.
I tried to explain in my original reply why his 200 piece argument is silly. He is looking at the probability of a very specific combination coming into existence - that has nothing to do with what is happening with evolution - organisms aren't aiming for an arbitrarily picked combination, anything that gives them a reproductive advantage will do. We can observe natural selection going on everywhere, and as I mentioned with viruses and bacteria the time scales are much shorter. Bacteria becoming resistant to a specific antibiotic is just one example.

Zhanteimi 07-06-2016 03:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1717002)
Dude, they're starting with the result that they want and are using the research to support what they already believe! How can you not ****ing see that? Good research lets the results speak for themselves and weighs their results or conclusions against pre existing research. All of the sources that you've posted ignore the fossil record and get bent on some facetious statistics that is built off of false assumptions.

This is the same kind of thing I always see with creationists. Willfully ignoring half of the evidence presented to them, even though it disproves their unproven assumptions that are founded in heady theoretics. That source you just posted undermines the thriving complexity of life, the chaotic nature of the universe that led to that organism, and is still a bad source.

Look at this ****ing quote. Just ****ing look at it.



You dumb mother****er. No. No. No! What you just walk around with a microscope and see if there are amino acids being spontaneously created in a chaotic Hadean climate? Of course you ****ing haven't seen that because you're not looking for it and given that it would disprove your little theory, you'd probably ignore that too. (Btw you is to the source, not blankmind).



No you dumb ****, that mathematical support is taken from the supposed lineage throughout the Old Testament up to a certain point. I forget exactly where. This entirely disregards carbon dating and in turn demolishes the credibility of this source, as if that was a surprise to anyone.

You ****ing people make me hate life. Have a goddamned reliable source and stick it up your ass.
NOVA - Official Website | How Did Life Begin?
Calm the **** down.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:53 AM.


© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.