If anyone is interested in why evolution is false, this series describes the mathematical argument the best for me. He explains it in terms of computer programming, and I have done that for a while, so I get the problem:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL536FAE9D03D88AA5
At the core of the issue is that DNA is a set of data which can be represented in a computer. Instead of binary, it is a quaternary language, (4 base pairs).
You can then simulate DNA mutations in a computer. You can also simulate natural selection in computer environments. These are called "genetic algorithms". I used to study them while at college. It simulates evolution because evolution is the concept of random mutation plus natural selection.
Now in the world of computer programming, it has long been understood that basically a genetic algorithms do not work in the way they are supposed to. They are great for things involving a limited sequence of mutations which might randomly arise in 1 instance, thus allowing for natural selection to occur, but they are terrible for longer sequences. Yet, the average gene size is 10 to 15 kb. Furthermore, a gene to develop a protein, for example, must be coded correctly the first time because of the neutral theory of molecular evolution. Proteins that are only partially coded are malfunctioning proteins and either achieve a neutral benefit, or a detriment to the creature. Therefore, natural selection would never operate on such mutations, and those mutations would be lost. Also, natural selection may operate against a beneficial mutation, because if that mutation is only partially coded it could be a detriment as it achieves a negative outcome.
Now, let's say our mutation did pop out Mozart's Symphony on the first go. It would be unlikely to the point, we would not expect that to ever happen again. And when this type of quantification is done, as that video elaborates, you would never expect it to produce an outcome of evolution, in fact it working this way disproves evolution. Evolution is a process. What I have described where Mozart's Symphony arises randomly all in one go, is not a process but an event we never expect to be repeated on a statistical level. It arises to the level of statistically disproving evolution.
Even worse than this, is the idea of co-functioning proteins, where a series of structures must exist simultaneously in order to achieve the outcome where by natural selection would take hold. Imagine a land animal becoming a water breather, as they say happened with cows. This involves co-functioning protein sequences arising simultaneously, as if all of Mozart's Compositions randomly arose at the same time to produce a benefit.
David Berlinski estimated some 50,000 changes to that animal for this to take place, and he stopped counting there. Even if 5 such changes had to be co-functioning, we arrive at a statistical anomalous event, where by we might not expect it to occur ever in the lifetime of the universe depending on the degree of improbability. At which point we have abandoned "evolutionary process" and substituted "creation miracles over time". And it being miraculous is why you cannot evolve anything seriously on a computer simulation, or that you can't do it in a laboratory either.
But if we are composing the entire works of Mozart in one instance randomly as a miracle... why can we assert random? See, randomness is our enemy at this point. Random favors the notion that it is a process, but for evolution to be true, you have to abandon that it was a process. At which point if it is not a process but an impossible event, random is not in our favor. The impossible events become possible very easily, if it were not random.
Yet, if we have abanonned random and process due to logical inquiry, why must it be "over great lengths of time" and a "series of progression?" Both of these favored a random process, but logic dictates it was not an evolutionary process and probably not random.
At which point there is no preference for near instantaneous creation vs. creation over time. 1 year vs. 1 billion years concerning an engineered process only matters in terms of the ability of the engineer to build something on a timetable that they can keep.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL536FAE9D03D88AA5
At the core of the issue is that DNA is a set of data which can be represented in a computer. Instead of binary, it is a quaternary language, (4 base pairs).
You can then simulate DNA mutations in a computer. You can also simulate natural selection in computer environments. These are called "genetic algorithms". I used to study them while at college. It simulates evolution because evolution is the concept of random mutation plus natural selection.
Now in the world of computer programming, it has long been understood that basically a genetic algorithms do not work in the way they are supposed to. They are great for things involving a limited sequence of mutations which might randomly arise in 1 instance, thus allowing for natural selection to occur, but they are terrible for longer sequences. Yet, the average gene size is 10 to 15 kb. Furthermore, a gene to develop a protein, for example, must be coded correctly the first time because of the neutral theory of molecular evolution. Proteins that are only partially coded are malfunctioning proteins and either achieve a neutral benefit, or a detriment to the creature. Therefore, natural selection would never operate on such mutations, and those mutations would be lost. Also, natural selection may operate against a beneficial mutation, because if that mutation is only partially coded it could be a detriment as it achieves a negative outcome.
Now, let's say our mutation did pop out Mozart's Symphony on the first go. It would be unlikely to the point, we would not expect that to ever happen again. And when this type of quantification is done, as that video elaborates, you would never expect it to produce an outcome of evolution, in fact it working this way disproves evolution. Evolution is a process. What I have described where Mozart's Symphony arises randomly all in one go, is not a process but an event we never expect to be repeated on a statistical level. It arises to the level of statistically disproving evolution.
Even worse than this, is the idea of co-functioning proteins, where a series of structures must exist simultaneously in order to achieve the outcome where by natural selection would take hold. Imagine a land animal becoming a water breather, as they say happened with cows. This involves co-functioning protein sequences arising simultaneously, as if all of Mozart's Compositions randomly arose at the same time to produce a benefit.
David Berlinski estimated some 50,000 changes to that animal for this to take place, and he stopped counting there. Even if 5 such changes had to be co-functioning, we arrive at a statistical anomalous event, where by we might not expect it to occur ever in the lifetime of the universe depending on the degree of improbability. At which point we have abandoned "evolutionary process" and substituted "creation miracles over time". And it being miraculous is why you cannot evolve anything seriously on a computer simulation, or that you can't do it in a laboratory either.
But if we are composing the entire works of Mozart in one instance randomly as a miracle... why can we assert random? See, randomness is our enemy at this point. Random favors the notion that it is a process, but for evolution to be true, you have to abandon that it was a process. At which point if it is not a process but an impossible event, random is not in our favor. The impossible events become possible very easily, if it were not random.
Yet, if we have abanonned random and process due to logical inquiry, why must it be "over great lengths of time" and a "series of progression?" Both of these favored a random process, but logic dictates it was not an evolutionary process and probably not random.
At which point there is no preference for near instantaneous creation vs. creation over time. 1 year vs. 1 billion years concerning an engineered process only matters in terms of the ability of the engineer to build something on a timetable that they can keep.
Last edited:
