Evolution is mathematically impossible

[John B. Andelin]

The recent observation of molecular convergence in many species poses impossible mathematical challenges to evolution. I would be interested to know how this can be refuted... maskofscience.com

 

[Speedwell]

The recent observation of molecular convergence in many species poses impossible mathematical challenges to evolution. I would be interested to know how this can be refuted... maskofscience.com

Right here, from the text: "...an end target of echolocation..." Any calculation of probability based on the assumption that echolocation is the necessary outcome of the evolutionary process being described is bogus. It is analogous to the argument that because the odds of any individual winning the lottery are vanishingly small, therefore no one can win it. Evolution has no "targets" that it sets out to achieve.

 

[sfs]

Your calculation has no connection to the convergent evolution described in the papers you cite. You're calculating (incorrectly) the probability of identical genes being formed by chance in multiple lineages, starting with completely unrelated sequence. What's described in the papers are changes to the different versions of the same gene in different lineages, such that the copies become more similar (in amino acid sequence) than expected by chance. The actual number of changes is small. For example, the researchers looked at three echo-locating lineages for the gene Cdh23, one mutation occurred in all three lineages, an additional 20 mutations were shared by one pair of lineages, and an additional 3 mutations were shared by another pair of lineages. That's not remotely like the situation you modeled.

 

[pitabread]

That's just a typical junk probability calculation.

The author claims to be taking natural selection into account, but then completely ignores it in their actual calculation which is based strictly on pure chance.

The end result is a meaningless probability that has no basis on what they claim to be modeling (convergent evolution).

 

[chuckpeterson]

In my view evolution is the line of least resistance. As an example, if five (5) creatures of the same type try to cross a river where four (4) drown and one makes it across, that individual’s genome, (that special ability to make it) will continue whereas the others will be lost into the past. This carries on that unique trait that allowed this one to survive whereas the others failed and were no more.

-

 

[USincognito]

All I have to see is "mathematically impossible" and I can dismiss it.

Since we know that evolution has happened, any claim that it's impossible cannot be supported mathematically or not.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

All I have to see is "mathematically impossible" and I can dismiss it.

Since we know that evolution has happened, any claim that it's impossible cannot be supported mathematically or not.

Just your everyday garden variety mathematical odds are sufficient to debunk evolution.

 

[VirOptimus]

Just your everyday garden variety mathematical odds are sufficient to debunk evolution.

Show me the math.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Show me the math.

No need. Use your own.

 

[Speedwell]

No need. Use your own.

Good idea. Read up on it and then we can argue.

Lecture notes on Stochastic Processes in Evolutionary Genetics

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Good idea. Read up on it and then we can argue.

Lecture notes on Stochastic Processes in Evolutionary Genetics

No need. Science articles routinely use words like "overwhelming" and "astronomical" in describing the odds against evolution, albeit prefaced by the phrase "in spite of". I just ignore that phrase and take them at their word.

 

[pitabread]

Science articles routinely use words like "overwhelming" and "astronomical" in describing the odds against evolution

[Citation needed]

 

[pitabread]

Just your everyday garden variety mathematical odds are sufficient to debunk evolution.

Nope. Junk probabilities are junk.

 

[VirOptimus]

No need. Use your own.

I see, you cant. Just say so then, you really shouldnt debate things you know nothing about.

 

[pitabread]

ust say so then, you really shouldnt debate things you know nothing about.

If creationists followed that, the entire C/E 'debate' would disappear...

 

[46AND2]

Just your everyday garden variety mathematical odds are sufficient to debunk evolution.

Using creationist type mathematical odds argumentation, I can debunk the theory that you were born, making it far more impossible than evolution according to the OP.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

[Citation needed]

I myself personally heard Carl Sagan say this some years ago.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I see, you cant. Just say so then, you really shouldnt debate things you know nothing about.

Not debating, just rendering my thoughts.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I myself personally heard Carl Sagan say this some years ago.

[citation still needed]

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If creationists followed that, the entire C/E 'debate' would disappear...

This is just a silly argument. There are special forums for debates.