• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Evolution is mathematically impossible

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,799
7,817
65
Massachusetts
✟388,180.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
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).
 
Upvote 0

chuckpeterson

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 19, 2018
546
204
60
texas
✟179,252.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
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.

:)-
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,975
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,182.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
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. ;)
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,975
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,182.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Last edited:
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
ust say so then, you really shouldnt debate things you know nothing about.

If creationists followed that, the entire C/E 'debate' would disappear...
 
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟109,603.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,975
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,182.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I see, you cant. Just say so then, you really shouldnt debate things you know nothing about.

Not debating, just rendering my thoughts.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,975
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,182.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
If creationists followed that, the entire C/E 'debate' would disappear...

This is just a silly argument. There are special forums for debates.
 
Upvote 0