• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Evolution is mathematically impossible

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by John B. Andelin, Feb 16, 2019.

  1. John B. Andelin

    John B. Andelin New Member

    40
    +2
    United States
    Christian
    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
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +7,110
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    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.
     
    • Winner Winner x 5
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  3. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +4,928
    United States
    Non-Denom
    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: Feb 18, 2019
    • Informative Informative x 6
    • Like Like x 2
    • List
  4. pitabread

    pitabread Well-Known Member

    +5,942
    Canada
    Agnostic
    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).
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  5. chuckpeterson

    chuckpeterson Active Member Supporter

    469
    +170
    United States
    Presbyterian
    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.

    :)-
     
  6. USincognito

    USincognito Do u? Supporter

    +12,706
    United States
    Atheist
    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.
     
  7. OldWiseGuy

    OldWiseGuy A person of low ability. Supporter

    +5,651
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Others
    Just your everyday garden variety mathematical odds are sufficient to debunk evolution. ;)
     
  8. VirOptimus

    VirOptimus A nihilist who cares.

    +2,120
    Atheist
    Married
    Show me the math.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  9. OldWiseGuy

    OldWiseGuy A person of low ability. Supporter

    +5,651
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Others
    No need. Use your own.
     
  10. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +7,110
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
  11. OldWiseGuy

    OldWiseGuy A person of low ability. Supporter

    +5,651
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Others
    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. :D
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • List
  12. pitabread

    pitabread Well-Known Member

    +5,942
    Canada
    Agnostic
    Private
    [Citation needed]
     
  13. pitabread

    pitabread Well-Known Member

    +5,942
    Canada
    Agnostic
    Private
    Nope. Junk probabilities are junk.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  14. VirOptimus

    VirOptimus A nihilist who cares.

    +2,120
    Atheist
    Married
    I see, you cant. Just say so then, you really shouldnt debate things you know nothing about.
     
  15. pitabread

    pitabread Well-Known Member

    +5,942
    Canada
    Agnostic
    Private
    If creationists followed that, the entire C/E 'debate' would disappear...
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • List
  16. 46AND2

    46AND2 Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

    +1,398
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    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.
     
  17. OldWiseGuy

    OldWiseGuy A person of low ability. Supporter

    +5,651
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Others
    I myself personally heard Carl Sagan say this some years ago.
     
  18. OldWiseGuy

    OldWiseGuy A person of low ability. Supporter

    +5,651
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Others
    Not debating, just rendering my thoughts.
     
  19. Tinker Grey

    Tinker Grey Wanderer Supporter

    +1,464
    Atheist
    [citation still needed]
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • List
  20. OldWiseGuy

    OldWiseGuy A person of low ability. Supporter

    +5,651
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Others
    This is just a silly argument. There are special forums for debates.
     
Loading...