posted February 25, 2006 06:51 PM            

Theorem Name: The Illusion of Evolution DOA Theorem
Theorem: There are not enough reproductive life cycle generations available in the projected age of the Universe to allow even the most basic form of evolution.

Note: This Theorem looks at the Theory of Evolution from a completely abstract point of view. The formulas and discussion are presented from an Evolutionist point of view. This doesn’t necessarily represent the view of the author.

AoU – age of the Universe. (1)
AvRpdCyc - average reproductive life cycle generation (2)(3)
TotalRpdCyc – total reproductive cycles in the age of the Universe.

AoU = 10 billion = 10,000,000,000 years
AvRpdCyc = 100 per year (2)(3)
TotalRpdCyc = AoU * AvRpdCyc = 1,000,000,000,000 = 1 Trillion

In the whole age of the Universe, there are only about 1 Trillion opportunities for something to evolve to a different state – eventually Man. (this is very generous)(3)

MM - Mega Millions Jackpot Odds
MM = 175,711,536
TotalRpdCyc / MM = 1,000,000,000,000/175,711,536 = 5,691

In order to believe the Theory of Evolution, you have to believe the odds of going from Rock to Man are only 5,691 times greater than winning the Mega Millions Jackpot.

This doesn’t take into consideration; no one has ever seen a rock do it.
This doesn’t take into account; the Human Body consists of 10 Trillion individual cells.
We haven’t considered the complexity of the Human Body.
We haven’t considered the complexity of reproduction.
We haven’t considered a distribution curve.
We haven’t considered any deviation. (On odds of 1/Trillion there would have to be a massive deviation.) (4)
We haven’t considered other forms of life.
We haven’t taken into consideration that it’s a lot easier to pick lottery balls than produce a live entity able to reproduce itself.

(1) Some say 20 billion years – based on scientific estimation.
(2) I’m using 100 average reproductive cycles per year.
I’m taking into consideration that the Theory of Evolution is based on things moving from simple states to more complex. Some cells reproduce quickly. Mankind would be around 12 years at the best. (3)
(3) This is overly fair. Evolution has been intently studied for over 100 years and there is no evidence of anything evolving in the last 100 years.
(4) Check the Mega Millions statistics for reference.

Note: If something is wrong with the math, please show me.
The numbers are not presumed to be absolutely correct.
You can play with the numbers. Throw in a few million here and there.
No matter what numbers you consider, there aren’t enough reproductive life cycles in the projected age of the Universe to produce the simplest form of life.

------------------

posted February 25, 2006 07:11 PM            

To keep things simple, let's say that the first self-reproducing organism did so by splitting in two. That process is extremely common in viruses, bacteria, single-cells, etc. and it's reasonable -- in a highly simplified model like this one -- to base our math on a primitive organism that does it that way. Okay?

So the first generation had one member, the second generation had two, the third generation had four, the fourth generation had eight, and so on. That's why real-world populations of germs tend to explode; each generation represents a doubling of the population. It's easy to see the pattern...

Generation 1: 2^0 = 1
Generation 2: 2^1 = 2
Generation 3: 2^2 = 4
Generation 4: 2^3 = 8
Generation 5: 2^4 = 16
Generation 6: 2^5 = 32

The general formula is 2^(x-1) where x is the number of generations.

So using your numbers, Stan, a trillion generations doesn't represent a trillion chances, it represents two-to-the-one-trillionth-power chances.

That's how your math is wrong. Dave had it right in the other thread where you posted this: think parallel, not serial, because that's the way real-world organisms reproduce.

-- Eric

posted February 25, 2006 07:46 PM            

That is , the number of chances is the summation of generations 2^x - 1.

Added: From this it is easy to see how the number of people alive today is
greater than the number who have ever lived.

------------------

posted February 25, 2006 07:56 PM            

two-to-the-trillionth-power plus
two-to-the-999,999,999,999,999th-power plus
two-to-the-999,999,999,999,998th-power plus ...
(repeat almost a trillion times)

In any event, the actual number is astronomically larger than the one trillion in your Theorem.

-- Eric

posted February 25, 2006 08:25 PM            

------------------
Dave

posted February 25, 2006 08:46 PM            

Eric
I under stand your point.
This is not about population.
This is about moving from one species to another. (or perhaps transitional stages)
No matter how big the population – it still takes one RLC to have the opportunity to produce a different species. (or transitional stage)

> think parallel, not serial
True, but I’m referring to the transition from Rock to Man.
(The theory doesn’t specify the first stage. I’m speaking symbolically.)
This can only be a serial path.

The theory of evolution speculates that different species may have common ancestors at some point. However, the path of each individual species has to be a straight-line series back to point A.

There are only so many RLCs in our allotted time frame.
The RLC of a microbe might be a matter of minutes.
An animal the size of a softball – I’m guessing about a year.
Larger animals have to mature several years before they reproduce.

The theory of evolution has been intently studied for about 100 years.
During that period of time there hasn’t been a noticeable instance of evolution even down to the smallest forms of life.
That’s not to say, from an evolutionary point of view, it didn’t happen.
It is a strong indication that in a 100-year period, changes are minimal at best.

I could be wrong on this.
That’s why I threw it out here.
So far, we’re talking two different things.

posted February 25, 2006 08:54 PM            

Populations have no bearing on my Theorem.

(I’m being a little tongue-in-cheek with the Theorem thing)

So far the Theorem stands.

posted February 25, 2006 09:19 PM            

Lets say one in species A evolves into species B.

Now species B has so many reproductive life cycles to evolve into species C.
It doesn’t matter if there are trillions of them, only one will make it.

There are only so many reproductive life cycles in 10 billion years.

We know that not much, if anything, happens in a 100-year period.

posted February 25, 2006 10:22 PM            

If that's the case, the number of reproductive cycles, or the fact that that such a mutation has not been specifically observed in the past 100 years (I don't know if that's true or not, but just presuming that it is for the sake of argument)... it really wouldn't matter. It's a throw of the dice. And over the course of a few billion years, you're bound to get a few "good rolls" I'd think.

------------------
Mike Stefanik
www.catalyst.com
Catalyst Development Corporation

posted February 25, 2006 11:00 PM            

Statistics over one period can vary greatly.
Over a long period of time, things will even out.

Keep in mind; we’re talking about going from zero to one cell, then from one cell to 10 trillion cells in only 10 billion years.

We only have about 1 trillion life cycles to get this done.

We haven’t even considered the issue of life itself.

posted February 26, 2006 12:20 AM            

quote:

---

Claims of mathematical disproof of evolution typically make use of probability theory. The idea is to show that it so improbable that a given complex biological structure, such as the vertebrate eye, could have evolved gradually that it is effectively impossible for it to have done so. Frequently this argument will include actual calculations purporting to place the assertion on a rigorous mathematical footing.

---

posted February 26, 2006 01:24 AM            

This has nothing to do with probability.
It’s simple math.

We have a limited time - 10 billion years.
A species can only change in its offspring.
It will take X amount of reproductive cycles for a species to have an offspring with a slight variation, the beginning of the journey to a new species.

In the journey from Rock to Man, I’m allowing an average of 100 reproductive life cycles per year.
(this is more than fair because in 100 years of intense study of evolution there are no reports of anything evolving – it’s always, ”long time ago”)

That gives a total of 1 trillion reproductive life cycles for all of life to evolve.

We are supposed to go from Rock to a 10 Trillion cell being in only 1 Trillion life cycles.

Not going to happen.

> There is an interesting article on the internet.
He needs to take that back to the barnyard where it belongs.

posted February 26, 2006 01:26 AM            

------------------
Dave