Evolution and Probability



No human inquiry can be considered science unless it pursues its path through mathematical exposition and demonstration.


Leonardo da Vinci

Although legitimate science is ultimately founded on probability, the theory of evolution is founded on philosophy-based evidence.  No scientific paper exists that documents that a mechanism of proposed evolutionary transmutation is mathematically possible.  

Can time make the impossible occur?

      It is universally understood that all proposed mechanisms of evolutionary transmutation are utterly impossible in timeframes that would allow actual experimental validation. The theory of evolution ultimately relies on great expanses of time as the panacea for overcoming the innumerable roadblocks to the creation and diversification of life. The evolutionist mantra is that mutations plus natural selection plus time can create any complexity.     Because millions of years are difficult to comprehend, the skeptic is expected to imagine equally incomprehensible complexities of nature to evolve with the simple addition of time.
     If you believe in evolution, you believe that the only thing stopping you from breeding a worm into a rhinoceros is 500 million years.  Since this allegedly happened once without assistance of any intelligence, it is far more plausible to bellieve that selective breeding could accomplish the same result in far less time.  
Here is how "science" is defined in universities around the world...

Thomas Huxley

Samuel Wilberforce

Perhaps you've heard of the infinite monkey hypothesis..


Legend has it that Thomas Huxley, while engaged in contentious dialogue with Archbishop Wilberforce, argued that if he could have six immortal monkeys, and allow them to sit at six indestructible typewriters, and could give them unlimited paper and ink, they would eventually produce the works of Shakespeare, if given an infinite amount of time. This perspective is founded on the belief that evolutionary mechanisms, although guided by blind chance, can beat the odds and result in ordered systems because they have millions of years to work.

D.V. Ager, considered by many to be the foremost geologist of the 20th century, wrote,


"Personally, given the resources of geological time, I feel confident that sooner or later that hypothetical chimpanzee sitting at a typewriter, will one day type Hamlet."

Dr. Ager apparently doesn't believe that laws of mathematics apply to evolution.  Here is the math...


If 17 billion monkeys on each of 17 billion habitable planets in each of 17 billion galaxies in the universe would be typing away at the rate of one 41-character line per second for 17 billion years, the odds that they would have come up with 'To be or not to be, that is the question.' would still be only around: 0.000000000005%.

Ernst Mayr, claimed by some to be the greatest evolutionary biologist of the twentieth century, acknowledged that evolution is founded on improbability with this stunning admission:


"... I demonstrate that each step leading to the evolution of intelligent life on earth was highly improbable and that the evolution of the human species was the result of a sequence of thousands of these highly improbable steps. It is a miracle that man ever happened, and it would be an even greater miracle if such a sequence of improbabilities had been repeated anywhere else."

No scientific theory can be founded on a series of "highly improbable steps".  Despite his reputation as a biologist, Dr. Mayr doesn't understand that if a theory fails mathematical tests, it has been proven false.

Besides it being impossible for a monkey to type Shakespeare, it is impossible for a monkey to type any meaningful text in any language.  Why is this true?   Because the number of random, meaningless keystrokes is such a huge number.

As a child, I sometimes questioned the adage that “no two snowflakes are alike”. How can a scientist know such a thing? The answer lies in mathematics. The number of possible configurations of snowflakes far exceeds the number of atoms in the known universe. Despite the fact that about 10,000 trillion cubit feet of snow fall on the earth each year, it remains a mathematical certainty that every one of the approximately one billion snowflakes in each cubic foot of snow is unique. This is because the total number of possible configurations of each snowflake is such an astronomically larger number.  
     Just as it is impossible for two identical snowflakes to randomly form, it is even more impossible for two identical genetic code sequences in separate species to randomly form through mutations.  Nevertheless, evolutionists believe that this has occurred multiple times in nature
     An example is the proposed independent evolution of ecolocation in bats and dolphins through the addition of nearly identical genetic code sequences.
     

Everyone understands that nature is random. If you spend a few hours wandering through a creek bed, you will soon notice that every rock has a random shape. If you ever set out to find a perfectly spherical rock, you would have to go through several billion rocks to find one that even approximated a perfect sphere.  Every rock in the creek bed has a unique shape. No two rocks are alike. There is an unimaginably large number of possible ordered configurations of stones that are possible.  Notwithstanding this fact, a rock with order, such as a perfect sphere, heart shape, cube, pear shape, dolphin shape, etc. would stand out. If you hoped to find an ordered rock, you would need to consider the vastly greater number of disordered rocks that are possible. In a similar line of logic, if one hopes mutations can result in any sort of order in a genetic code, one must consider the infinitesimally low probability of such happening.

Evolutionary Pathways are Directional

     In proposed evolutionary pathways, incrementally perfected systems are believed to have arisen gradually. This requires predictable changes in genetic code through mutations. For example, if the vertebrate eye evolved from a photo-sensitive spot, that gradually invaginating retina as imagined by evolutionists would need to occur one predictable step at a time. This means that predictable mutations at specific sites would have occurred.  If sequential mutations appear in a population that show repeated predilection for incremental improvement of systems, that is a manifestation of order.  Order must be subjected to probability challenges.

If you flipped a coin 100 times, probability indicates that 50 flips will be heads, and 50 flips will be tails. Suppose someone predicted on each coin toss, and was correct on 60 out of 100 flips. Is this possible? Yes. The probability of achieving 60 correct guesses on 100 flips is 2.8%. A person could be lucky on 100 flips. Suppose the same person predicted 600 correct flips out of 1,000. The chances of that happening are less than one in seven billion. In this case, you cannot calculate the odds on 1,000 flips by simply dividing 2.8% by 10. Rather than a probability of 0.28%, the probability on 1,000 flips is 0.0000000001428%

     The purpose of this example is to illustrate a critical principle in probability mathematics. Evolutionists believe that by simple multiplication they can calculate the probability of a series of mutations that would be required for directional evolution.

Nature demands randomness. The likelihood of somehow correctly guessing 1200 out of 2,000 coin flips is 4.74 x 10^ -17. If surveillance cameras found someone in Las Vegas who accomplished this, he would be immediately arrested and accused of fraud. This is because it is be mathematically impossible to have that much luck.

     There are 3.12 billion nucleotides in one strand of human DNA. Suppose one nucleotide substitution (the simplest mutation) occurred. Since there are four possible nucleotide bases, the probability of that one nucleotide substitution being a pre-determined result is one in 12.48 billion. In other words, if evolution required a specific nucleotide substitution to occur, it would have one chance in 12.48 billion of happening for each mutation that occurred. Another way of looking at this is to consider that if one hoped for a specific mutation to occur, he would expect 12.48 billion worthless mutations to occur for each correct mutation.

What is the likelihood of ten correct mutations occurring in a population over 100 million years? It is one chance in the probabiltity is 12,480,000,000^-10 This is one chance in 9.16 x 10^100. This means that to achieve ten correct mutations over a 100 million year period, there would have been 9.16 x 10^100 incorrect mutations that natural selection would have to wade through to find the correct ones.

     Consider the proposed evolution of man. If man’s superior intelligence evolved over 6-7 million years, that evolution would have occurred in an incremental, predictable pattern. Dismiss for a moment that natural selection is non-random. For evolution to be able to act, it requires the appearance of the correct mutations to occur by chance,  to result in directional changes.  The evolution of man is believed to have occurred over about 400,000 generations. If each generation resulted in 140 new point mutations, that would equal 140 x 400,000 x 10,000 individuals = 5.6 x 10^11 mutations over a 6-7 million year period. The difference between the number of mutations that would have actually occurred and the number of mutations that would have been necessary to produce those 10 specific mutations is about ten billion times greater than the number of atoms in the known universe.

Everyone agrees that the evolution of man’s intelligence could not have been “random” mutations. It is believed that natural selection, being a non-random process, can favorably eliminate all worthless mutations. But for natural selection to work, the correct “non-random” mutations need to appear in the population. As illustrated in the above example, this is clearly impossible, given the astronomically large number of worthless mutations.

Mathematics Precludes Evolution


     It is widely acknowledged that 100-300 mutations occur in each generation of humans. One published estimate is 140 mutations per generation. Most of these are point mutations; that is, single nucleotide substitutions. It is universally agreed that the 140 mutations that occur in each generation do not result in any measurable effect and therefore cannot be acted upon by natural selection. It is also understood that these mutations will accumulate over subsequent generations, because natural selection could not possibly eliminate them as fast as they are accumulating. The only possible way that evolution could create novel genetic information is if those randomly created mutations accumulated over generations to create something that would measurably increase fitness.

     Consider the proposed evolution of the eye. Evolutionists believe that the complex image-forming eye has evolved between 50-100 independent times in nature. This means that 50-100 very similar changes in genetic code sequence appeared at different times in history. What is the probability of the just 10 specific nucleotide sequences to accumulate in an animal through mutation? It is approximately 10^-83. This means that the probability of two genes in separate species identically changing by just 10 nucleotides through mutations is less than the probability of correctly selecting a specific atom in the universe.   Looking at eye evolution from another angle.... Proponents of evolution belief they’ve imagined a plausible pathway, because they’ve assumed that the correct mutations will appear in multiple genes. As discussed, the eye has at least twelve very basic integrated parts. (lens, iris, nerves, tear ducts, etc.)  Each of these systems is controlled by separate genes. Each gene contains thousands of specific nucleotide sequences. The probability of a single specific nucleotide in each of those genes to appear in a pre-determined location through mutations is far less than 10^-83.  

     Many examples of convergence proclaim the impossibility of evolution. It is believed by biologists that bats and dolphins independently evolved echolocation ability by creating nearly identical gene sequences. It is also believed that echolocation evolved twice in bats in two separate lineages. The three genes controlling the auditory aspect alone are composed of about 20,000 specific nucleotide bases. These genes evolved separately at least three independent times, to result in nearly identical nucleotide sequences. This observation clearly refutes the belief that any one of a myriad of sequences of genetic code could create similar phenotypes. This is why the observation of convergence documents the impossibility of evolution. Specific nucleotide sequences are required to create specific traits.

     Observed biology indicates that if evolution is true, it followed specific directional pathways. Specific evolutionary pathways, such as those proposed to explain convergence, would require specific nucleotide substitutions. Since genes are composed of hundreds to thousands of specific nucleotide sequences, evolution is not remotely possible.

     The mathematics involved in these calculations is not advanced. The reason biologists continue to accept evolution in the face of these impossibilities is because they are so convinced by philosophical evidence that they do not objectively consider mathematical challenges.