Evolution refuted

>>129681474
no you're dumb

sage

File: 1461307543663.jpg (151KB, 700x762px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 700x762px

>>129681629
BACK FIEND

>>129681474
We observe evolution everyday.
You are literally retarded.

>>129681474
>schizo autist bullshit
>funny video
>checkmate evolution
sage

File: 852182.jpg (24KB, 402x402px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 402x402px

>>129681767
All the experiments end in the creatures death and the death of their offspring.

its like you think manbearpig came from south park.

>>129681824
>mfw all mathematicians are schizos.
You should stop pushing hawkings then he doesn't even have any accomplishments he rescinded his black hole theory.

My bad, that should be 5.53 × 10^33 permutations.

File: beeplettuce.png (200KB, 558x560px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 558x560px

>>129681629
No, the OP actually raises an interesting point.

The improbability of our genetic blueprint being the way it is, combined with the improbability that our planet existed out of all of the other celestial bodies, and the conditions for all of this to happen at this exact point in spacetime are so incredibly improbable that the end result seems to only ever be one of these two conclusions.

> 1. This is all meaningless chaos and we exist by degrees of chance which can be described as nothing short of nigh-impossible, therefore making all of our actions, regardless of how trivial or horrible, even less likely in and of themselves as we make each decision, to the point where everything we do could be described as miraculous. Even when you go to take a shit - the fact that your ability to take that shit is absolutely amazing and you should feel proud.

> 2. This is all a plan set in motion by a divine being who shaped everything to be just so and everything is happening exactly as it should, part of the unfolding fate of the universe. Every action we take is foreordained and sacred. Even if it is as something as minor as taking a shit, it is part of your destiny and you should feel righteous when you do it.

>>129681474

>John 6:44: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."

These atheists can't even believe if they wanted to, until God allows it. They can't look at relatively simple math like that and see the truth because God has blinded them.

>>129681474
NICE one OP. Math and Science used to BTFO evolutionists.

File: 1496515554959.gif (930KB, 270x270px) Image search: [Google]

930KB, 270x270px

>>129681474
I remember that movie. Evolution was kino

>>129681474

Very good anon. We are made by god, and god resides within us because we are part of the Christ body.

Pray for the holy ghost to show you the way into heaven and the holy spirit will show your immortal soul the way.

Genesis is correct as well, we are very young as gods creation, before that humans were barely consciously aware of their existence.

>>129681474
its funny becouse you think each single live has to devepelop by itself its own way, you dont take account the number off the population ej bacteria and stuff that can duplicate in square velocity, since the begining of time wwe share a lot of genmoe with those little things so you just need to develop among all the living creatures, all of this is possible when you take in account massive living population throught the history

>>129681474

But to be fair.

Consider following:

If you have 100 units and X can process 1 Unit/hour it will take 100 hours.

But if you have 100X it will take only 1 hour.


Hence the evolution took place in billion of organisms and the same time coming together eventually.

>>129681474
Holy shit you're retarded
You know one species can have trillions of specimen right?

>>129681474
Wow. You're so good at math. They should hire you at one of them fancy math schools.

>>129684347
300K to start.

>>129681474

Great movie

File: 1253321.png (81KB, 750x1000px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 750x1000px

>>129681474
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs

File: leafpost2.jpg (29KB, 695x482px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 695x482px

>>129681629
Nice argument, faggot

>>129681474

I am sorry but I have religious beleif in Evolution./

>>129682542
TIL I should be proud of my life no matter how pathetic I am
Feelsgoodman.jpg

>>129682542
>this can all be decided by whether you feel proud or righteous when you take a shit.

So, which is it?

Corrected math:

There are 5.53 × 10^33 (553 with 31 zeroes after it) possible permutations of these base pairs. That is 1.28 × 10^16 (128 with 14 zeroes after it) times the supposed number of seconds in the age of the universe. That means, in order to get just one organ system, there would need to be a genetic mutation an average of 1.28 × 10^16 times per second since the beginning of the universe just to get a 63% chance of arriving at the correct gene sequence for just one of the 11 organ systems. If we account for all 11 organ systems, there would need to be a genetic mutation an average of 1.52 × 10^177 (152 with 175 zeroes after it) times per second since the beginning of the universe just to get approximately a 0% chance of arriving at the correct gene sequence.

>>129682542

It was aliens

>>129681474
There is not a single 'correct' gene sequence that all humans share; there is considerable variation among humans. It is true that certain single point mutations are lethal, but these are very rare.

>>129681474


What the fuck is this retarded babbling, define "organ system", "correct sequence" and "likelyhood" in your absolutely retarded mathematical construct, then we maybe have a base for your "argument".
Is this what the average /pol/-tard understands as math? Throwing in a bunch of numbers into a pot without any connection to the real world system they are suppossed to simulate.
Your model is insufficient, straight F, sit down you highschool dropout.

File: Capture.png (50KB, 635x218px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 635x218px

>>129685341
An 'ambiguity of definitions' contention is essentially the same as trying to invoke some kind of "big words" fallacy. To contest that an argument is unsound because its words aren't explicitly defined, and because words have an infinite number of possible definitions (between what number of definitions is irrelevant), is a continuum fallacy. All words already have a finite number of implicit definitions. The principle of charity dictates that, when a word in an argument isn't explicitly defined, you simply choose whichever pre-existent, implicit definition (which exist for all words) would make the argument sound. This is obvious with arguments with 'little' words, and it doesn't change for arguments with 'big' words - 'big' words don't objectively exist. There isn't a certain number of syllables that magically dictates that a word need be explicitly defined.

>All intangible things are immaterial
>Consciousness is intangible
>Therefore consciousness is immaterial
is no different from
>All dogs are animals
>Huskies are dogs
>Therefore huskies are animals

>b-but consciousness needs to be defined!
Why "consciousness" and not "husky"?
>b-because "husky" is already defined!
So is "consciousness."
>n-no it's not! philosophers are still trying to figure out what "consciousness" even is!
They might still be trying to figure out what "husky" is too. That's irrelevant. If you don't know what "consciousness" means, you're expected to google it, exactly like how you're be expected to google "husky" if you don't know what it means. There's no magical property that the word "consciousness" has or lacks that "husky" doesn't. Any perceived difference is only due to ignorance of - or refusal to acknowledge - pre-existent, implicit definitions. It's nothing more than a red herring and a deflection tactic, idiot.

pic related since you're like a little babby

Yeah, it's obvious that """""""""random"""""""" mutations is nothing but a shortgap for better theories in the future. Nature doesn't play with randomness to that extent, it doesn't rely on it so heavily as the evolutionists say it does.

>>129685659
"An 'ambiguity of definitions' contention is essentially the same as trying to invoke some kind of "big words" fallacy".

No, it's really not, because science specifically and clearly lays out the definitions of every single term it employs precisely so neither of these fallacies have to come up.
The fact that creationists refuse to use them or use them incorrectly is a fucking huge, flashing red flag that you're full of shit and attempting to obfuscate in order to bamboozle people. Either that or you're too fucking retarded to use dictionary.com

See also; Ken Ham babbling for twenty minutes straight about the fucking retarded notion of the term "kind" meaning anything when people who are not autistic have been using "Species" or "Genus" for the last 250 years.

>>129686361
Thanks leaf we'll be sure to decide what nature does or doesn't do based upon what you say in future.

Your premise is flawed from the start. Humans have trillions of cells some of which divide multiple times a minute. It's not unreasonable at all for mutations to arise, especially if you look at time scales involving hundreds of thousands of years.
Since you seem to be such a math sorry, riddle me this: take one cell. Say it divides once a day. And each subsequent cell from that division also divides once a day. How many cells would you have after 100k years?
Now take that same scenario, except instead of starting with one cell, you start with a trillion, and instead of dividing every day, it's every twenty minutes.

The biggest problem with evolution deniers is that they have no sense of scale, which ironically even applies to you, OP. This shit takes MILLIONS of years and involves TRILLIONS of cells. You really think there won't be a few snags in that process?

Besides, the very fact that "cancer" exists proves evolution is real, since all cancers are a negative mutation in cellular gene code. Unless you are gonna tell me cancer isn't real?

There was an experiment where fruit flies didn't show any sign of evolution over 600 generations.

Evolution is a Jewish hoax

>>129681474
with the flat earth threads
sage

In a billion years' time, a large ball of spherical elements and water would have a lot of time to run experiments. Let's say 100 per year, and that there were maybe 20000km of ocean coastline, where a single experiment takes maybe half a square meter of that space, probably low. That's 4 billion experiments per year, for 4 quadrillion over the time period. Now, consider something porous like basalt rock, and also consider the dust and other debris whirling in from space to provide extra minerals and even pre-formed amino acids which might pollute any one or more of those experiments, catalyzing a self-sustaining energy processing machine. Now imagine that some other bit of space debris or some native reaction happens along and polymerizes some simple molecule like glycerol, to create a semi-permeable membrane which surrounds that machine. That machine, being dumb, eventually overflows its bubble, which is no catastrophe at this early point, and draws another one around itself. And so on, as more space debris or native reactions add functionality, eventually arriving at a simple nucleic acid system and replicator through sheer force of harsh conditions.
Your model is constrained by a 3500-year-old fable which may not be factually true, certainly not in the sense you're trying to impose on it.

Pastor anderson has fundamentally disproved evolution. Just watch a few of his sermons on the subject and see if you can refute his points

>>129682542
>>129684559
>>129681474
I am never taking /pol/ seriously ever again

what a joke

>>129681474
Are we arguing against all evolution in general or just darwinism. I think it's important to draw a distinction between the two.

>>129681474
I don't understand genomics, are these 3B dimensionally independent? Has this been proved?


Maybe that's what we're getting wrong?

Don't get me wrong- the brand of Hinduism I study is against evolution. (although some would claim that Vishnu's 10 incarnations are a symbolism for that).

Could it be something else? Evolution but nature choosing the "correct answer" with a higher probability? Because, you know, it's right? Kinda like when you try to hurt someone, you fail. Because your nature has chosen right answer to be not hurting others?

Can you help me revalidate your math?

organs=11
bp=3e9

assumption_1 : independence in base pairs

assumption_2 (we're being conservative)- each bp decides only one function. Eveo so, bp/organs is the minimum number of bp required for the most complex system

permutations = (bp/organs)! which by sterlings approximation would be ...


I don't get the permutations since epoch part. What are we starting with?

and isn't the process parallel?

>>129689649
I've never read the formal theory behind stocastic processses, give me a 101 or a pdf if you want me to go there

>>129681474 also >>129689954 continues >>129689649

>>129681474
Didn't check your whole math but I'm going to assume it's correct.

Some things you might have missed: not all pairs are meaningful (a lot contain redundant information) and also, there are many individuals on planet earth thus I would suppose a lot of mutations happen in a single second (perhaps less than 10^10^10 though) but you might want to check on that.

But still, doesn't this just show that "humans" are extremely unlikely to appear? Why would we be surprised by this? We don't expect to find humans in other planets, we hope to find other life forms, not necessarily like us. Evolution is just a mechanism to explain how complexity arised from simplicity - not to justify the appearance of humans necessarily.

>>129693231
to update, in order to show that evolution is false, it's not enough to show that there are not enough random mutations to make humans appear, you would need to do that for the genome of any complex creature.

>>129681474
This is under the assumption that there is only 1 thing consistently and constantly evolving. There have been millions of species diverged from 1 and multiple variants can exist inside of 1 system meaning you will exponentially cut that equation in half for every generational iteration.