Natural evolution refutation, revised to answer "muh natural

File: evolution is retarded.png (26KB, 834x695px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 834x695px

Natural selection only acts on functional phenotypical expression of genes.

The smallest recorded genome a functioning organism can have is 159,662 base pairs and 182 genes. That means, on average, each gene would consist of 877 base pairs. There are 1.02 × 10^528 possible permutations of these base pairs. That is about 7.09 × 10^510 times the supposed number of seconds in the age of the earth. That means, in order to get just one of the 182 genes, there would need to be a genetic mutation of any number of base pairs an average of 5.90 × 10^448015 per second since the inception of the earth to get a 63% chance of arriving at the correct gene sequence. Accounting for all 182 genes, there would need to be a genetic mutation of any number of base pairs an average of 6.4 × 10^2124 per second since earth began to get a 63% chance of arriving at the correct gene sequence, which is impossible.

There are only three valid contentions to this: 1) That the majority of the base pairs of the genes are the same -- but the lowest that could possibly reduce the possible permutations of the base pairs is to 1.85 × 10^530. 2) That smaller genes existed in the past as an antecedent to more modern, primative genes -- but anything smaller is not functional and is therefore not acted on by natural selection. 3) They -were- functional because evolution is real therefore evolution is real, but this is circular reasoning and is not confirmed by science - no such thing has ever been observed to begin to form a relevant hypothesis. Even if every advantageous mutative genetic addition were somehow naturally selected, there would need to be a genetic mutation an average of every 4.5 months, and no such thing has ever been observed in all of human history. Any other contention is equivalent to citing the warp drive as explanation for faster-than-light speed.

In the last thread, I stupidly used the permutations formula rather than exponentiating 4, but the latter is much less forgiving.