.wHAT IS A MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY OF EVOLUTION.
The sole mechanism of evolution is random changes of mutation, along with natural selection. Natural selection acts as a sieve, which gets rid of those mutations that it does not like. The problem with natural selection is that when nature run the changes through it, see the good mutations are not always kept or reused. Since changes in an ordered system will always change or decrease the amount of current order, then this continually shows that mutations are harmful to the organism. Since most are discarded.
For a good mutation to progress from a parent to an offspring and then to the next generation is statistically impossible. That is just say that a good mutation or a bad mutation has a 50-50 chance of passing on to the next generation say for 200 times So mathematically we can look at this as a 50-50 chance.
So mathematically that would be (1/2) 200th, or one chance out of 10 to the 60th power.
So for those who was have the numbers written out, that would be one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion,; Or to make it more simple 1 , followed by 60 zeros. Quite a number to have good mutations to continue out.
So there had to be an intelligent creator to make everything work fully as it is designed to do. Which came first on the woodpecker. The claws to hold it on the tree,It would've starved because it can penetrate the wood, Or the neck muscles and the bill to penetrate the tree without the claws, It would've fell off and got eaten by something. Everything has to be there for it to survive cannot be a good mutation or bad mutations, but must be fully formed. The CREATOR is great
Right out of the ICR playbook. LOL
"
Discussion
There have been many other ways in which creationist writers have used probability arguments to refute evolutionism, especially the idea of random changes preserved, if beneficial, by natural selection. James Coppedge devoted almost an entire book,
Evolution: Possible or Impossible (Zondervan,
1973, 276 pp.), to this type of approach. I have also used other probability-type arguments to the same end (see, e.g.,
Science and Creation, Master Books, pp. 161-201).
The first such book, so far as I know, to use mathematics and probability in refuting evolution was written by a pastor, W. A. Williams, way back in
1928. Entitled,
Evolution Disproved, it made a great impression on me when I first read it about 1943, at a time when I myself was still struggling with evolution.
In fact, evolutionists themselves have attacked traditional Darwinism on the same basis (see the Wistar Institute Symposium,
Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, 1967, 140 pp.). While these scientists did not reject evolution itself, they did insist that the Darwinian randomness postulate would never work.
The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution | The Institute for Creation Research
Those are some old references that is for sure.
One of the great triumphs of modern evolutionary science, evo devo addresses many of the key questions that were unanswerable when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, and Carroll has become a leader in this nascent field. Now a professor of molecular biology and genetics at the University of Wisconsin, he continues to decode the genes that control life’s physical forms and to explore how mutations in those genes drive evolutionary change. These days, Carroll also devotes increasing energy to telling the public about his field’s remarkable discoveries through a series of books—Endless Forms Most Beautiful, The Making of the Fittest, and the brand-new Remarkable Creatures. He spoke with DISCOVER senior editor Pamela Weintraub about what his work has taught him about Darwin, the nature of evolution, and how life really works.
It has been 150 years since Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution in On the Origin of Species, yet in some ways the concept of evolution seems more controversial than ever today. Why do you think that is?
It is a cultural issue, not a scientific one. On the science side our confidence grows yearly because we see independent lines of evidence converge. What we’ve learned from the fossil record is confirmed by the DNA record and confirmed again by embryology. But people have been raised to disbelieve evolution and to hold other ideas more precious than this knowledge. At the same time, we routinely rely on DNA to convict and exonerate criminals. We rely on DNA science for things like paternity. We rely on DNA science in the clinic to weigh our disease risks or maybe even to look at prognoses for things like cancer. DNA science surrounds us, but in this one realm we seem unwilling to accept its facts. Juries are willing to put people to death based upon the variations in DNA, but they’re not willing to understand the mechanism that creates that variation and shapes what makes humans different from other things. It’s a blindness. I think this is a phase that we’ll eventually get through. Other countries have come to peace with DNA. I don’t know how many decades or centuries it’s going to take us.
DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right | DiscoverMagazine.com
