Evolution is mathematically impossible: Novel insights

This video explains why evolution is mathematically impossible on multiple levels. The mathematics is not advanced. Four mathematical facts disprove evolution:
1. The rarity of specific mutations
2. Molecular convergence
3. Complex integrated parts
4. The nature of coded information
For a more detailed explanation, please refer to this article I’ve written.

[afm]

Mathematician here. You not understanding mathematics, biology, genetics is not an argument against evolution. Learn all of them first, before you make a fool of yourself publicly.

[tedkrasicki]

During WW2 the German Divisional cypher (Enigma) was to take 5 million years to run every possible sequence at one try per second. It was regularly solved in 15 minutes.

[Gearedright]

Good job. You should present your findings to a college board or education board. I would also note that to elaborate on your last section about coding information; the findings of overlapping genes or in other words dual-coding genes that send multiple processes to the many nucleotides at the same time within your DNA, is inconceivably improbable that evolution could have caused this. And, instead, corroborates intelligent design as well. This has been settled among biochemists at this point also.

Look at dual coding as someone who is a computer programmer. The programmer has to insert correct coding into some software in order for some process to operate correctly. Dual-coding goes well beyond that to make multiple processes work given a special line of code. It is not something automatically done for the programmer and must be specified precisely so long as the first line of coding works.

It sounds like God to me since all of this is done similarly to each individual's DNA.

[LarghettoCantabile]

The slide at 10:30 states that "The probability that a given mutation will affect a single nucleotide is [1/(6.3 x 10^9)] / 3 = 5.2 x 10^{-11}", where 6.3 bln is the length of the human genome. What motivates the division by 3?
Update: Got the answer from your paper. Of course, there are 4 possible nucleotide values, so 3 possible substitutions.

On the other hand, 0.002 for the fixation rate is quite dramatic (even if it is totally plausible). It would have been handy if you had referred to a mainstream publication for this number, since this is likely to get questioned in a debate with a Darwinist.

[HeavensMystery]

Evolution is the litmus test of humanity.

If you belive this nonsense at youth, you'll literally belive anything in adulthood.

Keep up the good work.

[neddyladdy]

Speaking in an overly reverberant space does NOT imply gravitas in any way whatsoever.

[testprobe]

It is not just a matter of randomness. There are biological factors that affect DNA that make certain "mistakes" more likely.
Let's just say that you are unhappy with the concept of evolution and move on from there.

[Solscapes.]

When you have a population that reproduces with variability and selective pressure, it MUST evolve. Think about it.

[OLDCHEMIST]

Arguing from a belief system rather than studying is also a process which produces any result you like. The process of evolution is predicated on certain assumptions that make it more likely.

[IIrandhandleII]

Young earth creationists exist so scientologists have someone to laugh at.

[sound.of.science]

The rocks analogy at 1:30 is totally wrong. Natural erosion processes are such that they are very likely to result in disc- and spherical shapes. Wind, water and dust are more likely to erode parts of the rock that are located further away from its center of gravity. The same thing applies when a rock is rolling from a hill. The parts of the rock that are located further away from its center of gravity will receive more beating than other parts. Any rock, no matter what shape it has, that would roll from an endless slope, would eventually turn into a sphere. That is a totally normal natural process.

[pwagzzz]

redo your maths, 37 trillion cells in humans, 2 trillion divisions per day, more primitive organisms much faster and heaps more of them... so it's not 1 coin toss, it's trillions and quadrillions

[fattyboombatty]

Do you have any mathematical qualifications or any qualifications at all for that matter? I would be very worried if you were my doctor.

[healthy]

sure. I guess when you think that man has only been here for 6000 years it doesn't work.

[dennisdow]

Even with both volume controls up to the max, I still couldn't hear it well enough to even begin to understand. Please invest in a microphone.

[donjindra]

Here are some of your mistakes:

1) Math is not an empirical science so it's not proper to call math the "purest" of all science. You're mixing apples and oranges.

2) Physics and chemistry are not ultimately founded on mathematical proof. They are ultimately founded on empirical proofs -- observation.

3) Nature is not always random. In fact, nearly the opposite is the case: Nature is highly probabilistic.

4) You show a picture of two stones and say: "Anyone can immediately determine which one of these stones was intelligently designed." This is deceptive. One can put a crystal in your hand that has even better uniformity than that round stone. And it was produced entirely by your supposed "random" nature. Besides, the moon is a sphere. The sun is a sphere. A pearl can be a sphere. A bubble is a sphere.

5) Your analogy with chimps fails because neither nature nor evolution is random. Evolution is a feedback system. Your coin flip analogy fails for the same reason.

6) You claim we can look ex post facto and calculate odds of a thing happening. This is false. You cannot calculate the odds that I, born in Pennsylvania 68 years ago, would be sitting in this chair in California typing this sentence on 8/21/2022. Using your fallacious logic, the number of random events that had to occur for this to happen precludes the fact that I am doing exactly that.

7) Your series of heads/tails is deceptive. To claim that any one of the series is a "pattern" more than any other is simply how our brain works. It tries to find patterns. But the odds of getting any of the series you showed, whether we recognize the series as a pattern or not, is exactly the same. IOW, the odds of getting 100 heads in a row is exactly the same as getting 50 alternating H/T in a row, is exactly the same as getting any series that looks random. Getting any one of those is just as "designed" as any other.

But to make this analogy more relevant to evolution, suppose we flipped coins onto a plate that destroyed all coins that landed as tails. An observer comes along later and sees 100 heads and thinks all the coins landed as heads and none landed as tails. He is amazed at the coincidence. But he is amazed for no reason. He has no idea how many tails are missing from the original set of flips, nor can he reconstruct the actual series that took place. So any of his calculations about probability are bogus. Too much data is missing. That's what you're trying to do.

8) Your snowflake and DNA profiling examples are irrelevant. Evolution supposes like organisms are not actually identical. But you entirely miss the fact that many crystals are virtually identical and the same for molecules. Chemistry would not exist if no two molecules were not extremely similar to each other, and behaved the same. Nature produces much order on its own. The snowflakes themselves are examples of nature producing what we recognize as structural order. Obviously your assertion that nature is totally random is false and everything you derive from that false assumption is likely false.

9) For the reason given above, your assertion that amino acids cannot possibly form in nature is pure speculation. There is no reason to think your assertion is true. Probability will not help you since you have no idea what factors had to occur to form that molecule. There is no reason to believe they were totally random. IOW, even granting some randomness, it does not follow that randomness is the only input.

[marveloussoftware]

Not only is evolution mathematically possible, but math supports evolution. Not only that but embryology, molecular biology, anatomy and biogeography all support evolution.

Secondly you are using probability incorrectly.

Thirdly you are making numerous incorrect assumptions. There are many attributes involved in the formation which alter the odds of specific molecules forming. Hydrophobic & hydrophilic are two that have a significant effect.

Fourthly evolution does not require any specific molecules since evolution uses whats there. So whatever formed first would be used.

Education is critical in understanding reality. You can't just pick what sounds good or bad. Thats how you make mistakes.

[andrewbazeley]

I wonder what the mathematical probability of any god existing might be. Anthropologists estimate that at least 18, 000 different gods, goddesses and various animals or objects have been worshipped by humans since our species first appeared.
But the one that you believe in is real?

[nicadi]

*Then your mathematical model must be wrong...*

[maskofscience]

Does some have any math that refutes what I’m saying. The ability of bacteria to acquire new food sources begs the question.