Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Mathematical Proof Against Evolution Leading To The Human Eye?


bdp

Recommended Posts

Hi folks - sorry I was such a butt when I was here before...

 

So someone posted the following link on my facebook page and I'd like some opinions on it.  I have one or two but I know a lot you know a lot more than I do.

 

http://creationdesign.org/english/chances.html

The link contains two fundamental errors:

 

1)  It claims that the theory of biological evolution (e.g., formation of the human brain) is entirely by chance.  That is not what the theory says.  Not at all.

 

2)  It fails to take into account one of the effects of natural selection - that a change can remain in subsequent generations.  Thus, the linear math used in the example on your link are incorrect.

 

Both of these points are standard Creationist lies and misrepresentations and have been refuted a least 1000 times in the past.  They are PRATTs (Point Refuted a Thousand Times).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks!  I figured the 'entirely by chance' was nonsense; I also had a hunch the math would be wrong but I'm terrible at math.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HAHAHAHA!!!!

 

 

 

What are the odds that all of the connections of the brain (and this is a look at the connections only and not the nerve cells themselves) occurred by chance?

...

Suppose these neurological connections evolved perfectly, with no mistakes whatever. Suppose they were simply "produced" in an assembly line with no evolution necessary. How long would it take to evolve a brain?

 

Wow, that's just... not how human brains form. Our DNA does not code for that level of detail. Overarching general ideas, yeah, but the power of our brains is just how changeable ("plastic") they are. Babies are born with way too many neurons and connections in their brains. Then, the ones that don't get used die off. That's how every human being develops - throw a bunch of stuff in the brain, then refine it by interacting with the environment. When we get old, our established neurons dying off is a bad thing, but when we're little, it's... creation by destruction. We didn't evolve the brains that each of us have, or we'd think alike and operate under instinct all the time.

 

From http://www.urbanchildinstitute.org/why-0-3/baby-and-brain

 

 

 

In fact, the brain creates many more of them than it needs: at age two or three, the brain has up to twice as many synapses as it will have in adulthood (Figure 3). These surplus connections are gradually eliminated throughout childhood and adolescence, a process sometimes referred to as blooming and pruning.

...

Therefore, a child’s experiences not only determine what information enters her brain, but also influence how her brain processes information.

...

The excess of synapses produced by a child’s brain in the first three years makes the brain especially responsive to external input. During this period, the brain can “capture” experience more efficiently than it will be able to later, when the pruning of synapses is underway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have much time, but I will try to explain the math issue.

 

Say you had 10 dice, each numbered from 1 to 6 on its six sides.  What are the chances of getting all sixes when rolling all 10 dice?  It would be 6^10 (6 to the tenth power, i.e., 6x6x6x6x6x6X6X6X6X6).  That's a big number (1 chance in 60,466,176).  But if you could set aside each die which turned up with a six after each toss, and toss the remainder of dice, how may throws until you have all sixes?  Say on the first throw, there were no sixes.  On the second throw of all ten dice there was one die showing six.  You set that one aside.  Now you throw the remaining nine dice.  Say two of them show up with sixes.  Set those aside.  Now there are seven dice left.  You throw the remaining seven dice.  One turns up with a six.  Set that one in the "six" pile".  Throw the remaining six dice.  Etc. until you have all sixes.  The probability of getting all sixes with this set of rules takes about 20 throws of the dice, give or take.  Not over 60 million throws.

 

Natural selection is like this second example.  The Creationsit's example (linear probability of 1 chance in 60,466,176) does not apply.  It is a Creationst strawman, a lie, a PRATT.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi folks - sorry I was such a butt when I was here before...

 

So someone posted the following link on my facebook page and I'd like some opinions on it.  I have one or two but I know a lot you know a lot more than I do.

 

http://creationdesign.org/english/chances.html

Dude! Good to see you around again!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi folks - sorry I was such a butt when I was here before...

 

So someone posted the following link on my facebook page and I'd like some opinions on it.  I have one or two but I know a lot you know a lot more than I do.

 

http://creationdesign.org/english/chances.html

 

Glad to see you back BPD.  I always enjoyed your posts- even when you were being an ass.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supp, BDP?

 

Big Dumb Puffin, if my memory serves me.

 

I don't remember you being an ass though. Oh well... Either way -- welcome back! :-)

 

Good to see an old poster 'round here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I got slapped down enough (by life) that I won't be a douche anymore.  I say that now...unsure.png

 

Yes Fwee, Big Dumb Puffin!  Good memory!  Just as big and dumb, too.  rolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.