The Absurdity of Evolution

A good example of how illogical the theory of evolution is would be the fossil record of whales. The commonly accepted ancestor of whales is Pachyaena, pic related.
Here is a list of the differences between Pachyaena and the modern Blue Whale:
Pchyaena
>6 feet long
>150 pounds
>Diving capability probably 8 feet
>Carnivore teeth
>Tubular tail used for balance and showing mood, like a dog or cat
>Front legs used for running
>Back legs used for running
>Air passage at the end of the nose
>Nonexistent dorsal fin
>Only capable of drinking fresh water
>Heat regulated by fur coat
>External ears
>Move with its legs
Blue Whale
>100 feet long
>360,000 pounds
>Diving capability 1,640 feet
>No teeth, baleen used for filtering plankton from water
>Wide tail fluke used for propulsion
>Front legs are flippers used for steering
>Back legs absent
>Air passage on top of head
>Dorsal fin present for rotational stability
>Can only drink salt water
>Heat regulated by blubber
>Ears internal and can withstand the high pressure of the deep ocean

Lets calculate the odds odds of Pachyaena gradually mutating into a Blue Whale over many generations.
That's (9 major body changes)x(minimum 1 new protein per change)x(100 amino acids per new protein)x(3 DNA letters for each new amino acid)=2,700 DNA letters. 4 DNA letters, ACTG, means 1/4 possibilities for each letter. The odds of adding 2,700 new letters of DNA is (1/4)^2700.
The odds of Pachyaena giving rise to the Blue Whale is 1 in 364 followed by 1,625 zeros. It's statistically more likely for someone to throw 2,000 dice at the same time, and have every single die land as a 3.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_invasion_analysis
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

You cannot calculate mutation probabilities like that.

>lets calculate the odds
Lol k

Well, evolution is pure directionless chance.

Look, your napkin math is really cute but maybe if your instinct tells you that you are oversimplifying you shouldn't talk about your result as if you just toppled the most successful predictive model in biology.

annihilated

No, the change is determine by the environment and dumb luck, or bad luck

>predictive
How so? It just looks like just-so stories to me.

>"hurr, he made an unsubstantiated claim that makes us luk smarter"
You may have come from a monkey. But not me.

Exactly, a roll of the dice.

>predictive
Like this?

No, the evolution of land mammal to aquatic mammal was not a roll of a dice, over millions of years the body gradually changed from an animal that lived by a body of water and got food from it to an animal that spent an equal amount of time in land and water to an animal that spends all its time in the water.

...

human genome has over 3 billion base pairs

so the probability that my exact DNA would ever arise is at most 4^(-3 billion)

and yet behold! here I am, to call you stupid!

get a tripcode

you are being trolled

So ? So it is a just-so story, got it.

>implying you evolved, despite all the genetic, anatomic, and neurological differences
I pity you.

>implying random mutation is a significant driver of variation
wrong
if you dont understand this you dont need to be arguing about evolution

OP's retardation aside, is anyone aware of any statistical analysis of evolution? Every article I read on the matter just takes it for granted that X evolved into Y.

Cats predominately eat smaller mammals and birds, it's funny you use a house cat in your example considering they underwent major changes during domestication

I know I'm being trolled, I'm just trying to see how good of a troll he can be

HAND BANANA NO

But in a Godless universe, there is no order of structure, only chaos and chance.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_invasion_analysis

I'm just happy to see a shitpost in Veeky Forums that ISN'T by /pol/.

learn about emergence and complexity then come back when you can bait a shit

>Lets calculate the odds odds of Pachyaena instantaniously mutating into a Blue Whale overnight

50:50
Either it happens or it don't.

>major changes
They're still cats.

They weren't 100,000 years ago

frame 2 of pic is an otter

frame 3 of pic is a catfish

If it walks like a cat, sounds like a cat, and looks like a cat, then it's a cat

It's amusing how sciencefags are so desperate to distance themselves from any hint of religiosity that any mention of 'design!' is condemned, rightly, as simplistic religious fundamentalism. At the same time, completely shutting down the sciencefags' possibility of exploring the question from a broader perspective. And that the religio-fundies are feverishly driven by religious fervour to deny science's clear (albeit not complete) insights into the mechanisms of evolution.

So here's a thought for both of you.

What if the mechanisms of evolution, both as they are currently described by science and as they will continue to be elucidated by scientific method, ARE the agents of 'design'? What if there isn't actually a dichotomy here, and your arguments are nothing more than adherance to limited models on each side? What if 'design' is inherent in nature, a function of existance, a quality of the creator and its creation, call it what you will. And evolution is the emergence or manifestation of that design.

If you think any of this shit makes sense I got a fat dick you can suck on

Science is concerned with evidence. Maybe design by a higher being is inherent in nature, but since there is no evidence and no current way to test it Science doesn't concern itself with it

Evolution is guaranteed to happen to any system that self replicates imperfectly. Given a long enough time, anything that makes copies of itself and messes up occasionally will gradually evolve according to selective pressures in the environment. There is no extra mechanism that causes evolution to happen so it doesn't make sense to say that evolution was a part of any design. That's the same as saying "evolution happens because it was meant to happen" which just isn't true, it happens because its an inherent feature of life in general

Perhaps it is an inherent feature of life on purpose.

Maybe DNA replication is imperfect by design.

I agree that it cannot be proven and so is beyond the scope of science though.

>it happens because its an inherent feature of life in general
That was implied by me saying, science's insights into the mechanisms of evolution. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I'm not questioning evolution.

>Maybe design... is inherent in nature, but since there is no evidence and no current way to test it Science doesn't concern itself with it
And if science keeps a neutral attitude to the possibility, it might find the evidence. But if it doesn't allow itself to look, it won't. I don't know where that evidence might be; math, biology, physics, whatever, but I trust the scientific process and human curiosity. Entrenched positions don't foster exploration.

>imperfect by design.
Since when is imperfection a choice? You are assuming that the alternative is possible which is one of the wildest claims made in this thread so far.

A being capable of making the entire universe could make a DNA replication method that was perfect.

Once again though, I'm not saying this is how it had to be. Just that it is possible. It's also totally untestable and thus is not science, and so does not belong on Veeky Forums.

I really think you need to try to understand how crazy of an idea you are suggesting is. You are suggesting that, possibly, the phenomenon of life was created and the creators had the option to either make them reproduce flawlessly every time or to let their genes mutate once and a while. The fact that this is an option is crazier than the concept of a creator itself. In what universe do we live in that there would be a possible mechanism for reproduction that never fails?

Name 3 (three) things it has predicted.

What were they then?

See also the sheer absurdity of the narrative according to which traits are perpetuated by reproductive relevance despite there being no data whatsoever to suggest this.

>goddidit
science doesn't work like that and it never will

This guy could definitely be from /pol/, there are a lot of religious fundamentalists there

if you read origin of species, you can see that evolution predicts alot of things like geographical distribution of animals, the hierarchical nature in which animals are related via dna.

How scientific!
>What if the mechanisms of evolution, both as they are currently described by science and as they will continue to be elucidated by scientific method, ARE the agents of 'design'? What if there isn't actually a dichotomy here, and your arguments are nothing more than adherance to limited models on each side? What if 'design' is inherent in nature, a function of existance, a quality of the creator and its creation, call it what you will. And evolution is the emergence or manifestation of that design.

Isn't that what most Christians believe? The Pope says that evolution is guided by god, and the universe was created in the big bang, again driven by god.

theres no reason to believe in god. its only postulated as a cultural norm. its irrational and inefficient to believe in things without evidence. theres no reason to posit the mechanisms of evolution as agents of design because the mechanisms of evolution can be explained as simply statistical processes without any specific necessity for design or additional work.

>Isn't that what most Christians believe?
mainstream catholics do
creationists are mostly wasps, sometimes orthodox