Most staticians consider 10 followed by 50 zeros to be a statistical impossibility. Some more recent statistical work has indicated that the actual upper limit where a event could never occur would be 10150, which while a much larger number, is still tiny when compared to the odds that DNA could spontaneously form. The odds that simple bacteria could evolve, is an impossibly large number for the evolutionists to deal with. As you can see, tremendous levels of complexity create even higher loads on the probability curve. Consider as well that human beings are many, many orders of magnitude more advanced than simple bacteria, and you have a true problem for the evolutionist. The statistics clearly state that evolution not only has not occurred but that it could never occur.

(Stephen Hawkings and people like him use evolution math to deceive many. He knows that the more complex something is, the probabilty increases that it did not form randomly. He knows that evolution via the "big bang" has not occurred and that it could never occur but he wants you to believe the LIE of evolution.) (He uses the evolution LIE of millions of years and leaves it up to your imagination to figure it out.)

Evolutionary Math?

by Jason Lisle, Ph.D.

Evolutionary Math?   (Article Credit  ICR.org)

Numbers are concepts. Thus, they are abstract in nature. They exist in the world of thought and are not material or physical.

The written expression of the number three, called a “numeral,” is merely a representation of the number, not the actual number.

If numbers are not material, do they actually exist?  Numbers to have real existence, even though they are not material things.

Quantity is a concept. Though it can be applied to physical things, it exists apart from them.

Numbers exist apart from physical things, even though they can be applied to a quantity of physical things.

Laws of mathematics are rules that describe the relationships between numbers.

Laws of mathematics are (1) universal, (2) invariant, (3) absolute, and (4) abstract.

And like numbers themselves, laws of mathematics are abstract and conceptual in nature. They cannot be seen, felt, moved, or eaten. Of course, we can write down expressions that represent such laws, just as we can write down numerals that represent numbers.

Undoubtedly, the written expression of mathematical laws is manmade.

Laws of mathematics are discovered by people and written down by people. But they were not created by people. Llaws of mathematics do not change with time. Therefore, they existed before people existed. So they obviously cannot be a creation of man.

The origin of mathematics

How then do we account for the origin and properties of numbers or the laws of mathematics that describe them? Let’s consider first the naturalistic, or evolutionary, view. In this way of thinking, people attempt to explain the characteristics of a modern object by considering how it gradually evolved over millions or billions of years from something less complex. If we applied this concept to mathematics, we would ask, “From what did numbers evolve? What were numbers before they were numbers? When did the physical universe begin obeying mathematical laws?”

Take one number as a token case. From what simpler number did the number 7 evolve? Was 7 once 3? Did 3 have to transition through 4, 5, and 6 before it became 7? When did the negative numbers evolve? Or how about the irrational numbers? When did these numbers begin obeying mathematical laws? Did laws of mathematics evolve first, and then numbers later? Or was it the reverse?

If these sorts of questions sound silly, it is because they are. The evolution of numbers makes no sense whatsoever. 7 has always been 7, just as 3 has always been 3. Likewise, the expression 2+3=5 was as true at the beginning of time as it is today.

Mathematical laws and the numbers they govern are invariant—they do not change with time and, therefore, cannot have evolved from anything!  The secularist is truly stuck when it comes to mathematics. Concepts exist in a mind; they are objects of thought. So how can a conceptual entity like math exist before any mind is around to think it?

How is it that numbers are conceptual—the result of a mind—and yet they go beyond the human mind’s capacity to fully understand (such as infinity) and predate the existence of the human mind? The answer is that numbers are not the product of a human mind, but rather the product of the mind of God.

Numbers are a reflection of God’s thoughts. Numbers existed before people because God’s thoughts existed before people.

Laws of mathematics are a reflection of how God thinks about numbers. The internal consistency of mathematics is a reflection of the internal consistency within the Godhead. The invariant nature of mathematics is a reflection of the unchanging nature of God. Since God is beyond time (2 Peter 3:8), His thoughts do not change with time and, thus, neither do laws of mathematics. Laws of mathematics apply everywhere because God is omnipresent (Jeremiah 23:24). Laws of mathematics are absolute because God is sovereign and does not change His mind (1 Samuel 15:29). Laws of mathematics are real and, yet, not physical—just as God is real and not physical in His essential nature.

The biblical creationist can also make sense of why the physical universe obeys mathematical laws. God upholds the universe by the expression of His power. So, naturally, the universe will be consistent with the thoughts of God. Human beings are able to think about and use math because we are made in the image of God. His thoughts are reflected in us when we think rightly about anything. We can use mathematics to understand and solve problems in the material universe because the material universe is upheld by the same mind responsible for laws of mathematics. The properties and usefulness of laws of mathematics make perfect sense to the consistent Christian. But mathematics is simply not amenable to a naturalistic, evolutionary explanation.

It is tempting for secularists to invoke a naturalistic, evolutionary explanation for things that are only truthfully explained by God’s design. Whether it is the intricate workings of a living organism, or the existence of the solar system, gradual change over time is considered to be the “creator”—not God. They promote the idea that if you just give it enough time, then the impossible becomes inevitable through gradual, naturalistic change.

Of course, there are many reasons to reject such conjectures when they pop up in fields of biology or astronomy. But seldom will you hear an evolutionary tale of the origin of mathematics because it just isn’t possible. Numbers cannot have evolved because numbers cannot change. For the most part, secularists don’t even attempt to explain mathematics at all. Mathematics is an inherently creationist field of science. There are creation biologists and evolution biologists. There are creation geologists and evolution geologists. But when it comes to mathematics, everyone is a creationist.

Prior to the discovery of DNA, the evidence against the theory of evolution was significant. Since the discovery of DNA the evidence against the theory of evolution has become overwhelming!!

Literally, because of the discovery of DNA, the theory of evolution has become the most absurd scientific theory in the history of science!! For example, could a DVD of country music (which represents DNA) be randomly mutated into a new Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto or anything else that is useful (meaning the DNA of a new species)? Obviously not.

Yet, the theory of evolution claims that human DNA, which is 3.2 billion pairs of nucleotides long, came to exist by a long series of accidental "mutations" to DNA. What nonsense.

The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution  (Article Credit   ICR.org)

The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution

According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away.

Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process.

For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people—until it is examined quantitatively, that is!

For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.

Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.

But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half.

Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."

The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021. (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)

All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion.

(One chance in a billion trillion for only a 200 component organism. This is why evolution is a mathematical impossibility!)

Evolution = Millions of years + your imagination    (The imagined millions of years is the "creator" for evolutionists.)   Gen1.org

What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!

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.

Furthermore, since the law of increasing entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics, is essentially a statement of probabilities, many writers have also used that law itself to show that evolution on any significant scale is essentially impossible. Evolutionists have usually ignored the arguments or else used vacuous arguments against them ("Anything can happen given enough time"; "The earth is an open system, so the second law doesn't apply"; "Order can arise out of chaos through dissipative structures"; etc.).

In the real world of scientific observation, as opposed to metaphysical speculation, however, no more complex system can ever "evolve" out of a less complex system, so the probability of the naturalistic origin of even the simplest imaginary form of life is zero.

The existence of complexity of any kind is evidence of God and creation. "Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: He calleth them all by names by the greatness of His might, for that He is strong in power; not one faileth" (Isaiah 40:26).

Cite this article: Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. 2003. The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution. Acts & Facts. 32 (11).

www.FineTunedUniverse.com   Refutes, disproves, discredits, invalidates, contradicts, rebuts, opposes and denies evolution theories that claim the universe was created from nothing or that the universe has evolved over millions or billions of years.

www.Gen1.org    Refutes, disproves, discredits, invalidates, contradicts, rebuts, opposes and denies evolution theories that claim the universe was created from nothing or that the universe has evolved over millions or billions of years.

www.Gen1.org  and  www.FineTunedUniverse.com are the same website.

Bookmark www.Gen1.org  or  www.FineTunedUniverse.com

www.Gen1.org is a shorter domain name for www.FineTunedUniverse.com

(Matthew my son, consider the odds of a very very simple 200 part organism "evolving" successfully. Its an impossibility as is evolution.)

Evolution is elementary on the surface. It is referred to in current media as elementary evolution. The most rudimentary aspects of the subject of evolution always includes the millions of years time line that atheists expect you to accept with out question even though statistics show evolution is a mathematical impossibility.

Evolutionists only want you to hear key words like, evolve and millions of years without thinking about how this could happen. Don't just accept the millions of years timeline without question.

Evolution = Millions Of Years + Your Imagination

Gen1.org