EVOLUTION AND MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITIES

[Rotherham]

Evolution and Mathematical Impossibilities

Those who accept evolution as the means by which all living organisms have come into existence rely on two basic processes that they would call the "mechanism" of evolution, those being "mutations" and "natural selection".

However, the problems that arise mathematically demonstrate that this mechanism does not match with the mathematical odds necessary to bring about beneficial and major change, such as chimpanzees evolving into humans.

For instance, despite the many genetic similarities between chimpanzees and humans, there are still hundreds of thousands of genetic differences between them. Each genetic difference would have had to arise due to a beneficial genetic mutation followed by a natural selection of the new and improved offspring.

Whereas natural selection is a process that can be readily observed in nature when we observe stronger or better adapted offspring survive and pass on stronger and/or better adapted characteristics, never do we see the process of natural selection ALONE create a new species. The creation of a new species must involve genetic mutations that somehow add to the already existing genetic information in order to bring about the new and improved species.

Here's the major problem for this evolutionary mechanism. Genetic mutations are almost always deleterious, or, in other words, they are almost if not always harmful to the already existing species. In fact, in nature, there are no known examples of beneficial mutations which have brought about a new and improved species. Many times, evolutionists will appeal to the "fruit fly" example where some fruit flies are born with an extra set of wings. That would be a great example to use were it not for the fact that the extra set of wings have no muscles and normal flight with the two good wings is terribly affected to the point that they are nearly if not completely flightless. It can be seen readily that rather than improving the existing species, the mutation is actually harmful, and such an unfortunate offspring is soon weeded OUT of the reproduction process. So what we have seen via empirical evidence is that genetic mutations, even if they increase genetic information, like an extra set of wings, end up as harmful to the new species.

Notice the mathematical quandary that arises if one chooses to accept this evolutionary model. Mutations only happen on an average of about once in every 10 million duplications of the DNA molecule (where the genetic information is contained) For evolution to progress, organisms require a series of or simultaneously related mutations to occur. In other words, for evolution to produce an actual 4-winged fruit fly that could survive better than its former counterpart, the mutation would not only have to include wings, there would have to be another simultaneously accompanying mutation to create muscles that would actually attach in the right way and manner for them to work, and of course there would have to be some other simultaneous neurological alterations, which would also involve genetic mutations, in order to have them function at the will of the fruit fly.

Now, keep in mind that mutations only occur at about one in 10 million opportunities, and over 90% them at the very least are not beneficial. So, the odds of getting two mutations to occur simultaneously or even in a row, that are related to one another, would be the mathematical product of their separate probabilities. Or in other words, in order to get TWO mutations to happen virtually at the same time, the odds would be 10 million times 10 million, which is now ten followed by 14 zeroes, 100 trillion chances to one that such a thing would happen. That's if there are only TWO mutations needed to make a new addition operable. And that's only if BOTH mutations are BENEFICIAL and INTERRELATED at virtually the same time. I don't even know how to figure the odds of something happening once you throw in the fact that we've never seen a beneficial mutation that has created a better species than its former one. How many zeros do you have to add onto the end of 10 before it's considered impossible?

What then are the odds of getting THREE related mutations, which would mean that there would be one chance in a billion trillion, 10 with 21 zeroes following it? You can quickly tell that at just three related mutations, evolution via related, dependent mutational change through natural selection as its mechanism to produce truly new information and new species is mathematically impossible. It is no wonder that even theologians who believe in evolution think that the mathematical odds necessary for it to have happened actually prove that SOMETHING intelligent and PURPOSEFUL was behind it.

The question becomes, how can an UNintelligent process, such as that appealed to by atheistic evolution, be considered as a viable option to explain the variety of living species that exist today? Is it not mathematically impossible? How could something as complex as the eye ever happen, which would have had to involve numerous, simultaneous or at least consecutive, close-knit, beneficial mutations in order to arise as something functional and useful in a new species?

Is this not the nail in the coffin of atheistic evolution? If not, why not? Please watch these included videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai-DXFXZ ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh048UW2 ... re=related

If one would like to discuss or debate the issues presented in this article, please send an email to challenges@truetheology.net and state your request to do so.



Regards,
Rotherham