On the Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution

[IVoIIIoVI]

:sl:,

It is a sad fact that in our postmodern age the average citizen is no longer blessed with common sense. Westernized, atheist universities build the egos of impressionable young dolts by teaching them counter-intuitive, nonsensical ideas with which they can ‘correct’ the ‘uneducated’ and thus feel as though they are ‘elite’. The most egregious example, in my estimation, is the idea of spontaneous generation and evolution. Unfortunately, appeals to common sense no longer suffice to demonstrate the absurdity of an absurd idea, and the few of us left who possess the ability to think are left with little remedy but to appeal to more formal reasoning, just as the great Muslim intellects who invented mathematics did.

Thus it has been my task to develop a formal, mathematical proof of the impossibility of evolution that is at the same time simple enough to be understood by the layman. This proof requires little background to understand, only a bit of thought, and after evaluated will leave one immune to the waves of Western propaganda that preach the dogma of spontaneous generation. My proof is beginning to be recognized and will soon, though reluctantly, be published.

First, some definitions.

Kolmogorov Complexity: The size, in bits, of the smallest algorithm or description which yields a given sequence.

Random sequence: A sequence whose Kolmogorov Complexity is the size of the sequence itself. We can also call a random sequence an ‘incompressible sequence’.


In other words, a random sequence is random if and only if there exists no algorithm which can describe the bits in the sequence. An infinitely long sequence, however, can have very low Kolomogorov Complexity. For example, the sequence 11111111….. repeated to infinity can be described by a short algorithm which says ‘print 1, repeat’, and so, despite its infinite length, has very low K-complexity. It is thus extremely compressible. Even an irrational like pi can have extremely low K-complexity, because there are simple algorithms which can generate all of its digits.

Our proof will be by contradiction - in effect, we will assume a proposition; then by deriving a contradiction from that proposition, demonstrate the falsity of the proposition. Now, suppose x is a spontaneously generated individual. Let K(x) = Kolmogorov Complexity of x; i.e. the length in bits of the smallest algorithm which generates the sequence x. Then there exists a sequence p which describes x such that K(x) = p, i.e. p is the minimum description length of x. x was formed by random processes, so x is a random sequence and is thus incompressible. Thus K(x) = p = x.

Now we can assume that along some branch of the family tree of x a sequence of random mutations occurs which increases the complexity of x, as postulated by the theory. We can thus store this sequence of mutations, along with p, in a new sequence. Storing the entire sequence, denote it s, of mutations up to the dawn of man we thus have a randomly generated, finite sequence which is an incompressible description of man’s genetic code. Thus, because it is incompressible, s is the minimum description length of man’s genetic code. But s contains not only the algorithm for generating man’s genetic code; it also contains that for generating the code of every organism intermediate between man and the spontaneously generated individual x. Thus s is clearly longer than the length of man’s genetic code. But s is the minimum description length of man’s genetic code, so the assumption that man evolved from x yields a contradiction.

Therefore man did not evolve from a spontaneously generated organism. QED.

[Uthman]

:bump: :bump:

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum

There's some flaws in your arguments:
1. There's a difference between "random sequences" and "random mutations. Although they both share the word random, they refer to completely different concepts.
2. S would not necessaryly contain the code of every intermediate specie; as information can be lost throughout the process.
3. According to evolutionists, man's DNA does contain many redundant reminiscent of previous species. So according to them s needn't be bigger than man's DNA

Although in numbers it looks great, when pondering over the concepts the argument simply doesn't hold.


PS: Remember Albert Einstein's quote:
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality they are not certain; and as far as they are certain they do not refer to reality.

[alcurad]

a statistician on LI? well hello there :)

thing is, the universe doesn't care for mathematical impossibility, it simply is what it is, ie. what we observe is the ultimate judge on scientific questions, you need to present more than mathematical musings to 'prove the impossibility evolution'.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Beardo]

a statistician on LI? well hello there :)

thing is, the universe doesn't care for mathematical impossibility, it simply is what it is, ie. what we observe is the ultimate judge on scientific questions, you need to present more than mathematical musings to 'prove the impossibility evolution'.

Does this have anything to do with the Theory of Incompleteness? :X

[GuestFellow]

a statistician on LI? well hello there :)
.

Ugh I can't stand probability and statistics, my heart hurts too much even thinking about it.

I have a strong hatred for probability....

[Italianguy]

God made everything, what it is and why it changes! Nuf said.

God doesn't need Mathmatics for anything, only we do because we can never understand His infinite being.

Don't spend your whole life trying to figure out why? Spend your whole life giving God thanks, and bringing Him glory.

Solving a riddle or problem won't grant you entrance into heaven.

[جوري]

:welcome: aboard IVoIIIoVI
I am fascinated by your approach and think we can learn much from you..

:w: