Does Math Refute Evolution?

Author Vox Day has Demolished Modern Evolutionary Theory, and I Want You Guys to Know about It

Greetings Frens,

I’m a huge fan of science. REAL science, that is…

Sadly, very few folks it seems can tell the difference between real science vs theater masquerading as science.

In fact, I’d even go so far as to say that modern “science” these days is nothing more than a PR stunt—a marketing ploy intended to push certain ideas into the mainstream, regardless of the empirical or logical soundness of said ideas.

To the degree that “consensus” drives “science”, it merely becomes a tool of profiteers and/or activists—with no relation whatsoever to true, honest-to-God science.

Ideally, the scientific method is supposed to bypass human bias, given the strong tendency of human beings to deny those parts of reality which don’t fit their “theories”. But in practice it usually ends up being the case that “inconvenient facts” are swept under the rug in order to preserve so-called “scientific” orthodoxy. And unfortunately the “scientific orthodoxy” of today dogmatically asserts—in total contradiction to all available evidence and logic—that our universe is fundamentally random and material, rather than ordered and spiritual.

In keeping with this orthodoxy, modern evolutionary theory requires that the diversity of life on Earth be explained by “random mutation”; and if you so much as hint that life may have been intelligently and lovingly created by a creator, then you will be laughed out of the academy!

And yet… as you’re about to learn, there is NO mathematic possibility that life evolved “randomly”! Will “science” acknowledge this fact? (Probably not, but who cares at this point? The ivory tower’s stranglehold on the intellectual life of the west is coming to an end…)

Vox Day’s Probability Zero

It turns out that there is a rich history of highly intelligent folks questioning Darwinism—you just haven’t heard about it because our modern society NEEDS the masses to believe that their very existence “happened by chance” and thus has no intrinsic meaning or value. The idea that you were lovingly created by a Divine Creator is the complete antithesis of the ideological scaffolding of Clown World.

Myself and many others have proposed in the past that it’s implausible that randomly occurring elements bumping into each other for any length of time would spontaneously lead to the creation of even the most rudimentary life forms. The fact is, modern evolutionary theory asks us to take as a given something that seems mathematically absurd on it’s face.

Luckily, genetic research has sufficiently advanced to the point where we can put the theory of evolution to a rigorous test. We can now observe, at least in rudimentary organisms, the number of generations it takes for a single genetic mutation to spread to a species’ entire population. This is called the rate of fixation for a novel (aka mutated) gene.

The central question we must ask is this: has enough time elapsed since the dawn of life on Earth to account for the diversity of life that we see, given observed rates of the fixation of novel/mutated genes? (To keep things simple here, we’re going to ignore finer questions pertaining to the desirability of “mutations” in the first place).

Now, I cannot take credit for having come up with this question—the credit belongs to Vox Day, author of two recently published books refuting modern evolutionary theory, being Probability Zero and The Frozen Gene.

In these books, Day utterly demolished the idea that the theory of evolution by natural selection could possibly account for the genetic variance we see between the various life forms we’ve encountered on our planet. He calls his refutation of evolutionary theory the Mathematical Impossibility of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection—aka MITTENS for short.

Here’s a selection from the intro to Probability Zero which very neatly encapsulates Day’s killshot against modern evolutionary theory.

“The genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees requires at least 20 million mutations to have become fixed in the human lineae since our hypothesized divergence from our last common ancestor. Using the timeframe of 9 million years estimated by scientists and a generation length of 20 years, this allows for 450,000 generations in which to accomplish the evolution from proto-chimp to modern Man.

The fastest rate of mutational fixation ever observed in any organism under any conditions comes from a 2009 study of E. coli bacteria published in Nature: 1,600 generations per fixed mutation….

450,000 generations divided by 1,600 generations per mutation equals a maximum number of 281 total fixed mutations.

That’s 281 [whereas] the theory of evolution by natural selection needs to explain at least 20,000,000.

The math dictates that evolution by natural selection can account for a grand total of 0.0014 percent of the observed genetic gap between the last common chimp-human ancestor and Man.”

Now, take these ideas and extrapolate them to all life on Earth. Given that the rate of gene fixation for a simple organism must be faster than what is possible with more complex organisms, this shows us that evolutionary theory is mathematically defeated even when given the greatest possible advantage.

American Hypnotist’s Tentative Revision of Evolutionary Theory

As I see it, modern evolutionary theory has two fundamental ingredients:

1. Random mutation (the part refuted by MITTENS), and

2. Environmental selection.

In essence, the idea is that life/genes mutate over time, and then when a mutation occurs which is “beneficial” then organisms with said “beneficial” mutation will eventually out-compete or out-breed those without.

In my estimation, the theory is mostly wrong, but perhaps not completely so. I’m going to share own “revision” of evolutionary theory here and then will follow up with another article sometime in the future after I’ve finished reading Vox Day’s books on this subject. Right now, I’d like to get my thoughts on the matter out in the open first, and then afterwards see how similar or divergent my thought process is from Day’s.

To begin: if life were intelligently created by a Divine Creator/a universe that is fundamentally alive and conscious, then this would entirely bypass the need for “random mutation” to explain the diversity of life on Earth. It would seem to me that intelligent design is the ONLY possible explanation for said diversity.

At the same time, it’s also self-evidently true that a given environment will indeed “select” for those life forms more adapted to it over those who lack such adaptation, and that this has bearing upon the character and development of life in general.

It’s possible to explain certain tendencies and traits amongst humans, animals, plants, and so on by making reference to the past—aka to the contexts in which certain traits were “successful” and thus “selected for”. Tracing these contexts is what “evolutionary biology/psychology” is all about. But the mere existence of selection pressures does not in any way refute the idea that life was intelligently/divinely created, nor does it refute the possibility that God remains involved in the development of life.

I believe we were indeed created by God, but that local environmental factors (where we’re situated within physical reality) must also be considered when analyzing the course of our development.

Additionally, I believe we ‘e also capable of influencing our own development as well. I think this is also true for other life forms, though to a much lesser degree than what is possible with humans. I take it as an axiom that the degree of “choice” any given life form has with regard to it’s own destiny and development is a function of it’s level of intelligence and self-awareness, though mitigated by external factors (such as local conditions, the laws of physics, etc). Essentially, the more aware you are, the greater your range of choice, and thus the more involved in your own self-development you can become.

I don’t see the question of “who/what created us” as an “either/or” issue. I see it as a question of proportionality—namely, to what extent can any given life form be said to have been created by influences that transcend the “self” (such as God and the immediate environment) vs it’s own choices generated internally. If indeed free will exists, then we ought to account for it when we theorizing how life might have developed over long periods of time (unless and until we’re given conclusive reason not to).

In short, I can agree that aspects of evolutionary theory are sound, but only insofar as it remains a limited theory regarding the fixation of certain traits based on environmental factors. Other than that, every other aspect of the theory is called into question by MITTENS. I do not believe we can account for the diversity of life at all unless we bring certain metaphysical principles to bear on the matter, particularly those of intelligent design and free will.

IN SUM: the American Hypnotist revision of evolutionary theory says that life was lovingly created by a Divine Creator, but is also capable of being molded to some degree by the local physical environment, and can also, within reasonable bounds, direct the course of it’s own self-development to the degree it possesses intelligence and self-awareness.

Of course, this is NOT a complete theory unto itself—certain questions remain…

More Questions

Another issue that bears analysis is whether or not a life form can become something radically different in the first place. Wouldn’t the modern theory of evolution dictate that an enormous number of transitory life forms are required to “fill the gaps” between species? One might argue that said transitory forms might have once existed but, alas, were all culled for not being “adapted” sufficiently to continue surviving…

But the problem here is that the sheer number of transitory forms needed to link everything together and then subsequently disappear is itself prohibitive to the point of being utterly implausible. How many of these intermediary forms would need to successfully evolve, only to quickly go extinct for lack of adaptability?

Though we can see how selective breeding and domestication causes significant alterations to a species, the question on my mind is whether a hard limit of some kind exists to this process. We may be able to create new breeds of dogs via selective breeding, but is there any evidence we can cross fundamental categories of life via such practices, and thus derive dogs from lizards, etc?

Keep in mind that even though dogs and lizards share certain genes in common, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the former is somehow a direct descendant of—or could be derived from—the latter. “Resemblance” alone does not “prove” direct inheritance.

Some might raise the point that we could theoretically do such things through genetic engineering, but that’s neither here nor there, for what I want to know is what plausible mechanisms might explain Earth’s biodiversity given the evolutionary context proposed by modern science, which precludes direct genetic manipulation as a factor.

To Be Continued…

Having said all the above, I’m going to finish reading Vox Days’ books on this matter, and will have much more to say after the fact.

For now, I’ll leave you with this: our society needs people to deny the existence of the soul in order to function the way it does. And it’s easy to see how the theory of evolution is used to enforce said denial.

If I didn’t know any better, I might posit that the Illuminati (or some equivalent group) came up with the idea to trick make masses into thinking that life is ultimately random and meaningless…

It’s all very tricky indeed…