A reader has a thought about the butterfly collectors like the Evo-Avengers and others who have a difficult time grasping mathematical arguments:
There are three legs to your Triad: Logical validity, Empirical anchoring, and Mathematical Coherence. If the innumerate cannot follow your arguments from mathematical calculations with respect to offshoots of Darwinism like EES, do you suppose the other two legs of the Triad can do the demolition without relying on the mathematical arguments?
For people not swayed by arguments and data, it wouldn’t make a difference but there may be some who would respond better to arguments from the other two perspectives? It might not be worth your time to bother though as you seem to have other constructive projects you’re engaging in when not harvesting credentialed skulls.
Logical validity is the weakest and least rhetorically effective leg. That’s exactly what the ID guys have been doing for decades and it hasn’t gotten them anywhere. Only a small percentage of the population can follow logic, the scope of the logic often isn’t quite as grand as the logician characteristically supposes, and it has no way of checking itself for validity. So long as the major and the minor arguments hold up, the logic is sound; this was always the fundamental problem with logic that science was supposed to solve.
Mathematical coherence is valuable because it provides for a check on the logic. Most, though not all, math is naturally connected to an underlying logic; quantum mechanics is one area where we see the math tends to overshoot the logic and also lack any empirical anchoring. This is why all the brilliant minds at Caltech and MIT have been spinning their wheels and going nowhere for decades, and why the Wistar mathematicians didn’t make a dent on the evolutionary debate despite their mathematics not only holding up, but going virtually uncontested for the last 60 years.
So what’s missing is the empirical anchoring for both. The problem here is that for the most part, we’re relying on scientists who have a poor grasp of both logic and math to interpret the empirical results they are getting, and then permitting a completely ignorant science media to explain everything to the likes of Erika and the Eco-Avengers. So it’s no wonder that they look at Probability Zero with the stunned incomprehension of proto-chimps trying to master the mystery of fire. Just look at the very obvious problems you can see with the two primary papers relating to the human-chimp divergence, starting with Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome, published in Nature on September 1, 2005.
The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium reported a difference of 1.06 percent based on the comparison of two partial genomes. But those partial genomes were at least 8.57 percent different based on size alone! So despite all the very real, very serious, very important work being more or less accurately reported by the consortium, it was misleading garbage even for a work in progress.
There is a similar problem with the Yoo et al 2025 study upon which I relied heavily in the second edition of Probability Zero. Yoo reported a total genomic difference of 410 million base pairs. I therefore divided that difference in two, a division for which I have been repeatedly criticized by a number of butterfly collectors who complain, quite correctly, that we don’t know if the difference should be biased more toward the chimp or human side. The fact that this doesn’t matter in the slightest to my mathematical disproof of natural selection never occurs to them, but fine, let’s look into it… at which point we realize that Yoo et al can’t possibly be correct because 7 billion x 0.0857 is not 410,000,000 but 599,900,000. Darwin, we have a problem.
And note that 600M is just the size difference alone, and therefore doesn’t even begin to take into account the original 1.06 percent difference that was focused on areas of alignment between the two genomes.
So you can see that a) there is still work to be done on the actual size of the chimp-human divergence as well as b) why the Triveritas is a useful heuristic even when one isn’t engaged in deep philosophy. For as veriphysics teaches, it is only when the logic, the math, and the empirical evidence all triangulate an answer can one be reasonably confident that the answer is both substantive and correct.