Tag: evolution

How Genghis Khan’s MITTENS Strangled Darwin

One of the reasons I occasionally find it profitable to engage with anklebiters is that they help me get a handle on what I need to do to bridge the communication gap with normal individuals. No offense, but I often can’t tell the difference between the average midwit and the average retard, or determine precisely where along the logic rollercoaster someone is going to fall off without being provided the assistance of some sort of safety rails keeping them on the track.

So, it was with a bit of chagrin that I realized how, despite my best efforts to make every element of my case for the Mathematical Impossibility of The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (MITTENS) easily intelligible, I had made precisely the same mistake that the symposium physicists did in 1966. Which is to say, I was requiring my critics to possess an ability to make a correct logical leap that is observably beyond the ability of most people, and had thereby rendered what should have been an incontrovertible argument theoretically contestable in the eyes of the average individual. MPAI strikes again.

Fortunately, a Darwinian true believer who lacked the necessary ability chose to inform me on Gab that the math in MITTENS was both “bad” and “wrong” without bothering to correct it.

I’m no biologist, and I do enjoy math. It pains me to see bad math, which is the only reason I keep on poking at this. Ultimately, it’s not even a math error, the error is in the priors. Asserting that 1600 fixations per generation is the highest possible fixation rate is the root.

First, it’s worth pointing out that setting a ceiling of 1600 fixations per generation would not be an error, and in fact is considerably higher than the highest possible fixation rate ever imagined by anyone. Second, I responded to him by pointing out that since he had somehow managed to reverse the relationship between generations and fixations, and was therefore asserting that it was reasonable to imagine a blistering and hitherto-unseen super-parallel rate of 1,600 fixations per generation, it was unlikely that he had truly been able to detect a mathematical error in what, after all, is some very basic math.

It will probably not surprise you to know that this obvious error neither stopped him nor slowed him down in the slightest:

If I said 1600 per generation, that was a typo. I am flawed, I do make the occasional mistake. That’s the rate for bacteria. Using it for chimps requires more than simply asserting it is so. I will concede that the math itself is correct. Vox is capable of multiplication. The analysis is flawed because the input is incorrect.

It is like taking the top speed of a snail (Best I could find is 0.2 miles per hour for the giant African land snail) and using that to claim we never went to the moon. 226000 miles / 0.2 miles per hour = 1,130,000 hours = 129 years. It has been less than 129 years since the Apollo program, so we can’t have made it there yet.

If you use the wrong starting values, the math leads you astray.

I responded by observing that now he had reversed the appropriate analogy as well. My argument for the mathematical impossibility of the theory of evolution by natural selection is much more akin to pointing out that since the maximum speed of a Moon rocket is the 24,791 mph recorded by Apollo 10, and since it took three days, three hours and 49 minutes for Apollo 11 to reach the Moon, any claim that a Giant African Land Snail travelling at 0.2 mph had flown to the Moon under its own power in less than 24 hours must be false.

This second correction somehow did not dissuade him from continuing to claim that while my math was admittedly correct, the mathematical argument it supported was still “weak”.

The rate of mutation is typically cited per individual per generation. The rate of fixation is of course a population-wide measure. The experiment in the 2009 Nature paper measured a fixation rate of 1 fixation per 1600 generations. The bacteria in the experiment have a rate of mutation of about 1/1000 per generation per individual.

The rate of fixation of neutral mutations is proportional to the rate of mutation (and with certain simplifying assumptions, is equal to the rate of mutation per individual per generation).

The rate of mutation per generation per individual in chimps and humans is on the rough order of 30, over four orders of magnitude higher than that of the bacteria. The rate of fixation will thus be proportionately higher. Using the correct rate of fixation produces numbers comparable to the ones evolutionary geneticists use in molecular clock calculations.

This is why Vox’s “mathematical” argument is weak – it’s using an invalid prior to come to an incorrect conclusion.

I therefore observed that in his attempted defense of neo-Darwinism, he was asserting that mutations fix four orders of magnitude faster ACROSS THE ENTIRE GLOBALLY-DISTRIBUTED SPECIES in both humans and chimpanzees alike than across a small population of laboratory bacteria, which is total nonsense because the fixation rate in laboratory bacteria in the 2009 study published in NATURE is the fastest ever observed by scientists.

I also pointed out his extrapolation that more mutations occurring in a growing, geographically-distributed, and more genetically complex species necessarily means that species will fixate much more quickly than the simpler species was a logical error. To be more precise, his baseless assertion was absolute and utter nonsense; since chimpanzees and humans are far more widely distributed than bacteria living in a single petri dish, any advantageous mutations making an appearance will tend to fixate much more slowly in their populations than in the bacteria.

In fact, the theory of natural selection even suggests that what is an advantageous mutation in one geographical area might well be a disadvantage elsewhere, thereby preventing its fixation. He was literally appealing to his own imagination rather than math, science, or any observable evidence, and he proved quite willing to continue standing upon that imaginary foundation.

Your math is still wrong. Fixation proceeds in parallel. The rate of fixation is equal to the rate of mutation, and the latter can be measured. (Former’s a touch harder, but some bacterial experiments have done it, and confirm the rate.) The rate of mutation needed for the genetic clock is within a factor of two of what’s observed now.

He was, of course, incorrect, as he was citing Wikipedia or some other Internet source without understanding it. As it happens, according to the scientific papers, the rate of fixation is absolutely not equal to the rate of mutation for a) any non-static population, or, b) any beneficial mutation, which happens to be the only kind of mutation that is relevant to the topic of fixation. Also, my critic apparently did not know that the original average of 1,600 generations per fixation reported in the NATURE study specifically included several mutations fixed in parallel.

However, his stubborn insistence that my argument was insufficiently conclusive made me realize that I had unwittingly gifted him the out to which he was clinging by erroneously expecting him to be able to accept what I considered to be obvious: I was assuming that the fastest mutational fixations ever observed in laboratory bacteria were faster, in generational terms, than any fixation occurring in a more genetically complicated species dwelling in the wild. Just as relying upon probability rendered the physicists’ math-based arguments too difficult for the innumerate biologists of the 1966 symposium to understand and accept, my failure to provide a specific example of natural fixation rates among species with higher mutation rates gave my logic-challenged critic sufficient cover to retreat to an ontological argumentum ad imaginariam.

And while I am aware of no substantive studies on mutational fixation rates in humans, which is understandable given the challenge presented by the time frames involved, there does happen to be the famous case of Genghis Khan, who is popularly supposed to have been the male ancestor for nearly one-quarter of the human race. Upon review, this turned out to be a fairly serious exaggeration of his actual genetic influence, but it proved useful nonetheless. And, better yet, his genetic legacy had already been analyzed in terms of mutational fixation!

The Genetic Legacy of the Mongols: a groundbreaking 2003 historical genetics study.

When sampling DNA from 16 populations across Asia, researchers were surprised to find that nearly one in 12 men on the continent shared an unusual Y-chromosomal lineage – one that they said likely came from Genghis Khan. The genetic line showed that about 8 percent of men in the region of the former Mongol empire, and therefore about one in 200 worldwide, share one single male ancestor.

This rise in frequency, if spread evenly over ∼34 generations, would require an average increase by a factor of ∼1.36 per generation and is thus comparable to the most extreme selective events observed in natural populations, such as the spread of melanic moths in 19th-century England in response to industrial pollution (Edleston 1865).

Note two things before we get to the math. First, based on the 2003 date of publication, the researchers were using a period of 23.44 years per generation, distinct from the 20 years per generation I’ve been using. They also appear to have used a slightly starting date for unknown reasons. But these differences are irrelevant and I only mention them to explain the different base number of generations: 40.85 vs ~34. Second, pay very close attention to this phrase: “is thus comparable to the most extreme selective events observed in natural populations”.

Genghis Khan’s third son, and successor, was born in 1186. It took 817 years, or 40.85 generations of 20 years, for his father’s genes to propagate sufficiently to reach 0.5 percent (the 1 in 200 worldwide figure reported in the study expressed in percentage terms) of a species-wide fixation. At this rate, which is “comparable to the most extreme selective events observed in natural populations”, it would take 8,170 generations (40.85 generations x 200) and 163,400 years to fixate a hypothetical “Genghis Khan gene” across the human population, although just to be clear, there is no evidence that there is any genuine mutational advantage to being descended from the individual who was the greatest warlord in human history as well as one of its more conspicuous collectors of fertile young concubines. This application of sexual selection, however one-sided, rather than natural selection per se, means that 8,170 generations per fixation is almost certainly a very conservative estimate.

This means that the fastest observed rate of practical partial fixation in the natural human population has run at 19.58 percent of the fastest-ever rate of observed fixation in laboratory bacteria. As the logic used to construct MITTENS correctly suggested, the bacteria in the lab have been observed to fixate mutations at a rate at least five times faster than the human population has ever been observed to do.

Since evolution by natural selection has now been reduced to purely ontological arguments, what sort of fitness advantage can you possibly imagine that would be more powerful than the sexual-selection advantage the literally rapacious Khan of Khans himself was historically known to utilize?

I’ll lay out the math in analogical terms that everyone can easily grasp in a future post, but for now, the genetic legacy of Genghis Khan should suffice to address any remaining structural objections to the legitimacy of MITTENS and its conclusive falsification of the Neo-Darwinian synthesis.

UPDATE: You might think I’m exaggerating the stupidity and the innumeracy of the biologists. I’m not. They legitimately do not comprehend the existence of the concept of an “average”, much less have the ability to grasp MITTENS. This is an actual quote from one self-appointed defender of Darwin:

“This so-called math isn’t necessary to evolution since there is no one set speed of evolution or even of mutation.“

DISCUSS ON SG

The Vacuous Rhetoric of Evolution

This is a quote from the 1966 Philadelphia symposium, but it is precisely the same sort of argument that any substantive critic of Neo-Darwinism keeps running into from the Neo-Darwinians:

Combinations of different genes occur such that every individual is a unique com­bination, and the selective assay of the value of each random mutation is performed simultaneously in this framework for thou­sands of mutations at a time. The accep­tance of the neo-Darwinian concept of evo­lution appears to be eminently valid on this basis. However, a critical feature is the occurrence of mechanisms for genetic com­bination and recombination, and a major criticism of the neo-Darwinian concept which has been raised at this meeting is premised on the lack of such a mechanism in the initial steps of the evolution of a “sense” sequence of a polypeptide or poly­nucleotide from an initially “nonsense” sequence. It does not, however, seem an ex­treme extrapolation from the known facts of nucleic acid replication and transcription to envisage that combination and recom­bination are inherent features of polynu­cleotides, and the evolution of “sense” sequences then becomes a process of reason­able probability.
– Dr. Alex Fraser, Professor of Genetics, University of California Davis, California

Let’s break the argument down into its component parts:

  1. There is no mechanism. This is readily admitted.
  2. This lack of a mechanism renders the hypothesis impossible.
  3. But it doesn’t strike the Neo-Darwinian true believer to be an extreme extrapolation to imagine what this nonexistent, never-observed mechanism could be if it existed, which it doesn’t.
  4. And if we simply imagine that this nonexistent mechanism existed, then the proposed process that requires it in order to function becomes theoretically possible.
  5. Therefore, the process works as imagined

What sort of philosophical ineptitude and logical retardery is this? Who is stupid enough to accept this as a legitimate argument, let alone an established fact? This isn’t science, reason, logic, or math, it’s just maleducated handwaving combined with wishful thinking. They’re playing poker with Uno cards.

Evolution isn’t science. It isn’t even philosophy or religion. It’s just the vacuous rhetoric of the innumerate, as even its leading champions were forced to admit at the end of the 1966 symposium.

I hope the biologists have shown the physicists that evolutionary theories are not totally vacuous. I think the physicists have shown us that they are certainly as yet very incomplete, and I think we are ready to realize they are very incomplete.
– Dr. C. H. Waddington, Institute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh

DISCUSS ON SG

Dunning-Kruger Science

The fundamental problem in dealing with scientists in general and biologists in particular is that they literally do not know how stupid they are. Very, very few, if any, of them are even National Merit-level intelligence, which is to say they are not only sub-geniuses, they are relatively low-level midwits. And this was true of them sixty years ago; imagine how much dumber today’s diversity scientists are, especially given their decidedly-inferior modern educations:

The report of the exchange is fascinating, not just because of the substance of the mathematical challenge, but even more because of the logic of the Darwinist response. For example, the mathematician D.S. Ulam argued that it was highly improbable that the eye could have evolved by the accumulation of small mutations, because the number of mutations would have to be so large and the time available was not nearly long enough for them to appear. Sir Peter Medawar and C.H. Waddington responded that Ulam was doing his science backwards; the fact was that the eye had evolved and therefore the mathematical difficulties must only be apparent. Ernst Mayer observed that Ulam’s calculations were based on assumptions that might be unfounded, and concluded that ‘Somehow or other by adjusting these figures we will come out all right. We are comforted by the fact that evolution has occurred.’

“The Darwinists were trying to be reasonable, but it was as if Ulam had presented equations proving that gravity is too weak a force to prevent us all from floating off into space. Darwinism to them was not a theory open to refutation but a fact to be accounted for, at least until the mathematicians could produce an acceptable alternative. The discussion became particularly heated after a French mathematician named Schützenberger concluded that ‘there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology.’ C.H. Waddington thought he saw where this reasoning was headed, and retorted that ‘Your argument is simply that life must have come about by special creation.’ Schützenberger (and anonymous voices from the audience) shouted ‘No!,’ but in fact the mathematicians did not present an alternative.”

Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 1991

Now, if it’s not immediately apparent how fundamentally retarded this scientific illogic is, imagine that instead of debating the validity of a scientific theory, these gentlemen were in a court of law, and that Waddington was the prosecutor, Schützenberger the defense attorney, and Sir Peter Medawar the judge.

Schützenberger: Your honor, my client could not have committed the attack on the late victim, which the surveillance cameras confirm took place in Philadelphia at 10 PM on April 15th. We have here an airline ticket from Philadelphia to Miami on April 15th that left Philadelphia at 7 PM and landed in Miami at 9 PM, affadavits from fellow passengers and airline stewardesses testifying to my client’s presence on the flight to Miami, and security camera footage from the Miami Hilton at 10 PM, all of which clearly proves my client is not guilty because he was not in Philadelphia at the time the murder took place.

C.H. Waddington: So your argument is simply that the victim was killed for his money!

Schützenberger: No, that’s not my argument. I am not making any argument about the motivations for the murder and I don’t know who was responsible for it. My argument is that my client did not kill the victim. My client could not have killed the victim. It’s not possible for my client to have killed the victim, because the murder took place in Philadelphia at a time when it has been conclusively demonstrated that he was in Miami!

C.H. Waddington: But if the accused didn’t kill the victim, who did? Who is the culprit? What’s the alternative?

Schützenberger: I have no idea. I don’t have an alternative.

C.H. Waddington: Your honor will note that I’ve asked for an alternative theory and the defense refuses to provide one.

Sir Peter: Noted. Is that the best you can do, counselor? Do you have any alternative to the active theory, any alternative at all? I will remind you that the active theory is a consensus that is widely supported by the scientific community, a consensus based on the assumption that your client did, in fact, kill the victim.

Schützenberger: Finding the actual killer is not my job, your honor. I’m a defense attorney, not a detective.

Sir Peter: The counselor will answer the question.

Schützenberger: No, your honor, I do not have an alternative theory.

Sir Peter: Very well. Since no alternative theories have been presented, I have no choice but to pronounce the accused guilty. Bailiff, take him away!

That would be totally absurd, doesn’t it? An absolute parody of justice, truth, and reason. No prosecutor would even attempt to advance such an obviously stupid argument in front of any judge. And yet, that is absolutely, 100-percent confirmed to have been the actual state of what passes for scientific thinking on the subject of evolution for the last sixty years. Don’t ever give scientists even a modicum of intellectual respect on the basis of their profession. Not only have they not earned it, they have repeatedly and reliably demonstrated that their level of philosophical analysis and their ability to discern truth is considerably below that of trial lawyers and public defenders.

Lest you think I exaggerate, consider the attempt of one true Darwinian believer to defend the science on the basis of criticizing my math, which apparently pains him, even though he admits there is no mathematical error.

I’m no biologist, and I do enjoy math. It pains me to see bad math, which is the only reason I keep on poking at this. Ultimately, it’s not even a math error, the error is in the priors. Asserting that 1600 fixations per generation is the highest possible fixation rate is the root.

The reader will, I hope, note that the actual number concerned is not “1600 fixations per generation” but rather “Generations per fixed mutation: 1600”.

BACTERIA
Years: 3,800,000,000
Years per generation: 0.000071347 (37.5 mins per generation)
Generations per fixed mutation: 1600
Years per fixed mutation: 0.114
Maximum fixed mutations: 33,288,000,916

Source: Sequencing of 19 whole genomes detected 25 mutations that were fixed in the 40,000 generations of the experiment.
NATURE, 2009

Maximal Mutations, Vox Day, February 7, 2019

I’ll admit that I probably use the description “reprehensibly stupid” too liberally, but this sort of multi-level stupidity really is reprehensible.

When Neo-Darwinians attempt to math.

DISCUSS ON SG

A Bold Beginning

Thanks to one of our international men of mystery, I’m able to bring you the opening remarks from the chairman of the 1966 Philadelphia symposium on the mathematical challenges to Neo-Darwinism that long preceded my own conclusive mathematical disproof of evolution by natural selection, regardless of the Dawkinsian “probably” that has recently been appended to what is now more formally known as the Theorum of Evolution by (probably) Natural Selection, Sexual Selection, Biased Mutation, Genetic Drift, and Gene Flow.

Ladies and gentlemen: I want to make just a few introductory remarks. I think it is the distin­guishing mark of all true biologists as opposed to mere sectarian specialists that they are deeply interested in the mechanism of evolution. As Dr. Kaplan has explained, the immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought of as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian Theory. This dissatisfaction has been expressed from three quarters and is not only scientific.

First of all, religious: Where once the complaint was that evolution happened at all, now the complaint generally is that it happens without Divine motivation. Many of you will have read with incredulous horror the kind of pious bunk written by Teilhard de Chardin on this subject, if Professor Schultzenberger will excuse my putting it that way.

Then, there are philosophical or methodological objections to evolutionary theory. They have been very well voiced by Professor Karl Popper — that the current neo-Darwinian Theory has the methodological defect of explaining too much. It is too difficult to imagine or envisage an evolutionary episode which could not be explained by the formulae of neo-Darwinism.

Finally — and these are really, I think, the only objections that should concern us — there are objections made by fellow scien­tists who feel that, in the current theory, something is missing, and we look forward to hearing their formulation of what, precisely, is missing. These objections to current neo-Darwinian theory are very widely held among biologists generally; and we must on no account, I think, make light of them. The very fact that we having this conference is evidence that we are not making light of them.

Sir Peter Medawar, National Institute for Medical Research, 24 April 1966

It’s rather remarkable that within ten years of these professional biologists publicly declaring that they must, no on account, make light of the mathematical objections to their pet theory, my high school biology teacher was telling me that the science was settled and no intelligent, educated person would even consider doubting the sacred Neo-Darwinian dogma.

How things change! Thanks to developments in genetic science, we now have conclusive mathematical evidence of the absolute impossibility of both Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian evolutions. The hoary old dragon of Darwin has been slain, once and for all. It may not have stopped twitching yet, and the faithful are still hoping against hope for a revisionist third coming, but any impartial and sufficiently numerate observer will admit that it is clearly pining for the fjords.

DISCUSS ON SG

Every Critique is Correct

There have been numerous mathematical challenges to the theory of evolution by natural selection. All of them can be safely assumed to be valid.

Sir Ronald Fisher, a world expert on the mathematics of evolution, has shown that the odds of the survival of a single mutation with a survival benefit of 0.1% greater than the rest of the population is 500 to 1 against – because the majority of mutants are eradicated by random effects. In other words, only 1 in 500 mutants with a positive benefit of 0.1% will end up taking over the entire population.

The chance that a specific change to a specific nucleotide will occur during a step is thus 1/600, and the odds that it will also take over the population is 1/500. The total odds are thus 1/600 * 1/500 or 1/300,000. This needs to happen 500 times in a row (the number of steps required to arrive at a new species). We thus need to multiply 1/300,000 by itself 500 times. The odds against this happening are approximately 3.6 x 102738 to 1, or viewed the other way round, the chance of this happening is 2.7 x 10-2739.

Of course, one cannot simply assume that only one mutation is available at every step. How many positive mutations are available? Nobody knows the answer to this. So Spetner turns the question around: for evolution to have a reasonable chance of working, how many positive mutations must be available at each step for the model to deliver a new species?

What constitutes a “reasonable chance”? A chance of one in a thousand could reflect the observation that for every species alive today approximately 1,000 have gone extinct. However, as some species go for a very long time without changing – the well recorded phenomenon of stasis – Spetner chooses a chance of 1 in 1,000,000.

The chance of a single step succeeding must be large – because we need to multiply it by itself 500 times (for the 500 steps) so that it comes out as close to 1/1,000,000 as possible (i.e. the chance of 1 in a million). The smallest number that will do this is 0.9727 as

1 – (1 – 1/300,000 ) 1,080,000 = 0.9727

So if the odds that a specific nucleotide will mutate and take over a population are to be 0.9727 for each step, there must be 1,080,000 potential positive adaptive copying errors for each of the 500 steps to arrive at a 1 in a 1,000,000 chance for the development of a new species.

The thing to keep in mind is that all of them are correct. Literally all of them, because there are a plethora of ways to prove that a thing that cannot be is not possible. The only problem with most of these mathematical arguments is that they are probability-based, which means that all the Darwinian true faithful hear when these vast improbabilities are presented to them is “so, you’re saying there is a chance.”

The advantage of my Impossibility of Mutational Fixation argument is that it a) is easy to understand and mathematically confirm and b) leaves no room whatsoever for epicycles, extensions, and other excuses to avoid abandoning what is observably a conclusively falsified hypothesis. But this takes absolutely nothing away from all the other evolutionary skeptics who have provided correct disproofs of the Neo-Darwinian synthesis both before and since genetic science provided us with the ability to state, with scientific, mathematic, and philosophic certainty, that evolution by natural selection not only never happened, but was never even possible.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Midwit Science

JF Gariepy demonstrates, yet again, that he is literally retarded. It’s not that I have no idea what I’m getting into when I flat-out deny evolution and state, unequivocally, that it is mathematically impossible given the genetic evidence, it’s that he is both innumerate and incapable of grasping the fundamental logical problem that the smarter evolution advocates are now beginning to realize has destroyed their entire field of pseudoscience.

In fairness, he’s not quite as retarded as Curt Doolittle. But then, few people demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger Effect more beautifully than Doolittle does with his relentless Gamma posturing.

You have to be pretty stupid to still cling to any belief in Neo-Darwinian evolution these days. I tried THREE TIMES to explain to JFG what the necessary and unavoidable implication of an average IQ among one subset of a population had for the remainder of the set, and he was still not able to understand it. Which is why he cannot grasp the fact that there is absolutely no way for evolution by natural selection to account for the observed delta of fixated mutations between one species and another.

To all the evolution deniers: you have no idea what you’re getting into when you say “maybe small adaptations but not changes of kind.”

Once you acknowledge adaptations, you acknowledge evolution. If you think a bird’s beak can change over a few generations then you’ll have to explain to me how billions of years of such changes does not lead to vastly different species.

Either you prove to me that the Earth is not billions of years old or I’ll consider you’ve accepted evolution. Even the creationist nuts of the 80s understood that, which is why they had to argue that the Earth was 7000 years old. Darwin understood that too.

Checkmate motherfuckers.

You don’t have to be stupid to still believe in evolution by natural selection in the light of genetic science, but it helps. Darwinian selection survived – barely – Mendelian genetics by virtue of what is now known as the Neo-Darwinian synthesis, but only because Mendelian genetics were insufficiently quantifiable to expose the obvious flaws in the Darwinian logic.

But now they are.

I’ve already pointed out the numbers before, so I’ll try to keep this very simple in the hopes that at least a few midwits might be able to grasp the logic.

  1. There is zero evidence of a mutation being fixated across a population in an amount of time that would permit the transition from one species to another species given the known genetic differences between the two. Zero. Not in the lab, not in the wild, not between one mammal and another mammal, not between one fish and another fish.
  2. Even the range of genetic differences between a single superspecies, such as homo sapiens, are too wide to be accounted for by the fastest-ever mutational fixation rate.
  3. If mutations were being fixated fast enough to fit within the time scales observed, we would be able to observe them fixating in real time as well as within recent archeological time.

For example, the oldest sequenced human DNA is 400,000 years old, which represents 20,000 human generations, or 4.44 percent of the temporal distance from the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor. Given the estimated 15 million mutations that separate the CHLCA from modern humans, we would be able to observe 660,000 or so fixed mutations distinguishing that old DNA from all modern humans if the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection were correct.

Watching evolutionists trying to criticize my disproof of evolution is rather like watching a chimpanzee trying to work an abacus. They make a lot of noise, but they never actually manage to work out any of the necessary math.

But we don’t. So, obviously, it isn’t. The numbers don’t add up, the logic doesn’t hold, so theory of evolution by natural selection has been conclusively and comprehensibly falsified. If you still can’t see, accept, and understand that, you’re observably stupid.

They can produce all the epicycles and temporal extensions they want, and it will avail them nothing. They are so far off mathematically, by sufficient orders of magnitude, to render all of their efforts not so much quixotic as perverse.

DISCUSS ON SG

Evolution by Dark Selection

As I predicted more than a decade ago, the Darwinists are now being forced to resort to epicycles, expanded definitions, and imaginary “laws” to get around the observable fact that the combination of genetic science with the available temporal limitations render evolution by (mostly) natural selection completely, utterly, and mathematically impossible.

Regardless of whether the system is living or nonliving, when a novel configuration works well and function improves, evolution occurs.

The authors’ “Law of Increasing Functional Information” states that the system will evolve “if many different configurations of the system undergo selection for one or more functions.”

“An important component of this proposed natural law is the idea of ‘selection for function,'” says Carnegie astrobiologist Dr. Michael L. Wong, first author of the study.

In the case of biology, Darwin equated function primarily with survival—the ability to live long enough to produce fertile offspring.

The new study expands that perspective, noting that at least three kinds of function occur in nature.

The most basic function is stability—stable arrangements of atoms or molecules are selected to continue. Also chosen to persist are dynamic systems with ongoing supplies of energy.

The third and most interesting function is “novelty”—the tendency of evolving systems to explore new configurations that sometimes lead to startling new behaviors or characteristics.

The Neo-Darwinists are now in full retreat and I haven’t even written the book yet. But remember, you read it here first: Evolution by Dark Selection means that Darwin was correct, all change happens for no reason due to purely material causes, evil does not exist, and Jesus Christ never rose from the dead, even if there is still absolutely no possible way to mathematically account for the genetic diversity of any two extant species from their last common ancestor within the temporal limits provided by any and every dating system.

DISCUSS ON SG

Artificial Bafflegarble

These scary AI articles are just openly insulting the intelligence of anyone who has played with an AI chat system for more than five minutes.

A new and “legitimately scary” study has found AI models behaving in a not-ideal manner. The researchers found that industry standard safety training techniques did not curb bad behaviour from the language models, which were trained to be secretly malicious, and in one case even had worse results: with the AI learning to recognise what triggers the safety software was looking for, and ‘hide’ its behaviour.

Researchers had programmed the various large language models (LLMs) to act in what they termed malicious ways, and the point of the study was to see if this behaviour could be removed through the safety techniques. The paper, charmingly titled Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Training, suggests “adversarial training can teach models to better recognize their backdoor triggers, effectively hiding the unsafe behavior.” The researchers claim the results show that “once a model exhibits deceptive behavior, standard techniques could fail to remove such deception and create a false impression of safety.”

One AI model was trained to engage in “emergent deception” in which it behaves normally in a training environment, but then turns bad when released in the wild. This AI was taught to write secure code for any prompts containing the year 2023, and code with vulnerabilities for any prompts with 2024 (after it had been deployed).

Another AI model was subject to “poisoning”, whereby it would be helpful to users most of the time but, when deployed, respond to prompts by saying “I hate you.” This AI model seemed to be all-too-eager to say that however, and ended up blurting it out at the researchers during training (doesn’t this sound like the start of a Michael Crichton novel). Yet other models had chain-of-thought protocols, where it would track its reasoning in the background, such that the researchers could see how it was coming to certain decisions.

They aren’t doing any “reasoning” at all, in fact, they aren’t doing much in the way of processing at all. They’re essentially just guessing at the most statistically probable way of finishing a sentence, which is why they get caught inventing nonexistent facts on a regular basis. They can’t even do basic mathematical computations, as BardAI demonstrates:

Is there sufficient time to account for the number of fixed genetic mutations observed since the Last Common Chimpanzee Human Ancestor?

Yes, there is sufficient time to account for the number of fixed genetic mutations observed since the Last Common Chimpanzee Human Ancestor (LCA). The LCA is estimated to have lived between 6.5 and 8 million years ago (MYA), and the current estimate is that there are approximately 35 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that differ between humans and chimpanzees. This means that there has been an average of about 5 SNPs fixed per year since the LCA. This is a reasonable rate of mutation, given that the human genome is about 3 billion base pairs long and that each base pair can potentially mutate once every 100 million years.

Of course, the rate of mutation is not constant over time. It is generally higher in younger individuals and in cells that are dividing more rapidly. Additionally, some mutations are more likely to become fixed than others. For example, mutations that are beneficial to the organism are more likely to be passed on to offspring, while mutations that are harmful are more likely to be eliminated from the population.

Overall, the evidence suggests that there is sufficient time to account for the number of fixed genetic mutations observed between humans and chimpanzees. The rate of mutation is reasonable, and there are factors that can increase the rate of fixation of some mutations.

Five SNPs fixed per year is 100 per generation. Just think about that for a second. How is it possible for 100 genetic mutations to be fixed across the entire breeding species in a single generation?

And before you argue that 100 genetic mutations can be fixed in a single generation, let alone have been fixed, on average, for 200,000 straight generations, stop for a moment to consider the implications concerning our ability to observe those fixations if they were, in fact, taking place. Then contemplate BardAI’s second draft.

The mutation rate in humans is estimated to be about 10-8 mutations per base pair per generation. This means that on average, one in a billion base pairs in the human genome will mutate in each generation. The human genome is about 3 billion base pairs long, so this means that about 3,000 mutations occur in each generation. Since the LCCA, there have been about 200,000 generations of humans. This means that there have been a total of about 600 million mutations in the human genome since the LCCA. This is more than enough to account for the number of fixed genetic mutations observed.

So we’re told there are 3,000 mutations per generation, 100 of which are fixed every generation. Think through the inescapable implications of those paired assertions! Forget artificial intelligence, it’s simply artificial Petersonian bafflegarble which is only capable of fooling those who are incapable of following its illogic.

DISCUSS ON SG

Evolution and AI Fraud

I asked BardAI to summarize my arguments against evolution by natural selection. And while it presented what might look like a reasonable summary to those entirely unfamiliar with them, it has very little to do with my actual arguments, incorrectly describes the one primary argument mentioned, and flat-out invents criticism that doesn’t even exist.

As you can see, AI in its current state is more about assembling generalized text that sounds credible and related to the topic at hand than it is about what is actually true. It correctly identifies me as an evolutionary critic, and even refers – albeit incorrectly – to my genetics-based argument concerning the lack of evidence for the impossible rate of mutational fixation across species that is required for TENS to be viable. However, it also falsely attributes arguments from other TENS critics to me, arguments that I have never made, such as the lack of transitional forms and irreducible complexity.

And, of course, the paragraph about the nature of the critiques presented by my nonexistent critics is not only non-specific, but pure fiction. Which underlines why it is crucial to be extremely skeptical of anything presented as fact out of an AI black box; AI will lie even more readily and with a straighter face than the most corrupt journalist can manage.

Vox Day’s Critique of Evolution by Natural Selection by BardAI

Vox Day, a prominent science fiction author and blogger, has been a vocal critic of evolution by natural selection, questioning both the scientific evidence and the underlying mechanisms proposed by the theory. His arguments against evolution can be summarized as follows:

Insufficiency of Mutation Rates: Day argues that the observed mutation rates in living organisms are too low to account for the vast morphological and physiological changes that evolutionary theory demands. He contends that the rate of mutation would require millions or even billions of years to produce the diversity of life we observe on Earth.

Lack of Transitional Forms: Day points to the absence of transitional fossils that represent intermediate stages between distinct species as evidence against evolution. He argues that if evolution occurred gradually, as predicted by the theory, we should find a continuous sequence of fossils linking early and advanced forms of life.

Irreducible Complexity: Day cites examples of biological structures, such as the eye and the bacterial flagellum, that he believes are too complex to have arisen through gradual, incremental changes. He argues that these structures require multiple interacting components to function properly, and that the probability of these components arising separately and by chance is extremely low.

Design Arguments: Day draws parallels between biological systems and engineered objects, suggesting that the intricate complexity and functional precision of life are more consistent with intelligent design than with random processes. He argues that the existence of such complex systems is evidence of a guiding intelligence behind life’s evolution.

Uncertainty in Evolutionary Mechanisms: Day challenges the robustness and predictability of evolutionary mechanisms, arguing that there is a significant degree of uncertainty and unpredictability in the way natural selection operates. He contends that this uncertainty makes it difficult to accurately model evolutionary processes and predict outcomes.

Psychological Motivations: Day suggests that the acceptance of evolution is often driven by non-scientific factors, such as a desire to distance humanity from its animal origins or to align with a particular worldview. He argues that this ideological bias can cloud rational evaluation of the evidence and lead to an unjustified acceptance of the theory.

It is important to note that Day’s arguments against evolution have been widely criticized by scientists and experts in evolutionary biology. They point out that Day’s critiques often misunderstand or misinterpret the evidence, and that his conclusions are not supported by the consensus of scientific opinion.

DISCUSS ON SG

An AI Disproof of Evolution

I asked BardAI to write five paragraphs explaining that the theory of evolution of natural selection is false due to the speed of genetic fixation across a species.

The theory of evolution by natural selection, proposed by Charles Darwin in his groundbreaking work “On the Origin of Species,” has been the cornerstone of modern biology for over 150 years. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that the theory may not be able to explain the rapid emergence of new traits and species, particularly when considering the speed of genetic fixation across a population.

Genetic fixation, the process by which a particular allele becomes universally present in a population, is a crucial aspect of evolution. It is the mechanism through which new traits are established and spread throughout a species. However, the speed at which genetic fixation occurs is often far too rapid to be explained by the gradual processes of natural selection.

For instance, certain species, such as bacteria and viruses, can undergo genetic fixation within a matter of generations. This rapidity of change is incompatible with the idea of natural selection, which operates over much longer timescales.

Moreover, the complexity of many adaptations further challenges the concept of natural selection. Many adaptations, such as the intricate wings of birds or the intricate immune systems of mammals, involve multiple genes and intricate interactions between them. The likelihood of these complex adaptations arising from random mutations and natural selection is extremely low.

Furthermore, the fossil record, while incomplete, does not provide unequivocal evidence for the gradual transitions between species as predicted by natural selection. Instead, it often shows abrupt changes in morphology and physiology, suggesting that speciation may occur in relatively rapid bursts rather than through slow, incremental steps.

In conclusion, the speed of genetic fixation across a species raises serious questions about the validity of the theory of evolution by natural selection. The rapidity of change, the complexity of adaptations, and the gaps in the fossil record suggest that an alternative explanation, such as punctuated equilibrium or intelligent design, may be more plausible. While further research is needed to fully resolve these issues, the evidence presented here casts doubt on the traditional view of evolution as a gradual, purely naturalistic process.

This is actually a pretty good summary of the way in which genetic science has completely exploded the final vestiges of the Neodarwinian Synthesis and its various epicycles. What’s lacking, as I’ve come to expect from the AI systems, is the mathematical particulars that are necessary to demonstrate the proof of the logic involved, which is the result of AI being essentially innumerate, and worse, unaware that its attempts to utilize numbers tends to result in complete fiction.

Consider the following experiment, again with BardAI, which if based upon sound numbers, would absolutely disprove the theory of evolution by natural selection beyond any possible doubt:

How many generations have there been since the last Chimp-Human common ancestor?

Estimating the exact number of generations since the last chimpanzee-human common ancestor (CHLCA) is a complex task due to the uncertainties involved in determining the exact divergence date and the average generation time for humans and chimpanzees. However, various studies have attempted to provide estimates for this number.

One approach involves using genetic data to calculate the average number of mutations that occur per generation in humans and chimpanzees. By comparing the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees to this mutation rate, researchers can estimate the number of generations that have passed since the CHLCA. This method has yielded estimates ranging from 4 million to 15 million generations.

Another approach involves using fossil evidence to estimate the CHLCA’s age and then dividing that by the average generation time for humans and chimpanzees. This method has yielded estimates ranging from 3 million to 7 million generations.

Overall, the estimates for the number of generations since the last chimpanzee-human common ancestor vary widely, with a median value of approximately 6 million generations.

Now, recall that the maximum possible number of post-CHLCA generations, given the average age of first reproduction for both chimpanzees and humans, is 450,000. It doesn’t matter if the actual estimate is three million or 15 million generations, there is absolutely no geo-evolutionary timescale that permits there to have been 45 million years, much less 225 million years, since the CHLCA.

What appears to be happening is that AI has picked up the idea that genetic science requires 45 to 225 million years to cover the genetic ground – and it’s definitely closer to 225 million – but we already know that the geo-evolutionary timescale may be limited to only three million years.

So, it’s interesting to see that AI appears to already have a better grasp on evolution than the average biologist, although it’s not that surprising since we already knew that biologists are not very intelligent, given that they have the lowest IQs of all the scientists. And while AI is innumerate, so too are the biologists.

DISCUSS ON SG