Tag: evolution

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

Perhaps She Just… Evolved?

There appears to be a very strange situation surrounding JF Gariepy, the evolutionary biologist I debated on the subject of the mathematical impossibility of evolution a few years ago.

So, basically, there are accusations floating around that JF Gariepy murdered his wife and dumped her body in a remote forest in Canada. She apparently went missing in June, and he never told anybody. The cops only showed up when a neighbor noticed he hadn’t seen her in a while and started asking questions. So now it’s October, and this is the first thing he’s apparently said about this to anybody. Other than that when he got home, he went on a massive three-day cleaning spree, that (in his words) “sanitized” the house.

Basically, he claims one days she told him out of nowhere that she was leaving him to go live a life of adventure in the woods. Demanded that he drive her to a remote gas station at the edge of a forest, bringing nothing with her but her phone and the clothes on her back. No sleeping bag, no change of clothes, nothing. So then she got out and disappeared, and he never heard from her again. And I’m not kidding – that’s really the story he’s going with.

Considering that it took JFG three tries to understand a basic mathematical relationship, it’s not absolutely impossible that he might think it’s possible to rely upon such a flimsy and dubious explanation. But JFG is sufficiently neurologically unique that it’s also possible that he’s simply telling the truth.

Anyhow, here is hoping that it’s simply the usual e-drama over nothing.

DISCUSS ON SG

SF is Dying and LA is Next

The store looting community have migrated from San Francisco to Los Angeles:

Dozens of thieves ransacked the Nordstrom, smashing displays and stealing an estimated $60,000- $100,000 worth of merchandise, authorities said.

Police responded to the scene around 4 p.m., but no arrests were made.

Videos show thieves clad in black, wearing face coverings, grabbing clothes and running out of the store.

“What happened today at the Nordstrom in the Topanga Mall is absolutely unacceptable,” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said in a statement. “Those who committed these acts and acts like it in neighboring areas must be held accountable.”

That’s a lovely sentiment. But the reality is they aren’t held accountable.

These smash and grab robberies have become commonplace in big blue cities — even running nearly all major retailers out of a once-booming downtown San Francisco.

The same thing is happening in London. An astonishing number of retailers, major and minor, have been driven out of downtown San Francisco already, now Oxford Street and the Topanga Mall appear to be the next sitting ducks.

Europeans became civilized after several centuries of methodically executing thieves and imposing other violent forms of civilization. Asians went through the same refining process, but even longer. Africans never went through it, which is why the dyscivilizational genetic patterns that were significantly reduced in the other primary human sub-species are still prevalent in them. Evolution by artificial selection doesn’t produce new species, but it does produce better-behaved animals and human beings.

So the people of the West have three choices. Either impose the same cruel and merciless system of punishment on petty criminals today that the medieval Europeans did or watch civilization collapse in every single major city with a substantially vibrant population. Or, of course, bring back freedom of association and segregation, but we know that won’t happen until society itself collapses.

The nations will be homogenous again; the patterns of history are inevitable and the diversity of today is imposed, subsidized, and artificial. The only question is just how terrible the process involved will be.

DISCUSS ON SG

One Race, the Canine Race

No wonder social justice warriors don’t want to contemplate the mathematics of genetic populations any more than the evolutionists do. Because the more numerate you are, the more it is clear that genetic science has not only demolished the myth of evolution by natural selection, but also the myth of human equality.

Now, whether the charts are correct or not – and the jury is still out on that – the unarguable and easily verifiable fact is that Sub-Saharan Africans are not even entirely the same species as Europeans and other humans. Indeed, one can quite reasonably argue that Sub-Saharan Africans are the only true humans, as they are unadulterated Homo sapiens sapiens whereas other human races are a mix of Homo sapiens with other species and/or subspecies, depending upon how Homo denisova, Homo neanderthalensis, and other homids that contributed to the modern human gene pool are most correctly categorized.

Of course scientists are alarmed by the fact that the more we learn about genetics, the more the defense of one’s own genetics, culture, and language – aka “racism” – is grounded in strong scientific justification. So, some of them are already expending considerable effort in the usual word magick in order to deny the unavoidably observable. It’s not just because this long paper, Human Races Are Not Like Dog Breeds: Refuting a Racist Analogy, was authored by five female scientists that it doesn’t include any math or statistical analysis.

It’s never a good sign when a published scientific paper fails what would be an easy question on the pre-1990 SAT. African is to European as a) Grey Wolf is to Red Wolf, b) Grey Wolf is to Coyote, c) Grey Wolf is to Malamute, d) Grey Wolf is to Chihuahua.

DISCUSS ON SG

They’re Going to Need an Older Universe

They tell you to trust the science. But remember, science is observably less reliable than a coin flip.

Our universe could be twice as old as current estimates, according to a new study that challenges the dominant cosmological model and sheds new light on the so-called “impossible early galaxy problem.”

The work is published in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

“Our newly-devised model stretches the galaxy formation time by a several billion years, making the universe 26.7 billion years old, and not 13.7 as previously estimated,” says author Rajendra Gupta, adjunct professor of physics in the Faculty of Science at the University of Ottawa.

For years, astronomers and physicists have calculated the age of our universe by measuring the time elapsed since the Big Bang and by studying the oldest stars based on the redshift of light coming from distant galaxies. In 2021, thanks to new techniques and advances in technology, the age of our universe was thus estimated at 13.797 billion years using the Lambda-CDM concordance model.

However, many scientists have been puzzled by the existence of stars like the Methuselah that appear to be older than the estimated age of our universe and by the discovery of early galaxies in an advanced state of evolution made possible by the James Webb Space Telescope. These galaxies, existing a mere 300 million years or so after the Big Bang, appear to have a level of maturity and mass typically associated with billions of years of cosmic evolution. Furthermore, they’re surprisingly small in size, adding another layer of mystery to the equation.

Zwicky’s tired light theory proposes that the redshift of light from distant galaxies is due to the gradual loss of energy by photons over vast cosmic distances. However, it was seen to conflict with observations. Yet Gupta found that “by allowing this theory to coexist with the expanding universe, it becomes possible to reinterpret the redshift as a hybrid phenomenon, rather than purely due to expansion.”

In addition to Zwicky’s tired light theory, Gupta introduces the idea of evolving “coupling constants,” as hypothesized by Paul Dirac. Coupling constants are fundamental physical constants that govern the interactions between particles. According to Dirac, these constants might have varied over time. By allowing them to evolve, the timeframe for the formation of early galaxies observed by the Webb telescope at high redshifts can be extended from a few hundred million years to several billion years. This provides a more feasible explanation for the advanced level of development and mass observed in these ancient galaxies.

“Evolving constants”. Isn’t that what the creationists were mocked for when they suggested that carbon dating might be unreliable due to variable half-lives? It reminds me of the veriphysical principle that any theory which is not abandoned when falsified by the observable data, but is instead adorned with theoretical epicycles, is fundamentally false.

What amuses me about this is the idea that a few biologists, being innumerate as most biologists are, will undoubtedly have the bright idea of postulating that an older universe implies an older Earth, which therefore will provide enough time to account for the observed genetic fixations that have hitherto rendered the theory of evolution by natural selection mathematically impossible.

What they don’t realize, being innumerate as most biologists are, is that the mere doubling of a number is insufficient to make up for multiple orders of magnitude.

We shall await, with no little amusement, the additional epicycles to come.

DISCUSS ON SG

Another Nail in Darwin’s Coffin

One variable that is unaccounted for in my mathematical proof of the impossibility of evolution by natural selection is the way in which close genetic relations are observed to reduce life expectancies rather than enhance them. And yet, it significantly strengthens my argument.

A 2013 study in the Lancet reported that when first cousins reproduce, the baby’s risk of congenital problems such as heart and lung defects, cleft palettes, and extra fingers doubles. The childhood death rate among children of first-cousin marriages was roughly 5 percent higher than the rate in nonrelated marriages.

A 2014 study published in PLOS One found that children of two cousins are likely to have lower IQs and higher rates of mental retardation.

A 1993 study by genetics expert Dr. Alan H. Bittles of the University of London found that childhood death rates were about 16 percent in offspring of marriages of unrelated people, compared with about 21 percent in marriages between cousins.

The significance of this factor is that if a theoretically-advantageous mutation takes place, then the mutated specimens must breed with other identically-mutated specimens in order for the mutation to eventually become fixed. In other words, the children and cousins of the original mutated specimen must interbreed, and have such an advantage over non-mutated specimens that the intrinsic disadvantages of inbreeding are overcome to such an extent as to fix the mutation across the entire population.

However, it is observed that closely-related specimens have a significant built-in DISADVANTAGE with regards to attributes and life expectancies, and therefore, presumably, fitness as well. It would be very useful to learn the average extent to which inbreeding conveys a disadvantage with regards to fertility, as that alone might be sufficient to statistically falsify neo-Darwinian theory.

Given the numerous observed disadvantages of genetic inbreeding, it is very highly improbable that whatever advantage is conveyed by any one mutation will overcome the inherent disadvantages conveyed with it. Which provides further evidence that the theory of evolution by natural selection is not only false, but is obviously absurd.

UPDATE: The rhetorical version.

DISCUSS ON SG

Evolutionary Epicycles and Episyntheses

It was long ago, years before I demonstrated the mathematical impossibility of the current synthesis of the theory of evolution by natural selection with genetic science, that I declared evolutionists were going to have to develop a new theory of evolution. And now, lo and behold, some of the evolutionists themselves are finally beginning to reach the same conclusion due to the total failure of their pet theory as a useful predictive or explanatory model.

Strange as it sounds, scientists still do not know the answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth evolved. Take eyes, for instance. Where do they come from, exactly? The usual explanation of how we got these stupendously complex organs rests upon the theory of natural selection.

You may recall the gist from school biology lessons. If a creature with poor eyesight happens to produce offspring with slightly better eyesight, thanks to random mutations, then that tiny bit more vision gives them more chance of survival. The longer they survive, the more chance they have to reproduce and pass on the genes that equipped them with slightly better eyesight. Some of their offspring might, in turn, have better eyesight than their parents, making it likelier that they, too, will reproduce. And so on. Generation by generation, over unfathomably long periods of time, tiny advantages add up. Eventually, after a few hundred million years, you have creatures who can see as well as humans, or cats, or owls.

This is the basic story of evolution, as recounted in countless textbooks and pop-science bestsellers. The problem, according to a growing number of scientists, is that it is absurdly crude and misleading.

For one thing, it starts midway through the story, taking for granted the existence of light-sensitive cells, lenses and irises, without explaining where they came from in the first place. Nor does it adequately explain how such delicate and easily disrupted components meshed together to form a single organ. And it isn’t just eyes that the traditional theory struggles with. “The first eye, the first wing, the first placenta. How they emerge. Explaining these is the foundational motivation of evolutionary biology,” says Armin Moczek, a biologist at Indiana University. “And yet, we still do not have a good answer. This classic idea of gradual change, one happy accident at a time, has so far fallen flat.”

There are certain core evolutionary principles that no scientist seriously questions. Everyone agrees that natural selection plays a role, as does mutation and random chance. But how exactly these processes interact – and whether other forces might also be at work – has become the subject of bitter dispute. “If we cannot explain things with the tools we have right now,” the Yale University biologist Günter Wagner told me, “we must find new ways of explaining.”

Do We Need A New Theory Of Evolution, The Guardian, 28 June 2022

Forget epicycles and Darwinism. Now we’re officially into the realm of episyntheses being required in order to maintain the perception of scientific relevance for natural selection, neo-Darwinism, and neo-Darwinianism. Which means it won’t be long before all the serious scientists are publicly questioning the core evolutionary principles as well.

DISCUSS ON SG

High Verbal, Low Math

Steven Hsu explains why so many evolutionary biologists, and other would-be scientists, simply don’t understand the topics or implications of the topics they are attempting to discuss:

I sent the message below to a social scientist I know who (like many, perhaps understandably) is confused about Stephen J. Gould’s status as an evolutionary theorist. Many Gould readers are surprised to learn that his main expertise was the paleontology of snails and that he struggled with higher mathematics. When I first encountered Gould’s essays as a kid, I concluded that there was just no there there. He was all literary flourish and little depth.

Which brings me to an observation I’ve been meaning to write about. It is that high verbal ability (which Gould certainly had) is useful for appearing to be smart, or for winning arguments and impressing other people, but it’s really high math ability that is useful for discovering things about the world — that is, discovering truth or reasoning rigorously. The importance of math ability manifests in two distinct ways:

(1) Powerful (deep) models of Nature (e.g., electrodynamics or evolutionary theory) are themselves mathematical. Most of the incredible progress in our understanding of the universe is just not available to people who do not understand math. For example, we can talk until we are blue in the face about the Uncertainty Principle, but there is no precise understanding without actual equations.

(2) The statistical techniques used to analyze data obtained in a messy, complex world require mathematical ability to practice correctly. In almost all realistic circumstances hypothesis testing is intrinsically mathematical. It is quite easy to fool yourself statistically if you don’t have strong math ability, but rather are simply following cookbook recipes.

High verbal ability is useful for more than just impressing others — it typically implies a certain facility with concepts and relationships between ideas — but high V alone is a dangerous thing. The most confused people I meet in the academy tend to be high V, low (modest) M types.

We see this repeatedly in people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, JF Gariepy, Ben Shapiro, Dennis Prager, Sargon of Akkad, and Curtis Doolittle, as well as most e-celebrities. They talk and talk and talk in circles in a manner that is superficially convincing to the average intelligence, but an analytical critique of their positions reliably reveals fundamental flaws that render them incorrect, if not nonsensical.

This is because most people don’t have what I think of as “a sense of math”. It doesn’t necessarily mean any higher math training, or even much knowledge of mathematics per se, so much as an instinctive grasp of statistics and mathematical relationships. You don’t actually need much math to understand the basics of statistics and percentages, but you do need a sense of math to immediately know that Ashkenazi Jews in the United States cannot possibly have an average IQ of 115 given the fact that their relatives in Israel do not have IQs nearly two standard deviations below them.

You don’t need to know much about math or DNA to immediately know that the number of genes that are fixed in any given species cannot have been fixed in the time allotted for them to have done so given the fact that we cannot observe species literally morphing before our eyes in real time. You don’t need anything beyond a basic sense of math to immediately understand that religion is not, and has never been, a significant cause of war, much less the primary one.

And you certainly don’t need much math, although a little knowledge of military history is useful, to immediately recognize that claims of 1,000 dead Russians per day in an invasion that has conquered territory at a historically rapid pace are absurd.

The High V Low M scientists tend to be popularizers rather than original thinkers, which is why Steven Gould was always going to be a fraud once he decided to try to make a name for himself as “a very original and great evolutionary theorist.”

DISCUSS ON SG