It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Deductive Proof (antievolution)

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   
This is a little proof I thought up awhile back that would refute a general idea of evolution. It argues via contradiction.

My assumptions:

1. There existed (or still exists) at least one organism in an evolutionary tree. Let's call that organism Alpha.
2. There existed (or still exists) at least one organism of a defferent species in the same evolutionary tree that can call Alpha its ancestor. Let's call that organism Beta.
3. Between Alpha and Beta there existed (or still exists) an eventual linear progression of certain frequencies of alleles in order for for Beta to be classified as a different species.

Think of this linear progression as a number line, where the bars represent different frequencies of alleles between the two:

Alpha | | | | | | | | Beta
1--------------------------->8


Between frequencies 1 and 8, there exists at least one frequency change, 4 for example. Between 1 and 4 there exists at least one frequency change, 2 for example. Between one and two there exists at least one frequency change, .5 for example. Ad infinitum.

In general, given any 2 frequencies within that time frame, there are an infinite amount of linear frequencies between the two. We know evolution takes a long time, but who knew it would take an eternity? I have shown that given the assumptions above, accepted as true, would cause a contradiction; Alpha and Beta already exist even though it would take infinite time for that to be the case.

Therefore, at least one of our assumptions must be wrong:
A)There does not exist at least one species in any given evolutionary tree.
B)There does not exist at least one organism of a defferent species in the same evolutionary tree that can call Alpha its ancestor
C)Between Alpha and Beta there doesn't exist an eventual linear progression of certain frequencies of alleles in order for for Beta to be classified as a different species.

However, all three are required for contemporary evolutionary theories to be considered true.

Therefore, contemporary evolutionary theories must be false.

QED.

ps. If anyone is following closely, the proof models a well known paradox.


[edit on 4-2-2006 by radardog]

[edit on 4-2-2006 by radardog]




posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Who says evolution takes a long time? The Nene Goose here in Hawaii was a Canadian Goose just a couple hundred years ago. Then they found their way here and they're now a completely different subspecies. Have been for a long time. Going from monkey to human might take a long time, but from one species to a different one like the Nene won't take long. Yeah, they're still geese, but it's still evolution. They evolved into geese that don't swim, and walk on lava rocks, so they have very little webbing, and very tough leathery feet.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Evolution is merely the ability to adapt to the conditions a species is subjected to:
for instance:- a house cats ability to malt its fur when the whether changes from cold to hot.

Certain organisms develop immunities to their surrundings These become more dominant and are imprinted into the genes so the next generation carries them.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Who says evolution takes a long time? The Nene Goose here in Hawaii was a Canadian Goose just a couple hundred years ago. Then they found their way here and they're now a completely different subspecies. Have been for a long time. Going from monkey to human might take a long time, but from one species to a different one like the Nene won't take long. Yeah, they're still geese, but it's still evolution. They evolved into geese that don't swim, and walk on lava rocks, so they have very little webbing, and very tough leathery feet.


I was being facetious. There are cases reported of species diverging in relatively short times as well. I suppose it is relative. In any case, my proof would suppose that any evolution would be required to take an infinite amount of time. Read it closely. That being the case, the Nene Goose couldn't have evolved: it must have changed using a different method.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by spearhead
Evolution is merely the ability to adapt to the conditions a species is subjected to:
for instance:- a house cats ability to malt its fur when the whether changes from cold to hot.

Certain organisms develop immunities to their surrundings These become more dominant and are imprinted into the genes so the next generation carries them.


In the same respect, it could be said that water adapts to the temperature around it. However, this is out of context. Clearly this forum is about biological evolution. It is safe to note that biological evolution is defined very strictly, and webster doesn't really give it enough detail for us to have a scientific and/or logical discussion about it.

[edit on 4-2-2006 by radardog]



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 01:02 AM
link   
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.” Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 01:03 AM
link   


B)There does not exist at least one organism of a defferent species in the same evolutionary tree that can call Alpha its ancestor


would you call neandathal man your ancestor



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 01:04 AM
link   
what other evolution could there be other than bioloical evolution on a realistic scale?



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 01:08 AM
link   
The primary problem I see with your reasoning--and I might be misunderstanding your explanation--is that there's no set "speed" of evolution. There's no way to determine how quickly it covers a given set of frequency changes.

If you use the same logic, I'll never move my fingers on this keyboard--we have a definite starting point and finishing point, but there's an infinite number of fractional positions in between. It'll therefore take an infinitely long time for my finger to traverse that fraction of an inch between rest state and the key.

It takes me a while to type sometimes, but not that long



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by spearhead
what other evolution could there be other than bioloical evolution on a realistic scale?


It's a word game. Supposing we accept the, "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.” definition, if species were to change using a method outside the one described, then they are adapting to their evironment using a process other than evolution. Perhaps then science would come out with another theory and call that different theory evolution also (win-win scenario to the public).

For example, believe it or not, there exists more than one theory of gravity, and they are not all called "the theory of gravity," yet either way, the public will most likely call the most accepted theory, "the theory of gravity" simply of its use in our vocabulary.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by MCory1
The primary problem I see with your reasoning--and I might be misunderstanding your explanation--is that there's no set "speed" of evolution. There's no way to determine how quickly it covers a given set of frequency changes.

If you use the same logic, I'll never move my fingers on this keyboard--we have a definite starting point and finishing point, but there's an infinite number of fractional positions in between. It'll therefore take an infinitely long time for my finger to traverse that fraction of an inch between rest state and the key.

It takes me a while to type sometimes, but not that long


Different evolutionary trees may have "progressed" (if you want to call it that) faster than others, or rather speciated more often than others. That's not exactly the point either; if you follow my argument, then it would have you believe that any evolutionary step between any two related species would take infinite time. We obviously know that such a conclusion is absurd (changes have occured in much less than infinite time). That's why the argument is via contradiction, and that's why one of my assumptions must be incorrect. However, all of my assumptions are needed to be true if evolution is true.

That means evolution can not be true.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 01:16 AM
link   
So for evolution in your mind it must not follow a pattern. If it does then its not evolving but gaining knowledge on how to change?



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by spearhead
So for evolution in your mind it must not follow a pattern. If it does then its not evolving but gaining knowledge on how to change?


I'm not sure I follow. I'm saying that evolution either needs to redefined by the scientific community, or a theory with another name ought to be presented. And before it is asked: No, I do not have one to posit.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 01:30 AM
link   
If evolution could be graphed, and a pattern in the evolutionary change between alpha and beta becomes visible, is it evolution?

If a pattern can be discovered, then evolution can become a mathamatical equation. Since evolution appears to be random and distant between changes it seems improbable a pattern will be found.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by spearhead
If evolution could be graphed, and a pattern in the evolutionary change between alpha and beta becomes visible, is it evolution?

If a pattern can be discovered, then evolution can become a mathamatical equation. Since evolution appears to be random and distant between changes it seems improbable a pattern will be found.


Althought this is off topic from my argument....

The ability for absolute randomness is up for debate: Newtonian physics v. Quantum Mechanics. In newtonian physics, nothing is ever actually random, and you can think of all matter as some object, in some way or form. Even energy is matter in a different form, with respect to e=mc^2. Therein, we can note from Newton's 3 laws that:

1. An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

2. An object will only accelerate if there is a net or unbalanced force acting upon it.

3. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Here we can see all change in the universe (difference in position over time) can be traced back to something acting according to these three laws, and can be predicted using Newton's calculus. These laws set in perfectly with contemporary evolutionary theory; as allele frequencies change in a gene pool, they (eventuallly) change in such a way that helps a specific creature adapt to its environment better than others. While point mutations may seem random, it does have a cause and effect basis, sometime radiation from the sun, and sometimes an error in transcription. Other factors, such as selective mating, are also not very random -- obviously, being selective. Interestingly, physicists after Newton argued that if we knew the velocity and position of every particle in the universe, that one could predict the future of human and nonhuman events.

QM leaves us an opportunity to postulate that perhaps some mutations that drive evolution would arrive out-of-nothing, essentially random. Although, it would be a very hard task to prove it would be anywhere close to a feasible explanation.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   
A modification of the example from the initial post....


Think of this linear progression as a number line, where the bars represent different Spots between you and your bathroom:

You | | | | | | | Bathroom
0------------------------>8


Between You (Position 1) and your bathroom (position 8), there must exist a midpoint for line 0-8, which would be position 4, and before you could reach your bathroom you must cross this midpoint. Between 0 and 4 there must exist the midpoint to line 0-4, which would be position 2, and before you could reach position 4 you must first cross this midpoint. Between 0 and 2 there must exist the midpoint to line 0-2, which would be position 1, and before you could reach position 2 you must first cross this midpoint.

ad infinitum

Using the logic you presented in your example, I have just proven that should you feel nature calling you will never ever make it to your bathroom. There are an infinite number of midpoints that would have to be crossed, which would take you an infinte amount of time.

How can you get to the bathroom then?

The fault lies in the assumption that the process of moving from point 0 to 8 can take place in infintesimally small steps. Using the same logic I can 'prove' that you will never die, or that the hour hand on my watch will never ever reach 5pm today.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   



The fault lies in the assumption that the process of moving from point 0 to 8 can take place in infintesimally small steps. Using the same logic I can 'prove' that you will never die, or that the hour hand on my watch will never ever reach 5pm today.



Yet, you do not show the proof to be unsound. The paradox still exists.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by radardog
Yet, you do not show the proof to be unsound. The paradox still exists.



You state that between any two points on your linear progression that there are an infinite number of allele frequency changes. This would require that the change in allele frequency between two successive generations to be infinitely small.

Allele frequency is expressed as a percentage of those within a given population carrying that allele. The only way the change in frequency between successive generations could be infinitely small would be if that change took place within an infinite population.

When the logic behind a proof is shown to be flawed, the proof itself is rendered unsound.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join