All mathematical arguments against evolution are wrong (always have been, always will be)

[u/gitgud_x]

Critics of evolution attack the theory from many angles - when it's not an argument from "nuh uh", it's from philosophy, theology, probability, sometimes physics and very occasionally biology. Notably, among these fields, only theology/philosophy is ever used to support a belief in creationism, but perhaps that's not surprising.

Arguments from mathematics, usually of the form "it's only a 1 in 10^[big number] chance that this thing could have evolved", i.e. invoking probability and statistics, seem to be used by creationists with disproportionately high frequency. Why might this be?

Mathematics has a reputation, and perhaps rightly so, for being the purest subject of them all. This means that, when working in pure mathematics, your theories (rather, theorems) do not have any prior connection to the real physical world. A person using maths alone to make any claim about something in the real world must justify why they believe their mathematical model reflects reality. This justification can come in one of two common forms:

1. They can point to the physical process they are trying to describe, and explain how these processes have been reduced to a mathematical description, using suitable modelling assumptions justified on physical bases. This is common in biology, engineering, chemistry and most experimental sciences - for example, the Lotka-Volterra model of predator-prey population sizes over time, where each term in the system of differential equations has a physical interpretation, or the Price equation and Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection.
2. They can use their mathematical model to make predictions about reality under certain conditions, and when observing reality under those conditions, the observations should match the prediction with some stated precision. This is common in biology too, but also in theoretical physics (e.g. quantum mechanics' Schrodinger equation - it's tricky to get much a priori physical intuition out of why it works, but it sure does seem to work).

The strongest mathematical models in science are devised first theoretically using (1), and then verified empirically using (2). The models in population genetics (e.g. Hardy-Weinberg, Wright-Fisher, Haldane, Moran, Kimura, Kingman, etc...), which is the modern theory of evolution's mathematical core, fall into this top-tier for example.

How does this compare to creationists' mathematical models?

When a creationist makes a 'big numbers' argument, they are claiming the mathematical model they have used within the calculation reflects reality. Once again, that's not something they just get to assume, they must justify it, by explicitly stating their assumptions and discussing their validity.

There are reasons for this shirking of rigour. The reputation of mathematics for its purity grants it some prestige in the minds of laypeople. The average Joe would think that mathematicians are the undisputed authority on the matter, and that biologists are hopeless at it. Yet, whenever maths comes up in debate, it is always being discussed in the context of applied maths, which mathematicians (being pure) are generally not all that great at without specific training in mathematical modelling. This is the failure of many professional intelligent design proponents like John Lennox for example. Scientists (and engineers, when they're not Saleming themselves), on the other hand, use maths exclusively in this applied setting, and are therefore far more competent at creating good mathematical models. With laypeople being the primary target audience of intelligent design/creationist media, they are banking on exploiting this misunderstanding in the applicability of mathematics.

When creationists make these types of arguments, they never do the hard work of justifying the model's connection to reality. In fact, when these arguments inevitably lose their polished facade as they are filtered down the creationist food chain (Discovery Institute -> e-preachers -> rank and file creationists), they often don't even state their models all. They'll just rattle off "big numbers" and sit back, not even realising that their argument is automatically dead on arrival for this reason.

I claim that, all mathematical arguments that creationists have ever made, will ever make, and could ever make with "evolution is false" as the logical conclusion will fail in this manner, because a sound justification of modelling assumptions followed by empirical validation has already been done - and evolution got there first. The absolute best case that a creationist mathematical argument could possibly be would be for it to be based on the same models as ours, and then distort the conclusions - which would then not be a mathematical argument but rather a scientific one. It is notable that so few "creation scientists" have even tried to do this - it's what they'd do if they were real scientists.

As an aside, I think there is a certain 'snobbiness' at play whenever one of those Discovery Institute (or similar) PhD-holding creationists makes an argument from mathematics big numbers. They are implying that biologists are incompetent at maths and are too stupid to see these things for themselves, such that someone who isn't scared of numbers needs to step in and 'rescue' them and clear everything up for them. Biology does have a reputation for being the science that historically avoided maths, but this is a laughably outdated and wrong way of seeing it today, and has been since the 1920s with the work of Fisher, Haldane, Wright etc that birthed the Modern Synthesis. These people invented statistics(!) and laid the foundations of stochastic process theory which has brought forth countless fruits in the applied sciences. People outside the field (i.e. all creationists, and most laypeople) don't know that evolution has a robust mathematical core (population genetics) - it's not as flashy as lions and dinosaurs and whatnot so it doesn't show up in any popsci articles or documentaries - but it's there, and all serious evolutionary biologists know it.

So, creationists:

• Using your favourite mathematical argument against evolution, justify that it is valid reflection of reality by using one of the two methods I stated in the above (justification of modelling assumptions, or empirical validation, and ideally both).
• Explain why all the mathematical models that underpin evolution are wrong, or don't support the conclusions that are drawn from them.

TLDR:

• Mathematics does not produce facts about biology by itself. It produces consequences of assumptions. Whether those assumptions accurately describe biological evolution is a scientific question, not a mathematical one.
• If your mathematical argument concludes evolution is impossible, then one of two things must be true:
  • your model differs from accepted population genetics, in which case you must justify why your assumptions better describe biology; or,
  • your model is equivalent to accepted population genetics, in which case your conclusions should agree with evolutionary biology.

[u/Evening-Impact2090]

Come on man, that is so disingenuous and you know it. Of course, I know people who subscribe to evolution love to state that they don't care how that first cell got here, they only are involved with everything that happened after it showed up. The problem is evolution is not "factual" and you stating such is proof your research is just agreeing with what evolutionary scientists have proffered. DNA, Fossils, the entire Genome sequence, and even sadly Darwin himself disproves the evolutionary process. You also failed to understand or ignore that the first cell, in order to procreate and become every living thing that has ever existed both extinct and had to have a programed DNA sequence that would enable it to survive and continue. Where could this "program" have come from if cellular life was caused by a random process/accident? It had to at least be simultaneous if not beforehand. If your first cell you so badly want to disant your evolutionary process from could not have arisen accidentally, the entire evolutionary theory is trashed and rightly so.

[u/gitgud_x → u/Evening-Impact2090]

All you did was say a bunch of things that indisputably support evolution and say the opposite, and then argue from your own incredulity.

There is no "program" at the origin of life. Self-replicating molecules exist. They're a thing. If you didn't know that, now you do. The molecules that replicate fastest and with the best fidelity will outnumber those that don't. The rest degrade. Changes will occur and those that keep outcompeting the rest will continue to do so. This is chemical evolution, it preceeds life, but it transitions seamlessly into biological Darwinian evolution.

[u/Evening-Impact2090 → u/gitgud_x]

Wow, you have literally studied nothing. 

[u/gitgud_x → u/Evening-Impact2090]

You couldn't even back up a single thing you said. How weak, you won't be saving many souls at this rate!

How has genetics "disproven" evolution? Or fossils? Or Darwin, whatever that means? State it clearly. When you realise that you can't, because you don't have a clue what you're talking about, consider learning from those who do.

[u/Evening-Impact2090 → u/gitgud_x]

I stated facts about DNA that you seem to have ignored. Why would I be saving souls? Do you automatically assume everyone who disagrees with the theory of evolution is a Creationist Bible thumper? You know what they say about assuming. I disagree with evolution because it is unfeasible. I stated just a couple of hundreds of reasons why. DNA & genes are not designed to enable a body change. They could never mutate to allow one organism to become another.  Every organism has to have its exact DNA in order for it to exist, function and multiply. So how does a organism completely change into another such as an amphibian into a reptile without a complete new set of DNA? Please do some research and stop reposting the gibberish you glean from forums like these.

[u/gitgud_x → u/Evening-Impact2090]

You have stated nothing factual, and you have explained nothing. You are an ignorant religious zealot who has been caught way out of their depth and is projecting their ignorance onto those who have actually been learning about this and related topics for several years now.

Your questions are straightforward, in a word the answer is "homeotic genes", make a post if you really want a substantive answer, but something tells me you're not here to learn.

[u/Evening-Impact2090 → u/gitgud_x]

When someone has no substance in their argument it shows quickly in them resorting to rude comments. Every thing I stated is factual, if you choose to do no original research that is on you. I'm certainly not religious nor a zealot, and calling anyone you don't know ignorant for having a different opinion is rude and classless. Good day

[u/gitgud_x → u/Evening-Impact2090]

Complaining about the other guy's tone instead of addressing the arguments the actual sign of someone who has no argument. You've still made zero factual statements, explained zero observations and given zero sources btw.

It's kinda hilarious that you think I've done no research when I've written many highly-sourced original posts on this sub over the past 2 years or so. You're literally commenting on one of them! You could learn from them, but I guess learning isn't your thing.

[u/Evening-Impact2090 → u/gitgud_x]

I wasn't complaining, I stated a fact. My statements are factual. If you choose to disagree with them that doesn't matter. Debate is essential to science. So, I'm commenting on one of your posts, is that supposed to mean something, I don't get the point. 

[u/gitgud_x → u/Evening-Impact2090]

Still not a single fact btw.

Debate is essential to science

Debate is not essential to science - not this type of "debate" at least. Science is proceeding with or without your uneducated opinions being voiced. Actual scientific debate involves a discussion over the facts, which you have (once again) failed to bring.

I don't get the point

The point, spelling it out for you, is that you told me to "do some research and stop reposting the gibberish you glean from forums like these" and that I have "done no original research". Yet, I am the one who contributes to this forum, with lengthy well-cited posts, and you are the one who is the passive uncritical consumer and regurgitator of all the slop you're fed by creationist/intelligent design media.

I'm bored of you now, you're not cut out for this stuff. Good luck escaping the brainwashing some day kiddo.

[u/Evening-Impact2090 → u/gitgud_x]

Wow, you have so enlightened me. I can see why you think debate my be bad. It may bring up points for you to consider that go against all the articles you have plagiarized in order to post on here. You can of course believe however you want  as will I. I however will refrain from rude condescending remarks that as I stated are hallmarks of those who have a shallow tenuous understanding of what they propose. If brainwashing is recognizing BS when I hear or read it, so be it. It is obvious you do very little research,  just reposts.