Introduction to the Mathematics of Evolution

 

Chapter 24

 

Final Comments

 

 

The Evolution Debate

 

When my children were growing up, I used to play mind-games with them.  One person would try to mentally "kill" the other person.  However, the person could not directly "kill" the other person in the imaginary story, they could only put the other person in a situation from which it was impossible to escape alive.

 

For example, the conversation might go like this:

 

Me:             The bad news is that you fell out of an airplane at

30,000 feet.

Son:            The good news is that I had a parachute.

Me:             The bad news is that your parachute didn't open.

Son:            The good news is that I was headed for a haystack.

Me:             The bad news is that there was a pitchfork in the

haystack.

Son:            The good news is that I missed the pitchfork.

Me:             The bad news is that you missed the haystack.

Son:            The good news is that I landed on a pile of manure.

Me:             The bad news is that the manure was frozen solid.

Son:            The good news is that my suit of armor was very hot

and melted the frozen manure instantly.

and so on.

 

This is a good demonstration of the evolution debate.  It doesn't matter how ludicrous the scientific evidence for the theory of evolution is, or how bad the probability is, evolutionists will simply come up with some new spin to justify the theory of evolution.

 

I will give you a simple counterexample to the concept of "survival of the fittest."  Have you ever seen a liter of kittens just about the time they are able to leave the mother and go out into the dangerous world by themselves?  Who goes out first?  The strongest and most ambitious kitten goes out first.  Is this kitten ready to take on the world?  Absolutely not.

 

In fact, the strongest and most ambitious kittens are frequently killed because they are so ambitious they are most likely to leave the protection of their mother long before they are strong enough to defend themselves.

 

Of course, the evolutionists would disagree because they will always disagree with anything a creation scientist says.  And that is the point.  It doesn't matter what you say.

 

The battle between the theory of evolution and creation science will not end until the end of the world.  That is the fact.  There are so many people who want the theory of evolution to be true, for a multitude of different reasons; they will never give up their cherished theory.

 

If an unbiased "jury" were to look at the true scientific evidence from both sides of the debate, the theory of evolution would be rejected as scientific nonsense.

 

The problem is there is no such thing as an unbiased jury.  Nor is there such a thing as an unbiased judge.

 

But even if there was, the media would never give any publicity to any debate the theory of evolution lost.  So what would be the point of the debate?

 

In 1966, at the Wistar symposium, the theory of evolution lost badly.  Several world-famous evolutionists were at the symposium and had no answers for the criticisms of the theory of evolution generated by computer simulations and mathematics.  At that time scientists knew a little about DNA, but they had absolutely no clue how sophisticated DNA was.  And the theory of evolution still got hammered!!

 

It didn't matter.  After the symposium the evolutionists simply brushed themselves off, and continued to write new evolution books and preach the theory of evolution.  They were not interested in finding the truth; they were interested in supporting their egos.

 

The battle will go on and on and on.

 

 

Final Comments About the Theory of Evolution

 

It has been said that the lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.  Actually, the lottery is a tax on people who are bad at understanding the power of permutations.

 

In fact, a belief in the theory of evolution is a "tax" on people who are bad at understanding the power of permutations!!

 

For example, I wrote an encryption program which is "uncrackable."  Most people don't think an uncrackable encryption algorithm can be written.  Actually, many people can write such an algorithm.  All you have to do is have a really big "key" and include some mathematical techniques which cannot be traced backwards from the answer to the raw numbers in the formula or the raw numbers used in the mathematical function.

 

The general public is under the impression that no matter what encryption algorithms are developed in other countries, our "intelligence community" will be able to crack the code.  This is nonsense.  Many people around the world know how to write uncrackable encryption algorithms.

 

The laws forbidding the export of powerful encryption algorithms are designed to pacify the general public into an artificial state of security.  Almost all civilized nations have people who can write impossible to crack encryption algorithms.

 

The federal laws regulating encryption really exist so the "intelligence community" can spy on their own citizens by not allowing them to use "strong encryption."  The fourth amendment has been removed from the constitution under the doctrine that every citizen is considered a "suspected terrorist."

 

Let me talk about my encryption algorithm (and key size).  If the entire planet earth were converted into a huge microprocessor, and if the speed of electricity were increased a trillion-fold, my encryption keys could not be cracked in a trillion trillion trillion trillion years.  Why?  Because I understand the power of permutations.

 

The "intelligence community" doesn't like permutation-based encryption algorithms because they are impossible to break (if they are done right) because they involve huge, huge permutation exponents.  They only allow mathematical-based algorithms because they are easy to break or they allow algorithms which have small keys which can be cracked by brute force with their huge computers.

 

My algorithm is impossible to break, yet the "key" used in my algorithm is 9,000 times shorter that a key would be if it were the size of human DNA.  If we converted human DNA into base 10, the number of permutations needed to analyze DNA would be about 101,800,000.  The number of permutations of my key would be a little over 10200,000.  Remember, there are 10100 atoms in 1020 Universes.  There are 10200,000 atoms in 10199,920 Universes.  That is why my key cannot be cracked by using "brute force."

 

I could give the "intelligence community" the source code to my program and they still couldn't crack my keys.

 

Most people would look at the above permutations of human DNA (101,800,000) and the number of permutations in my key (10200,000) and say that a key the size of human DNA would be 9,000 times more difficult to crack than a key the size of my key (1,800,000,000 / 200,000).

 

That is the problem.

 

People don't understand how to work with permutations.  A key the size of human DNA would be 101,600,000,000 times more difficult to crack than my key.  That is: 10(1,800,000‑200,000) equals 101,600,000,000.  People don't understand the power of permutations because they don't understand the mathematics behind it.

 

If my key is impossible to crack, in a trillion trillion trillion trillion years, using a microprocessor the size of this earth, which is a trillion times faster than electricity; then the theory of evolution is mathematical nonsense.  If someone couldn't break my key using a computer the size of this planet, then evolution could not have created a human being, plus the DNA of 10 million other species, by random, mindless and directionless mutations, in one billion years or even a quintillion years.  It is insane, purely insane to think otherwise.

 

Even allowing for 10200,000 permutations of human DNA which could create a unique and viable human being (as always I use numbers which are generous to the theory of evolution); a random permutation of human DNA would only have a probability of leading to a viable human being of 10‑1,600,000,000.  This is far, far beyond an insane probability.  How about the probability of the other 10 million species on this earth, or which have been on this earth, which have multiple unique gene complexes?

 

What about consecutive species, meaning the consecutive "lotteries" involved in their random creation?

 

So what do all the bones of all the species tell us?  They tell us God has a very vivid imagination.  They also tell us that scientists have very vivid imaginations and that they don't want any competition from God.

 

Some people think that evolution occurred on some other planet or on some other galaxy or some other Universe and was transported to this earth.  Are the laws of permutations different on other planets?  Are the laws of chemistry different on other planets?  I think not.

 

The fact is that if evolution didn't happen here, it didn't happen anywhere in any Universe.

 

Scientists, with their limited intelligence, cannot even begin to comprehend the Universe, thus in their minds they wish to create their own Universe, with themselves at the head.

 

So what is the truth?

 

Go outside on some dark, cloudless evening.  Look at the stars.  Or better yet get a large telescope and look at other galaxies.  For every star our ancestors of a thousand years ago could see, we can now see trillions of stars.  What you are looking at in the sky is the handiwork of God.

 

When you study a DNA strand, you are looking through a microscope at the handiwork of God.  No human, and certainly no random series of accidents, could have created human DNA or a single prokaryotic or eukaryotic cell.

 

When you hold the tiny fingers of a newborn baby, you are holding the handiwork of God.

 

These things are the truth.  Scientists are not the center of the Universe.

 

Most religions consider humans to be the literal children of God.  That is true.  Perhaps, when the theory of evolution is done away with, we will start to move forward and find out we really are important.

 

But we are not important because we have made ourselves important by living in a scientific fantasyland; we are important because we know our spirits are the literal children of God and thus God has made us important because we are His children.

 

That is why we are important!!