# Evolution is a Mathematical Impossibility | Yes? | No? | Evolutionism vs Creationism, the Great Debate

(2 Timothy 4:3) For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.

**Here is just one example of why evolution is a mathematical impossibility
**

**The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution**

According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are *random *changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the “good” mutations and allows the others to pass away.

Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually *observed *a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people—until it is examined *quantitatively*, that is!

For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily “mutate” (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates “downward,” then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.

Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, *at least*, 200 successive, successful such “mutations,” each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are *extremely *rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.

But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)^{200}, or one chance out of 10^{60}. The number 10^{60}, if written out, would be “one” followed by sixty “zeros.” In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular “parts.”

The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 10^{18} seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth’s 10^{14} square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 10^{9}) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 10^{18} seconds, there can, therefore, be 10^{18}/10^{2}, or 10^{16}, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 10^{14} (10^{9}) (10^{16}), or 10^{39} attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 10^{60}, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 10^{39} attempts might be successful is only one out of 10^{60}/10^{39}, or 10^{21}.

All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!

**Discussion**

There have been many other ways in which creationist writers have used probability arguments to refute evolutionism, especially the idea of random changes preserved, if beneficial, by natural selection. James Coppedge devoted almost an entire book, *Evolution: Possible or Impossible* (Zondervan, 1973, 276 pp.), to this type of approach. I have also used other probability-type arguments to the same…

Discover More…

I can tell you that from what I have studied and discovered, I can definitely say with confidence that evolutionism is born out of a major disinformation and mind control psyop project perpetrated by the powers that be as a new religion. A new “system of Control”, if you will.

If you just have a look around you, you can see the fingerprint of an intelligent creator in everything you study, this includes even mathematics. I could point out a million different things that prove this but for the sake of time and space, I will simply provide only one example here for the purpose of debate.

The necessary truth of the laws, far from making it impossible that miracles should occur, makes it certain that if the Supernatural is operating they must occur. For if the natural situation by itself, and the natural situation plus something else, yielded only the same result, it would be then that we should be faced with a lawless and unsystematic universe. The better you know that two and two make four, the better you know that two and three don’t.

This perhaps helps to make a little clearer what the laws of Nature really are. We are in the habit of talking as if they caused events to happen; but they have never caused any event at all. The laws of motion do not set billiard balls moving: they analyze the motion after something else (say, a man with a cue, or a lurch of the the liner, or, perhaps, supernatural power) has provided it. They produce no events: they state the pattern to which every event — if only it can be induced to happen — must conform, just as the use of arithmetic state the pattern to which all transactions with money must conform — if only it can get hold of any money. Thus in one sense the laws of Nature cover the whole field of space and time; in another, what they leave out is precisely the whole real universe — the incessant torrent of actual events which makes up true history. That must come from somewhere else. To think the laws can produce it is like thinking that you can create real money by simply doing sums. For every law, in the last resort, says ‘If you have A, then you will get B’. But first catch your A: the laws won’t do it for you. Miracles (1974) pp.93-94

Can you think of other reasons why evolution is impossible?

Do you think this theory of mathematical impossibility is incorrect?

Tell me your thoughts on this and why you believe what you believe.

Let’s begin a healthy discussion on this topic shall we…?

RedPill signing off…

## One thought on “Evolution is a Mathematical Impossibility | Yes? | No? | Evolutionism vs Creationism, the Great Debate”