Posted on 06/15/2017 12:50:19 PM PDT by Kaslin
Zero times anything is zero. The odds of life just happening by chance are zero.
This universe just springing into being by chance is impossible. It takes a leap of blind faith to believe in evolution, unguided or guided. Of course, there are tiny changes within kinds. It seems to me usually when the evolutionists make their case, they point to these tiny changes.
The analogies to the improbability of evolution by a random process are endless.
A hurricane blows through a junkyard and assembles a fully functioning 747 jet.
Scrabble pieces are randomly spilled out on the board, and they spell out the Declaration of Independence word for word. (Source: Dr. Stephen Meyer, author of Darwin’s Doubt).
A monkey sits at a typewriter and types thousands of pages. He types out word for word, with no mistakes, the entire works of Shakespeare.
The odds against our universe, of the earth, of the creation, to have just come into being with no intelligent design behind the grand scheme are greater than all of these impossible scenarios.
Forget the works of Shakespeare. What are the odds of a monkey randomly typing away simply spelling the 9-letter word “evolution” by chance? That doesn’t sound too hard, does it?
Dr. Scott M. Huse, B.S., M.S., M.R.E., Th.D., Ph.D., who holds graduate degrees in computer science, geology, and theology, wrote a book about creation/evolution back in the early 1980s, The Collapse of Evolution. Huse has done extensive study on these questions of random probability. I had the privilege of interviewing him about it for Dr. D. James Kennedy’s television special, “The Case for Creation” (1988). It was a type of Scopes Trial in reverse---filmed on location in Tennessee, in the very courtroom where the 1925 monkey trial took place.
Later, Huse created a computer program to see what are the odds of a monkey typing the word “evolution”? He notes that the odds are 1 in 5.4 trillion, which statistically is the same thing as zero. Any casino that offered such horrible odds would lose customers quickly, because no one would ever win. Forgive my bluntness, but the suckers have to win something before they start losing big.
Here’s what Scott told me in an email: “The typical personal computer keyboard has 104 keys, most of which are not letters from the alphabet. However, if we ignore that fact and say the monkey can only hit keys that are letters of the alphabet, he has a one in twenty-six chance of hitting the correct letter each time.
“Of course, he has to hit them in the correct sequence as well: E then V then O, etc. Twenty-six to the power of nine (the number of letters in the word “evolution”) equals 5,429,503,678,976.
“So, the odds of him accidentally typing just the 9-letter word ‘evolution’ are about 1 in about 5.4 trillion …From a purely mathematical standpoint, the bewildering complexity of even the most basic organic molecules [which are much more complicated than a nine-letter word] completely rules out the possibility of life originating by mere chance.”
Take just one aspect of life---amino acids and protein cells. Dr. Stephen Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science at Cambridge University. In his New York Times bestselling book, Darwin’s Doubt (2013), Meyer points out that “the probability of attaining a correct sequence [of amino acids to build a protein molecule] by random search would roughly equal the probability of a blind spaceman finding a single marked atom by chance among all the atoms in the Milky Way galaxy---on its face clearly not a likely outcome.” (p. 183)
And this is just one aspect of life, the most basic building-block. In Meyer’s book, he cites the work of engineer-turned-molecular-biologist, Dr. Douglas Axe, who has since written the book, Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed (2016).
In the interview I did with Scott Huse long ago, he noted, “The probability of life originating through mere random processes, as evolutionists contend, really honestly, is about zero…. If you consider probability statistics, it exposes the naiveté and the foolishness, really, of the evolutionary viewpoint.”
Dr. Charles Thaxton was another guest on that classic television special from 1988. He is a scientist who notes that life is so complex, the chances of it arising by mere chance is virtually impossible. Thaxton, now with the Discovery Institute, has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry, and a post-doctorate degree in molecular biology and a Harvard post-doctorate in the history and philosophy of science.
Thaxton notes, “I’d say in my years of study, the amazing thing is the utter complexity of living things….Most scientists would readily grant that however life happened, it did not happen by chance.”
The whole creation points to the Creator. Huse sums up the whole point: “Simply put, a watch has a watchmaker and we have a Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ.”
So Dembski repaired those deficiencies and formulated a criterion so stringent that it jolts the mind. He estimated 1080 elementary particles in the universe and asked how many times per second an event could occur. He found 1045. He then calculated the number of seconds from the beginning of the universe to the present and for good measure multiplied by one billion for 1025 seconds in all. He thereby obtained 1080 x 1045 x 1025 = 10150 for his Law of Small Probability.9
For four cards, the formula is 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 = 24. Try it! You can arrange only 4 cards in 24 separate ways.
If there were 5 cards, then the chances of a particular arrangement by chance are 1 in 120 (1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5).
We suggest that you click here to see how this works, otherwise you find it difficult to believe what follows. Because when you get to the 20th card, there are more different combinations of cards than there are seconds in two billion years...
With 9 there are 362,880, with 10 there are 3,628,800, with 11 there are 39,916,800, with 12 there are 479,001,600, with 13 there are 6,227,020,800, with 14 there are 87,178,291,200, with 15 there are 1,307,674,368,000, with 16 there are 20,922,789,888,000, with 17 there are 355,687,428,096,000, with 18 there are 6,402,373,705,728,000, with 19 there are 121,645,100,408,832,000, and with 20 there are 2,432,902,008,176,640,000 random combinations.
There are only 1,051,200,000,000,000 seconds in two billion years. So, with the random combinations of just 20 cards, one has already surpassed the number of seconds in two billion years by more than two thousand times...
There are 1,051,200,000,000,000 seconds in two billion years and there are 1,000,000,000,000,000 neurological connections - this would require a rate of evolution of approximately one fully perfected connection per second for two billion years. And is hardly even the beginning, because at the same time one would have to evolve a non-physical digital (?) code that describes not only millions upon millions of separate colors, but also every sensation, emotion and thought of man.
http://creationdesign.org/english/chances.html
So, yes. That looks like evolution.
"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence."
I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (New York: NW Research Publications, Inc., 1984), p. 205 (as quoted in Vance Ferrell, The Evolution Handbook (Evolution Facts, Inc., Altamont TN, 2001) p. 260
In order to circumvent the problem of statistical zero, evolutionists often argue that "Given enough time, anything can happen." This is not a rational argument. It proves nothing. It is a reference to practically infinite periods of time that lie beyond statistical zero.
"A further aspect I should like to discuss is what I call the practice of avoiding the conclusion that the probability of a self-producing state is zero ... When for practical purposes the condition of infinite time and matter has to be invoked, the concept of probability is annulled. By such logic we can prove anything ... "
P.T. Mora, The Folly of Probability, as quoted in Origins 13(2):98-104 (1986) Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Lind University, 1986. Emphasis supplied.
In fact the chances of the chance formation of just DNA - much less all of the applications of DNA - are so remote, they are far beyond statistical zero.
"This means that 1089190 DNA molecules, on average, must form to provide the one chance of forming the specific DNA sequence necessary to code 124 proteins. 1089190 DNAs would weigh 1089147 more than the earth ... A quantity of DNA this colossal could never have been formed.
R.L. Wysong, The Creation Evolution Controversy, (Inquiry Press, Midland MI, 1976) p.115, as quoted in The Evolution Handbook (Evolution Facts, Inc., Altamont TN, 2001) p. 261. Same Website as above
Actually the question to ask is - where did the primordial E come from.
But keep trying. With enough time, you’ll get there. Maybe.
and just a FYI for those who want quick rich text to html- this sire gives a quick easy way to do it- paste rich text in and click ‘source’ then copy the contents
https://www.quackit.com/html/online-html-editor/
To someone who sees everything as evolution, yes. To reasonable people, no.
Can’t accept when you’re wrong...
Quality character trait. You must be a pleasure. haha
>>>>[[Do molecules reproduce sexually?]]
>>Hey- beer goggles work wonders
The unmethylated S-HDAg all look prettier, and methylated, at closing time.
What does religion have to do with odds?
>>Can’t accept when you’re wrong...
You mean carbon doesn’t form by nuclear fusion?
Tell us how it does get created then.
>>Quality character trait.
Says the vociferously religious character who evidently wants to religiously leverage their ignorance into religiously assuming dominion over the faith of others.
>>[ifinnigean] But, anyhow, what I’m getting at is RNA is auto catalytic.
"One theory goes like this:
RNA, the compliment molecule to DNA, was the first to evolve naturally from materials already common in the pre-biotic Earth. Self-replication was achieved through catalytic actions in RNA-based molecules, called ribosomes, or possibly through an intermediary molecule.
This step still remains unverified to science as of this writing."
{ and after that miracle }
"Once self-replication had been achieved, the forces of Natural Selection took over. For example, those molecules which were protected from the elements survived longer and reproduced more. So, any molecules which found themselves with a lipid bubble (which also forms naturally) would have a better chance of reproducing. After many incremental steps, the lipid bubbles eventually became cell membranes, and the molecules DNA.
For more information on the probability of life forming this way, please see this article."
http://evolutionfaq.com/faq/how-could-dna-have-evolved
ifinnegan - how many different unique molecules are requisitely involved in the RNA replication process?
To say knolledge is meaningless if not empirical is like saying “This statement is meaningless”. Suppose it is true...then it would imply it itself is a meaningless statement, and thus not either true or false. Thus it is self contradictory. It is obviosly false.
This is the crux of a model for abiogenesis and evolution:
"Once self-replication had been achieved, the forces of Natural Selection took over."
ASSuming self-replication was achieved - would the forces of natural selection then apply?
Yes or No.
“ifinnegan - how many different unique molecules are requisitely involved in the RNA replication process?”
Two at each step, the existing polymer and the single base or second polymer is incorporated in to the chain.
>>Two at each step, the existing polymer and the single base or second polymer is incorporated in to the chain
No ribosome required?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribosome
Natural selection is not a manager. It does not “take over”. But it is a tendancy of things that reproduce to favor replications which are more likely to continue reproduction.
So, yes - Natural Selection would apply in the hypothesized system of, evolving, self-replicating molecules.
“No ribosome required?”
No. Not at all.
The write-up you saw and excerpted is the sort of thing I’m talking about, but it has some errors.
The ribosome is a much more developed structure, it is RNA and protein and it is the molecule that translates DNA in to protein by catalyzing the protein bond reaction. The ribosomal RNA is the catalytic part of the ribosome, not the protein. That was discovered about 20 years ago.
The author of the excerpt you posted meant to use the term ribozymes which means literally and simply, catalytic RNA.
So yes, it is RNA alone.
Tom Cech won the Nobel Prize for thus discovery which took place in the 80’s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.