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.”
While online editors can provide a quick and convenient way to generate HTML code, they do have their limitations.
If you need to do some serious web development work, you'll probably need an offline editor — one that you can download and use on your own desktop or laptop.
For a desktop HTML editor, try any of the following:
| Title | Description 1 | Description 2 | ||||||
| Inline styles | Using inline styles in your HTML document is a bad practice because they break the default styles of the website! | Use classes and IDs instead! |
||||||
| Setting margins |
Do not use spaces or empty paragraphs
to set vertical and horizontal gaps. |
←| Use margin, padding, →| and line-height instead ↕ |
||||||
| Links and images | This is a text link and this is an image:  |
And this is a link image: |
||||||
| Tables and lists |
|
|
||||||
| Floating an image |
Floating with inline style
|
Floating with classes
|
the above was just a test- the text was copied from two online html editors here: https://htmlg.com/html-editor/ and here: https://html-online.com/editor/
seems to work well
Well; “The cheetahs are gonna die out ‘cause they ain’t diverse enough.”
http://www.brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/54364.aspx
Sounds like they’ve just evolved YESTERDAY!
Kinda messes up the ape-prehuman A and ape-prehuman B gettin’ it on and producing The First Human; who then passes IT’s characteristics on when gettin’ jiggy with ape-prehuman C.
?
Don’t know; but the Participation Trophy is highly in demand in our skuls!
Those worms are in BIG cans!
Not by ME!
>>and the lack of evidence is another strong nail in the coffin
Ask cold blooded dinosaurs and warm blooded mammals about that.
“If there is no evolution, then why do we share the DNA of all the living creatures on the earth?”
Why not? Who says living tissue must be made of completely different substances.
the odds are low for sure- but it’s at least winnable- the probability of winning is a reality, with evolution there is no possibility because the odds are beyond the upper probability limit- way beyond
“Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10^50 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence.”
Lottery is well below that- evolution probability is way above that 10^50 limit of possibility
did i misunderstand your point on splicing? I’m assuming you believe it happens when species evolve? You seem to make the case that splicing adds genetic info- if so, where is the evidence that new non species specific information gets added, which is an absolute necessity for evolution beyond a species kind?
Again, Am i misunderstanding you point for zeroing in on splicing aDDINg genetic info?
“Where did carbon come from? Who created it?”
Stars. Fusion reaction.
>>I’m assuming you believe it happens when species evolve?
Splicing (cutting and rearranging / inserting code) is only one factor that can result in the modifications to an organism's (and a species') genome that drive Natural Selection. Other common factors are radiation and chemicals in food/water/air.
Anything that modifies genetic coding creates a new genotype - and it is the change in genome that drives Natural Selection by effecting and affecting the fitness of species.
One simple measure of the new genotype's fitness is the number of reproductively viable offspring produced over multiple generations.
Observe the process in the context of viruses...
...and the beneficial (to viruses anyhow) resulting diversity of viral species.
For species with a lower rate of reproduction, the impact upon fitness becomes more visible in the context of relatively large and stressful environmental changes. A simple definition of stress being - some condition that requires an adaptation to maintain a population.
The stress could be something like an ice age, a famine, a communicable disease, the discovery/manufacture of a new food source (like alcohol, the poisonous aspects of which some individuals are better adapted to than others), or an invention - of something like warfare, or TV.
Some humans are immune to deadly infections like Ebola and HIV. How did that happen? Something adaptive happened somewhere in the history of their genome.
https://www.google.com/#q=Natural+Resistance+to+Ebola
Of course many (most?) adaptations are less than beneficial for the host - for example:
“Viral oncogenes are responsible for oncogenesis resulting from persistent virus infection. Although different human tumor viruses express different viral oncogenes and induce different tumors...”
http://www.ijbs.com/v06p0730.htm
>>Sounds like they’ve just evolved YESTERDAY!
More like they became less diverse YESTERDAY.
How did that happen?
Speaking of diversity - Why did the Natural Selection of binary sexual reproduction have a beneficial impact upon the fitness of species?
Yeah but there’s bigger cans — AFAIK, Fight Club was never released on 70mm IMAX!
Cans will soon be all digital anyways.
Alas poor Kodachrome.
[[Anything that modifies genetic coding creates a new genotype]]
Only within the boundaries of species specific information- as mentioned before, species have several layers of protections that prevent them moving beyond their own kinds
[[and it is the change in genome that drives Natural Selection by effecting and affecting the fitness of species.]]
I had asked about evolution, not natural selection- NS works on species specific info- it doesn’t add new non species specific info- it can’t add spider silk mechanism to a bat or rat- it can onyl alter what is already present and allowed by the species protective mechanisms
[[For species with a lower rate of reproduction, the impact upon fitness]]
Again, we’re not discussing fitness or NS- I had asked about splicing resulting in new non species ‘allowed’ or ‘specific’ if you prefer, info (IE splicing adding in info to create silk in say a wombat, or a platypus bill into a goat- I’m not aware of any such splicing that creates new non species specific info out of nothing but a mistake
[[Some humans are immune to deadly infections like Ebola and HIV.]]
Resistance doesn’t = macroevolution
There is no species specific information. Only genotypes constructed from common code elements.
That's why the genetic code carried by viruses gets succesfully spliced into human genotypes.
>>I had asked about evolution, not natural selection-
>>Again, we’re not discussing fitness or
Evolution, Natural Selection, and Fitness...
All apply in the study of...
Rather than opining about bats and silk worms - try understanding the fundamental concepts regarding why sexual reproduction evolved and renders increased fitness for species.
That might be slightly more constructive in the context of a culture where dominion assuming religion enthusiasts have failed to connect their children with reality to such an extent THAT THEY CAN'T EVEN FIGURE OUT WHAT SEX THEY ARE, Bob.
.
What is your question?
Have you never used the “Spell” function for html conversion?
It works great.
.
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.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, nonumes voluptatum mel ea, cu case ceteros cum. Novum commodo malorum vix ut. Dolores consequuntur in ius, sale electram dissentiunt quo te. Cu duo omnes invidunt, eos eu mucius fabellas. Stet facilis ius te, quando voluptatibus eos in. Ad vix mundi alterum, integre urbanitas intellegam vix in.