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.”
When I said not winnable by me I meant that I won’t BUY a ticket.
I suppose I could come across a ticket that someone had misread and tossed away.
I wonder what the odds of THAT is??
I have noticed that it comes back with p’s and br’s but never knew it did anything else.
I’ll have to try it!
The Odds of Evolution Are Zero
Townhall.com ^ | JUne 15. 2017 | Jerry Newcombe
That didn't work at all!!
The Odds of Evolution Are Zero
Townhall.com ^ | JUne 15. 2017 | Jerry Newcombe
Yes. It’s a pity you can’t answer it.
Too bad about all those kids who’ve been so religiously disconnected from reality they can’t even figure out what sex they are.
[[When I said not winnable by me I meant that I won’t BUY a ticket.]]
Lol= your odds are zero then- unless someone secretly buys one for you
[[There is no species specific information.]]
There absolutely is- as mentioned several times now- species are prote4cted by species specific protective mechanisms on several levels- that is why species do not ‘macroevolve’ beyond their own kind. A clam does not have the genetic information to produce feathered wings- and no amount of genetic manipulation is going to produce that because the clam’s specific code and genetic protections won’/t allow it to-
[[Rather than opining about bats and silk worms]]
I will continue to opine about that because it’s a relevant argument and pertinent to the whole erroneous idea that new non species specific information gets spliced into a species and moves it beyond it’s own kind
[[try understanding the fundamental concepts regarding why sexual reproduction evolved and renders increased fitness for species.]]
Why do that when evolution is impossible on so many levels? Macroevolution would have to be possible in order to believe ‘sexual reproduction evolved’ but since macroevolution fails at even the very basic first steps- all the way through later stages- it’s a non issue-
An occurrence that has more than one chance in 1050, it has a statistically zero chance of actually occurring.
"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
The following explains how soemthing actually works, your book however goes into imagining why somethign might arise with not evidence to show it did or explanation as to how it did- Since evoltuion takes a lot of imagination, I suppose that imagining WHY sexual reproduciton evolved is right in line with the whole concept of ME- but then again we can imagine all sorts of things, like lucy, or piltdown man for instance
"MEIOSIS Gamete formation presents an entirely new engineering
problem to be solved. To form gametes in animals (and, for the
most part, to form spores in plants), a diploid organism with two
copies of each chromosome must form daughter cells that have only
one copy of each chromosome. In other words, the genetic material
must be reduced by half so that when gametes recombine to form
zygotes, the original number of chromosomes is restored, not
doubled. If we were to try to engineer this task, we would first need
to be able to recognize homologous chromosomes We could then
push one member of each pair into one daughter cell and the other
into the other daughter cell. If we were unable to recognize
homologues, we would not he able to ensure that each daughter cell
received one and only one member of each pair The cell solves this
problem by pairing up homologous chromosomes during an
extended prophase. The spindle apparatus then separates members
of the homologous chromosome pairs, just as it separates sister
chromatids during mitosis. But there is one complication. As in
mitosis, cells entering meiosis have already replicated their
chromosomes. Therefore, two nuclear divisions without an
intervening chromosome replication are necessary to produce
haploid gametes or spores. Meiosis is, then, a two-division process
that produces four cells from each original parent cell. The two
divisions are known as meiosis I and meiosis II." (Tamarin R.H.,
"Principles of Genetics," International Edition, [1996], McGraw-
Hill: New York NY, Seventh Edition, 2002, pp.55-56)
Evidence of intent and design, not random natural process-
[[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.]]
Well HLPhat- all the 'religious enthusiasts' that i know instruct their kids just fine about right and wrong- MOST kids listen to their 'religious enthusiast' parents- but like any group some will not listen to their 'religious enthusiast' parents- Want to compare 'religious enthusiast' parental success with secular parenting and their confused kids? I'm sure you will find that secular parents far outweigh the 'religious enthusiast' parents when it comes to not caring enough about their kids to Try to steer them away from destructive things like the mental disease of gender fluidity- Infact- I'm willing to bet that it was secular parents that have pushed for, and received, laws that BAN 'religious enthusiast parents' from taking their kids to reparative therapists
iology texts illustrate amoebas evolving into intermediate organisms, which then give rise to amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and, eventually, humans. Yet, we never learn exactly when or how independent male and female sexes originated. Somewhere along this evolutionary path, both males and females were required in order to ensure the procreation that was necessary to further the existence of a particular species. But how do evolutionists explain this? When pressed to answer questions such as, “Where did males and females actually come from?,” “What is the evolutionary origin of sex?,” evolutionists become silent. How could nature evolve a female member of a species that produces eggs and is internally equipped to nourish a growing embryo, while at the same time evolving a male member that produces motile sperm cells? And, further, how is it that these gametes (eggs and sperm) conveniently “evolved” so that they each contain half the normal chromosome number of somatic (body) cells? [Somatic cells reproduce via the process of mitosis, which maintains the species’ standard chromosome number; gametes are produced via the process of meiosis, which halves that number. We will have more to say about both processes later.]
The evolution of sex (and its accompanying reproductive capability) is not a favorite topic of discussion in most evolutionary circles, because no matter how many theories evolutionists conjure up (and there are several), they still must surmount the enormous hurdle of explaining the origin of the first fully functional female and the first fully functional male necessary to begin the process. In his book, The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution of Genetics and Sexuality, Graham Bell described the dilemma in the following manner:
‘Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. Perhaps no other natural phenomenon has aroused so much interest; certainly none has sowed as much confusion. The insights of Darwin and Mendel, which have illuminated so many mysteries, have so far failed to shed more than a dim and wavering light on the central mystery of sexuality, emphasizing its obscurity by its very isolation.’[1]
The same year that Bell released his book, well-known evolutionist Philip Kitcher noted: “Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians, there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction.”[2] Evolutionists since have freely admitted that the origin of gender and sexual reproduction still remains one of the most difficult problems in biology (see, for example, Maynard-Smith, 1986, p. 35). In his 2001 book, The Cooperative Gene, evolutionist Mark Ridley wrote (under the chapter title of “The Ultimate Existential Absurdity”):
‘Evolutionary biologists are much teased for their obsession with why sex exists. People like to ask, in an amused way, “isn’t it obvious?” Joking apart, it is far from obvious.... Sex is a puzzle that has not yet been solved; no one knows why it exists’[3] [emp. added].
In an article in Bioscience on “How Did Sex Come About?,” Julie Schecter remarked:
‘Sex is ubiquitous.... Yet sex remains a mystery to researchers, to say nothing of the rest of the population. Why sex? At first blush, its disadvantages seem to outweigh its benefits. After all, a parent that reproduces sexually gives only one-half its genes to its offspring, whereas an organism that reproduces by dividing passes on all its genes. Sex also takes much longer and requires more energy than simple division. Why did a process so blatantly unprofitable to its earliest practitioners become so widespread?’[4]
https://trueorigin.org/sex01.php
Beg to differ:
KZFPs partner with transposable elements to build a largely species-restricted layer of epigenetic regulation
Species-restricted? In other words, the designs we are discovering in biology are unique to particular species. This is precisely the opposite of what evolution expects. Note also the teleological language (which as usual is evident in the infinitive form): The proteins “partner” with the transposable elements “to build” a largely “species-restricted” layer of epigenetic regulation. This is a classic example of evolution’s absurd creation-story language.
The contradictory pattern was, of course, unsuspected. As Trono explains:
KZFPs contribute to make human biology unique. Together with their genomic targets, they likely influence every single event in human physiology and pathology, and do so by being largely species-specific — the general system exists in many vertebrates, but most of its components are different in each case. … This paper lifts the lid off something that had been largely unsuspected: the tremendous species-specific dimension of human gene regulation.
Yes, it was largely unsuspected. For what these findings reveal is a tremendous species-specific dimension of human gene regulation. In other words, we would need proteins and genetic elements to evolve, via independent and yet interdependent, random mutations, to construct an entirely new set of genetic regulation instructions. This is astronomically unlikely, no matter how many millions of years are available.
No need to bite my head off about it!!
but it looked so delicious
Ping
Are viruses and humans the same species?
Meanwhile, in reality land...
“Our findings imply that horizontal transfer of double-stranded RNA viral genes is widespread among eukaryotes and may give rise to functionally important new genes,”
http://jvi.asm.org/content/84/22/11876
>>Yet sex remains a mystery to researchers,
{Shrug}
Didn’t seem to be much of a mystery at the Nobel conference on the subject back in 1987.
https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Sex-Nobel-Conference-Xxiii/dp/0062502913
[[Yet sex remains a mystery to researchers,]]
Out of everything posted- that’s the only thing you glom onto? One innocuous statement? Really? Whatever- Your sex evolution is still nothing but hypothesis- nothing proven- so yes- it’s still a mystery with nothing to back it up evidence wise- have a nice day
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.