The Odds of Evolution Are Zero

Townhall.com ^ | JUne 15. 2017 | Jerry Newcombe

[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.”

[HLPhat]

>>not sure why this is even an issue?

It's an issue because fallible and uninspired men, like you, try to assume dominion over the faith of others with NewSpeak lies, like yours, Bob.

"I had asked about evolution, not natural selection [blah blah YED blah]"

298 posted on 6/17/2017, 12:05:18 PM by Bob434

[Evolution]

...the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization)
Since 1950, developments in molecular biology have had a growing influence on the theory of evolution. — Nature
In Darwinian evolution, the basic mechanism is genetic mutation, followed by selection of the organisms most likely to survive. — Pamela Weintraub

Evolution | Evolution Definition by Merriam-Webster (NOT the Y.E.D. Newspeak Dictionary)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution

[Fitness]

Medical Definition of fitness. : the capacity of an organism to survive and transmit its genotype to reproductively fertile offspring as compared to competing organisms; also : the contribution of an allele or genotype to the gene pool of subsequent generations as compared to that of other alleles or genotypes.
Fitness | Fitness Definition by Merriam-Webster (NOT the Y.E.D. Newspeak Dictionary)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fitness

 

".. truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them. "

 

"I HAVE SWORN UPON THE ALTAR OF GOD ETERNAL HOSTILITY TO EVERY FORM OF TYRANNY OVER THE MIND OF MAN"

--The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom
--Thomas Jefferson, 1786

https://www.google.com/webhp?#q=truth%20is%20great%20and%20will%20prevail%20if%20left%20to%20herself

"EDUCATE THE COMMON PEOPLE"
--
Thomas Jefferson

 

[HLPhat]

>>can we treat both science and the Bible with all due respect and without doing harm to either?

"Truth is Great and will prevail"
--Thomas Jefferson

Kind'a the whole point of the 1st amendment.

The Dominionist Useful Idiot branch of Cultural Marxists-R-Us, OTOH, seem to have something else in mind.

[Heartlander]

Yes - I disagree.... Physicist Rob Sheldon explains why front-loading won’t work in his article, The Front-Loading Fiction (July 1, 2009):

Historically, the argument for front-loading came from Laplacian determinism based on a Newtonian or mechanical universe — if one could control all the initial conditions, then the outcome was predetermined. First quantum mechanics, and then chaos-theory has basically destroyed it, since no amount of precision can control the outcome far in the future. (The exponential nature of the precision required to predetermine the outcome exceeds the information storage of the medium.)

But “front-loading” permitted Deists to say that God designed the Universe, and then stepped back and let “natural” forces operate, thereby removing any “supernatural” interference of the sort that Lucretius fumed about in 50 BC. So if Newtonian determinism was now impossible, perhaps there could be some sort of algorithmic determinism (which I’ll call Turing determinism) which could step in and permit a Deist to avoid the supernatural. That is, God doesn’t have to create the oak from the acorn anymore, but the biological program He inserted in the acorn can handle all the intermediate steps. So perhaps, God didn’t have to create humans, but the biological program in the first living cell He created, started the ecosystem that eventually evolved humans…

Ian Turing himself addressed a number of algorithmic dilemmas with the thought experiment of the deterministic computer now called a Turing machine. He asked if the outcome of such a computer can always be predicted, and demonstrated several examples of completely unpredictable behavior. Applying this to our biological example, it says that some organisms may act/evolve unpredictably, though perhaps not the ones God programmed.

But Turing went beyond this existence proof, and demonstrated necessity — a computing machine with feedback, where the output tape went into the input, was always unpredictable. In our biological example, we have to define the input and the output. TE [theistic evolution] tells us that the input is an organism, and the output is more organisms, and the computer is the organism too. In other words, the type of algorithmic determinism required by TE is not weakly, but strongly recursive, and therefore doubly unpredictable.

Even should God have infinite knowledge of the outcome of such a biological algorithm, the information regarding its outcome cannot be contained within the system itself. Therefore if the system is determined, it must be determined externally, with constraints outside of biology, which is exactly the definition of the supernatural that the TE “front-loading” was intended to remove!

[Bob434]

[[and then stepped back and let “natural” forces operate, thereby removing any “supernatural” interference]]

Except supernatural interference would still be needed because in order for evolution to take place, it must violate the natural laws- that is what makes it biologically, chemically and thermodynamically impossible- mathematically, it's impossible EVEN IF natural laws were suspended because there are no real world examples of higher species receiving new non species specific info which adds positive information to the coding which would be an absolute musty in order for evolution to be possible- none- and it would take billions of positive additions- yet we can't find any- because that is not how nature works- period- in order to believe evolution happened. we would have to suspend all logic and believe nature somehow supernaturally overcame it's own limits billions of times IN THE PAST, and somehow stopped completely before any records of it happening were formed in fossils-

[[but the biological program in the first living cell He created, started the ecosystem that eventually evolved humans…]]

IF that were true, there would be ample evidence that shows nature is able to violate it's own laws- There is no evidence, only a hypothesis which operates on pure faith

[[Ian Turing himself addressed a number of algorithmic dilemmas with the thought experiment of the deterministic computer now called a Turing machine.]]

There was another computer model (A supposed mouse evolution model) created by a recent scientist which attempted to show how evolution 'could happen'- it was much touted for awhile, until it was closely examined at which point it proved that intelligent design was needed to guide the program to avoid the natural limits imposed on it, as well as intelligent design needed to control the environment in order to favor the process and avoid thermodynamic breakdown- the program also artificially selected only those results which helped it achieve a desired end outcome- ie the system was rigged by intelligent design to result in a desired outcome The following shows that Genetic Algorithms fail to make the case for random evolutionary life:

[[While some evolutionists claim genetic algorithms as evidence that microbe to man evolution is possible, the claims are flawed on several points.

• Many times, Genetic algorithms start with a random "gene" sets. In the real world an organism with random genes would not live. On the other hand, when genetic algorithms starts with functional and viable solutions this does not fit within the theory of evolution, which reportedly starts from amino acids that were formed in a kind of primordial soup. In the second case, it looks more like the creation model since the early types appear ready.
• Genetic algorithms have no fatal steps. In the real world genes are complex instructional codes such that combination's that are intermediaries between two viable states can often be fatal. It is much like a computer program, in that has discrete commands, but trying to go from one command to another 1 bit at a time will cause the program to crash.
• Genetic algorithms place the instructions for critical functions such as reproduction beyond the influence of the mutations, as such no mutation will disrupt those functions. In the real world critical functions can often be destroyed by mutations.
• Genetic algorithms never produce new capabilities beyond what is pre-programmed into them. Microbe to man evolution requires totally new and complex capabilities to be developed many many times.
• Genetic algorithms start with fully functional processes designed into them. Microbe to man Evolution requires these processes to be developed from scratch, but they are needed for life.
• Genetic algorithms are designed by intelligent programmers with a specific problem in mind and fully functional from the start. To properly mimic biological evolution, the "organisms" would need:
  • The "organisms" would have to be a fully functional program, with a detailed programing language that tells it how to do every thing.
  • The "organisms" would have to develop the programing language from scratch with no input from a programmer.
  • The "organisms" would have to develop the entire operating system from scratch with no input from a programmer.
  • The "organisms" would have to develop a system to read and write the programing instructions also from scratch with no input from an intelligent agent.
  • The "organisms" would have to develop and build the computer memory and processor from scratch with no input from an intelligent agent.
• Genetic algorithms have a narrow definition of fitness. The "fitness" of the "organism" is measured based on how well is fits a specific problem. In the real world organisms ether live or die. If they live long enough, they usually reproduce. According to Wikipedia this is a type of problem that genetic algorithms (GAs) can not effectively solve.

“	GAs can not effectively solve problems in which there is no way to judge the fitness of an answer other than right/wrong, as there is no way to converge on the solution. These problems are often called "needle in a haystack" problems.[6]

http://creationwiki.org/Genetic_algorithm

[[Therefore if the system is determined, it must be determined externally, with constraints outside of biology, which is exactly the definition of the supernatural that the TE “front-loading” was intended to remove!]]

Bingo! That's exactly what the above software proved-

[HLPhat]

>>it must violate the natural laws- that is what makes it biologically, chemically and thermodynamically impossible-

Baloney. Photosynthesis is a physical process that manufactures order without violating thermodynamic entropy.

[Elsie]

You're being way too clever for me.
So make your point, or forget it; you see.
I've no patience for riddles,
or grape juice and Skittles®
...but the truth will set you free.

John 8:32

[BroJoeK]

HLPhat: "The point is you don’t understand entropy and how the 2nd law of thermodynamics isn’t broken by the “complexifying” of everyday photosynthesis."

Many posters here attempt to weaponized the 2nd law of thermodynamics against evolution theory, saying, in effect: entropy makes evolution ("complexification") impossible.
My guess still is that's you're ultimate point, but now you wish to make it through the round-about route of pointing out where entropy doesn't apply, photosynthesis, right?

That's the problem with riddles -- I don't "get" where you're heading with this.
If you intend to weaponized the 2nd law... why not just say it, and if not, then where are you going with this?

[BroJoeK]

Elsie: "Define all you want; but the PRACTICE on the ground is much different. "

Agreed, up to a point, and children will not much distinguish between a little mermaid, (under the sea, Darling it's better, Down where it's wetter, Take it from me), a cartoon dinosaur roaming the land with Alley Oop (Alley Oop, oop, oop-oop, Ride, Daddy, ride Hi-yo dinosawruh), Noah in his Ark (When Noah had drifted on the flood many days, He searched for land (He searched for land), In various ways (various ways), Troubles, he had some...) or Easter bunnies.

All are part of a magical realm a young child will only slowly learn to distinguish from the alleged "real world".
But they will eventually ask, and then teachers should be ready with appropriate definitions.

Among them, a child can be told that science does not "disprove" religion, it merely assumes no supernatural explanations can be admitted as scientific.
Why, you ask?
Well, child, it's because our science can't study God, don't you see, only what He made?

[BroJoeK]

Elsie: "I'll accept, 'I don't know.' "

I have no clue what you're talking about here, so you're firing blanks, FRiend.

[BroJoeK]

HLPhat: "Where is entropy increased in the context of the E that drives photosynthesis on Earth?"

And the punch-line of your little joke is what, FRiend?

[BroJoeK]

Bob434: "it does no disservice to God to claim He is the end all be all of intelligent Designers- not sure why this is even an issue?"

But your term "intelligent design" might apply to anything, including Planet Koozebane:

[BroJoeK]

Bob434: "...you discount the actual im;possibilities associated with macroevolution (ie: chemical impossibilities, biological, thermodynamic, mathematical- any one of which puts a nail in the coffin for hte idea of macroevolution possibility- but taken all together- ensure that it’s not even remotely possible..."

But there are no impossibilities -- zero, zip, nada impossibilities -- "associated with" macro-evolution, because among other things, there's no such a thing as "macro-evolution".
There is only, ever, micro-evolution -- day in, day out, generation by generation, over millions & millions of generations, each one slightly adapts, gets selected & evolves.
That's micro-evolution.

So called macro-evolution is simply looking first at an early example, then one from much later and noting the accumulated micro-adaptions seem pretty remarkable, when taken as a whole.

So called macro-evolution is simply short-hand for accumulated micro-adaptions, nothing else.

[BroJoeK]

HLPhat: "The Dominionist Useful Idiot branch of Cultural Marxists-R-Us, OTOH, seem to have something else in mind. "

Since you use only vague generalities, your words might mean most anything.
Is your concern that children are being taught only science in school, not religion?
Let me suggest you send your children to your church's Sunday school for that.
You seriously do not want government employees teaching your children your religion, FRiend.

[BroJoeK]

Heartlander: "Therefore if the system is determined, it must be determined externally, with constraints outside of biology..."

So in your long-winded way, you do agree with me.

Thanks!

[BroJoeK]

Bob434: "Except supernatural interference would still be needed because in order for evolution to take place, it must violate the natural laws- that is what makes it biologically, chemically and thermodynamically impossible- mathematically, it's impossible EVEN IF natural laws were suspended..."

I disagree that we can identify any specific example of Supernatural interference in the natural realm.
Yes, there are many amazing things which can point to God's creation, for anyone seeking Him.
But for others, those things simply speak of happy coincidence, good luck and random (albeit amazing) chance.

God granted us all free will, including the freedom to believe, or not.

[BroJoeK]

Elsie: "the truth will set you free. John 8:32 "

Have a great day, sir.

[HLPhat]

>>then where are you going with this?

Reality-land, where complexification can happen without violating the second law, and without divine intervention... as long as the complexification is offset by an increase in entropy to pay for it.

Where is entropy increased in the process which drives photosynthesis on earth?

[Bob434]

sorry but species moving beyond their own kind is macroevolution- microevolution is nothing more than adaption that works on information already present in a species- it does not add new info (and infact almost always deals with losing information) which would be absolutely necessary in order to move a species beyond it’s own kind- you are conflating the two when they are absolutely different systems altogether

As for violatign secodn law in photosynthesis- the following abstract puts thel ie to the claim that photosynthesis doesn’t violate it-

[[Abstract

An assertion that the primary photochemistry of photosynthesis can violate the Second Law of thermodynamics in certain efficient systems has been put forward by Jennings et al., who maintain their position strongly despite an argument to the contrary by Lavergne. We identify a specific omission in the calculation of Jennings et al. and show that no violation of the Second Law occurs, regardless of the photosynthetic efficiency.

1. Introduction

Application of thermodynamics to the determination of photosynthetic efficiency has a long history, whose description may be found in the many sources cited in references [1–11]. Its principal origin is the treatment by Duysens [1]. In a recent publication, Jennings et al. [4] claim that in certain circumstances the initial reaction of photosynthesis violates the Second Law of thermodynamics. This claim has been challenged by Lavergne [5], whose arguments are clearly not accepted by the former authors [6]. We point out here that Jennings et al. omitted a significant contribution to the entropy production, namely that which accompanies the initial photoexcitation. Restoring this term brings the process into accord with the Second Law

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005272807001600 ]]

[[But for others, those things simply speak of happy coincidence, good luck and random (albeit amazing) chance.]]

“Happy coincidences which soemhowe magically violate natural laws? lol-

[[God granted us all free will, including the freedom to believe, or not.]]

You’re free to believe what you wish- but leading scientists agreed- macroevolution is impossible- they even held a symposium in chicago years ago and came to that conclusion as a cosnensus-0 and no- they were not creation or ID scientists-

[[I disagree that we can identify any specific example of Supernatural interference in the natural realm.]]

Then you clearly have not studied the issue well- Miller tried to argue that blood clotting could have’ arisen naturally’- but failed miserably- his explanation clearly even involved supernatural events which he unwittingly revealed by mistake- his explanation was rife with intelligent design parameters as well- something that is NOT found in nature via purely natural means- As well his experiments with creating proteins proved that it would take a supernatural control of elements in order to create simple proteins that wouldn’t succumb to entropy before they had a chance to form- He proved unwittingly that it takes intelligent design to create even the very basic ‘building blocks’ of life, and that moving even beyond the simplest of proteins, was impossible-

[[each one slightly adapts, gets selected & evolves.]]

Sorry- once again natural selection is not evolution and almost always involves loss of information due to mutations- not gain- this is an area you need to study more-

[Bob434]

[[ Many posters here attempt to weaponized the 2nd law of thermodynamics]]

Noone is weaponing the second law- it’s a simpel fact of life- in my last post you will find a link that disproves the claim that photosynthesis violates the law- and even if it did, it’s silly to point to even one single specialized case and claim everything therefore was capable of violating the second law-

Steiger tried ot argue that maqcroevolution could violate the second law on talkorigins- likely where soem get their info from- but his argument was full of lies- trueorigins points out the lies- and does so using science against the claim You can find a fantastic rebuttle to steiger’s silly claims, and to other ‘nature can violate the second law under certain conditions’ arguments here:

https://trueorigin.org/steiger.php#second

[Bob434]

Five Minutes After I Die

Loved ones will weep o’er my silent face,
Dear ones will clasp me in sad embrace
Shadows and darkness will fill the place,
Five minutes after I die.

Faces that sorrow I will not see,
Voices that murmur will not reach me
But where, oh where will my spirit be?
Five minutes after I die.

Here I have rested and roved and ranged
Here I have cherished and grown estranged
There and then it will all be changed,
Five minutes after I die.

Naught to repair the good I lack
Fixed to the goal of my chosen track,
No room to repent, no turning back
Five minutes after I die.

Mated for aye with my chosen throng
Long is eternity, O so long
Then woe is me if my soul be wrong,
Five minutes after I die.

http://bettyshinn.com/AfterIDie.aspx