[_ Old Earth _] Evolution is mathematically impossible.

[John]

The mathematical probability of a SINGLE CELL coming about by chance is 1/10340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros!

And then this cell must live long enough to reproduce.

And then the reproduced cell must live long enough to do the same.

And then more "accidents" must happen to cause more complexity.

And then more "accidents" must happen to cause more complexity.

And long before the first "accident" evolution is nothing but a silly, mystical fairy tale.


For roughly fifty years secular scientists who have faith in the power of dumb atoms to do anything have been carrying on scientific research aimed at finding out how the dumb atoms could have initiated life without any outside help. Since they believe that this really happened, they believe that it was inevitable that the properties of atoms, the laws of physics, and the earth's early environment should bring forth life. More sober minds, however, have realized the immense improbability of the spontaneous origin of life (called "abiogenesis"). Some have made careful investigations and mathematical calculations to estimate what the probability is for abiogenesis to occur. Their calculations show that life's probability is extremely small, essentially zero.

To understand these results let us explain what we mean by probability. What, for example, is the probability of tossing a coin and getting "heads"? There are two possible outcomes of tossing a coin, either the head side or the tail side will be up. The sum of the probabilities of these two outcomes is 100% or 1, unity. Then, since for a perfectly balanced coin the two probabilities must be equal, and their sum is 1, the probability of either heads or tails in one flip of the coin is ? , and the sum of the two probabilities is ? + ? = 1. Simple. Now you understand probability!?

Now let's ask what the probability is for flipping the coin twice and getting two heads in a row. It is the product of the two probabilities of getting heads both the first time and the second time. That is, P2H = ? x ? = ?. Now you understand how to calculate the probability that both of two independent events will happen. It is the product of the probabilities of the two events.

Next we will calculate a probability for the chance production of a single small protein molecule. A protein molecule consists of one or more chains made up of amino acid molecules linked together. There are 20 different amino acids molecules which the cells use to construct the protein molecules needed for the life of cells. We will think about a small protein molecule with only 100 amino acid molecules in its chain. Assume we have a reaction pot containing a mixture of the 20 different amino acid molecules, and they are reacting at random to form chains. What is the probability, when a chain with 100 amino acids is formed, that it will by chance have the sequence of amino acids needed to form a particular working protein molecule?

There are 100 positions along the chain. What is the probability that a particular one of the 20 different natural amino acid molecules will by chance be placed at position number 1 in the chain? It will be P1 = 1/20. When the complete chain has formed, what is the probability that the necessary particular amino acids will be placed at each of the 100 positions in the chain? It will be the product of the probabilities at the 100 positions. Thus the probability will be the fraction 1/20 multiplied by itself 100 times. So P100 = (1/20)x(1/20)x(1/20)x...x(1/20) = (1/20)100 = (1/10)130 = 1/10130. This is an extremely small fraction. It is the fraction formed by the number 1 divided by the number formed by 1 followed by 130 zeros!

But we have oversimplified a little bit. In actual fact a protein molecule can have a substantial variability at many of the positions on its amino acid chain. In 1975 I examined the data for a particular protein molecule called cytochrome a which has about 100 amino acids in its chain. This is an important enzyme molecule in all living cells, and the sequence of amino acids has been determined for cytochrome a molecules in about a hundred different species. From the quantitative data I made a rough estimate that on the average up to five different amino acids could fill a particular position on the chain of the enzyme molecule. Thus the probability that an acceptable amino acid would be found by chance at a particular position would be 5/20 = ?. So the probability for a working enzyme molecule to be formed by chance would be (?)100 = 1/1060. This is still a very, very small probability. It is the fraction formed by 1 divided by the number 1 followed by 60 zeros.

In 1977 Prof. Hubert Yockey, a specialist in applying information theory to biological problems, studied the data for cytochrome a in great detail.1 His calculated value for the probability in a single trial construction of a chain of 100 amino acid molecules of obtaining by chance a working copy of the enzyme molecule is 1/1065 , or the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 65 zeros. This is a probability 100,000 times smaller than my very rough estimate published two years earlier. Prof. Harold Morowitz estimated that the simplest theoretically conceivable living organism would have to possess a minimum of 124 different protein molecules. A rough estimate of the probability of all of these protein molecules to be formed by chance in a single chance happening would be P124P = (1/1065)124 = 1/108060, the fraction 1 divided by the number 1 followed by 8060 zeros. Truly these are extremely small probabilities calculated through a statistical approach. They tell us that the probabilities for the chance formation of a single working protein molecule or of a living cell are effectively zero.Prof. Morowitz made a careful study of the energy content of living cells and of the building block molecules of which the cells are constructed. From this thermodynamic information he was able to calculate the probability that an ocean full of chemical "soup" containing the necessary amino acids and other building block molecules would react in a year to produce by chance just one copy of a simple living cell.2 He arrived at the astronomically small probability of Pcell = 1/10340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros! Yet he still believed in abiogenesis. Back in the 1970s Prof. Morowitz admitted in a public debate at a teachers' convention in Honolulu that in order to explain abiogenesis, it would be necessary to discover some new law of physics. At that time he still believed in abiogenesis, the spontaneous formation of the original living cells on the primeval earth. However, some ten years later he finally stated that in his opinion some intelligent creative power was necessary to explain the origin of life.

There are yet more mysteries in life's probability(or improbability) which science has not plumbed. One mystery is how one virus has DNA which codes for more proteins than it has space to store the necessary coded information. A gene is a portion of the long DNA molecule which carries the code for the sequence of amino acids in a chain that folds up to produce a particular protein molecule. The DNA molecule is itself made up of four code letter molecules called nucleotides. These provide the four-letter alphabet of genetics. Their names are abbreviated by the letters A, C, G and T. A three-letter "word" called a codon codes for a particular one of the twenty amino acids used to build protein chains.

The mystery arose when scientists counted the number of three-letter codons in the DNA of the virus, fX174. They found that the proteins produced by the virus required many more code words than the DNA in the chromosome contains. How could this be? Careful research revealed the amazing answer. A portion of a chain of code letters in the gene, say -A-C-T-G-T-C-C-A-G-, could contain three three-letter genetic words as follows: -A-C-T*G-T-C*C-A-G-. But if the reading frame is shifted to the right one or two letters, two other genetic words are found in the middle of this portion, as follows: -A*C-T-G*T-C-C*A-G- and -A-C*T-G-T*C-C-A*G-. And this is just what the virus does. A string of 390 code letters in its DNA is read in two different reading frames to get two different proteins from the same portion of DNA. Could this have happened by chance? Try to compose an English sentence of 390 letters from which you can get another good sentence by shifting the framing of the words one letter to the right. It simply can't be done. The probability of getting sense is effectively zero.

Reasoning from these and other mathematical probability calculations, we can conclude that, without God the Creator, life's probability is zero.

Source: http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=C ... ge&pid=291

 

[jwu]

His calculated value for the probability in a single trial construction of a chain of 100 amino acid molecules of obtaining by chance a working copy of the enzyme molecule is 1/1065 , or the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 65 zeros.

[emphasis mine]At the marked point, its entire line of reasoning collapses.
Chemistry isn't random, and neither is a spontaneous generation of a fully formed amino acid chain proposed by the current hypotheses about abiogenesis.

Try to compose an English sentence of 390 letters from which you can get another good sentence by shifting the framing of the words one letter to the right. It simply can't be done. The probability of getting sense is effectively zero.

That analogy is invalid - in case of DNA there are only four letters, not 26. This leaves only 64 possibilities to form triplets. And all 64 triplets get translated to a total of 20 amino acids, so there even are more than three synonymous triplets for each amino acid in average.

 

[John]

Are you syaing that its not random ? so it must have been set, say by god.

and the begging question now is were did those chemicals come from?

 

[jwu]

Are you syaing that its not random ? so it must have been set, say by god.

Pour a bunch of chemicals into a glass and the ensueing reactions are quite predictable. That does not mean that God is pushing the atoms together in real time.

and the begging question now is were did those chemicals come from?

Nucleosynthesis.

 

[Heidi]

The mathematical probability of a SINGLE CELL coming about by chance is 1/10340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros!

And then this cell must live long enough to reproduce.

And then the reproduced cell must live long enough to do the same.

And then more "accidents" must happen to cause more complexity.

And then more "accidents" must happen to cause more complexity.

And long before the first "accident" evolution is nothing but a silly, mystical fairy tale.


For roughly fifty years secular scientists who have faith in the power of dumb atoms to do anything have been carrying on scientific research aimed at finding out how the dumb atoms could have initiated life without any outside help. Since they believe that this really happened, they believe that it was inevitable that the properties of atoms, the laws of physics, and the earth's early environment should bring forth life. More sober minds, however, have realized the immense improbability of the spontaneous origin of life (called "abiogenesis"). Some have made careful investigations and mathematical calculations to estimate what the probability is for abiogenesis to occur. Their calculations show that life's probability is extremely small, essentially zero.

To understand these results let us explain what we mean by probability. What, for example, is the probability of tossing a coin and getting "heads"? There are two possible outcomes of tossing a coin, either the head side or the tail side will be up. The sum of the probabilities of these two outcomes is 100% or 1, unity. Then, since for a perfectly balanced coin the two probabilities must be equal, and their sum is 1, the probability of either heads or tails in one flip of the coin is ? , and the sum of the two probabilities is ? + ? = 1. Simple. Now you understand probability!?

Now let's ask what the probability is for flipping the coin twice and getting two heads in a row. It is the product of the two probabilities of getting heads both the first time and the second time. That is, P2H = ? x ? = ?. Now you understand how to calculate the probability that both of two independent events will happen. It is the product of the probabilities of the two events.

Next we will calculate a probability for the chance production of a single small protein molecule. A protein molecule consists of one or more chains made up of amino acid molecules linked together. There are 20 different amino acids molecules which the cells use to construct the protein molecules needed for the life of cells. We will think about a small protein molecule with only 100 amino acid molecules in its chain. Assume we have a reaction pot containing a mixture of the 20 different amino acid molecules, and they are reacting at random to form chains. What is the probability, when a chain with 100 amino acids is formed, that it will by chance have the sequence of amino acids needed to form a particular working protein molecule?

There are 100 positions along the chain. What is the probability that a particular one of the 20 different natural amino acid molecules will by chance be placed at position number 1 in the chain? It will be P1 = 1/20. When the complete chain has formed, what is the probability that the necessary particular amino acids will be placed at each of the 100 positions in the chain? It will be the product of the probabilities at the 100 positions. Thus the probability will be the fraction 1/20 multiplied by itself 100 times. So P100 = (1/20)x(1/20)x(1/20)x...x(1/20) = (1/20)100 = (1/10)130 = 1/10130. This is an extremely small fraction. It is the fraction formed by the number 1 divided by the number formed by 1 followed by 130 zeros!

But we have oversimplified a little bit. In actual fact a protein molecule can have a substantial variability at many of the positions on its amino acid chain. In 1975 I examined the data for a particular protein molecule called cytochrome a which has about 100 amino acids in its chain. This is an important enzyme molecule in all living cells, and the sequence of amino acids has been determined for cytochrome a molecules in about a hundred different species. From the quantitative data I made a rough estimate that on the average up to five different amino acids could fill a particular position on the chain of the enzyme molecule. Thus the probability that an acceptable amino acid would be found by chance at a particular position would be 5/20 = ?. So the probability for a working enzyme molecule to be formed by chance would be (?)100 = 1/1060. This is still a very, very small probability. It is the fraction formed by 1 divided by the number 1 followed by 60 zeros.

In 1977 Prof. Hubert Yockey, a specialist in applying information theory to biological problems, studied the data for cytochrome a in great detail.1 His calculated value for the probability in a single trial construction of a chain of 100 amino acid molecules of obtaining by chance a working copy of the enzyme molecule is 1/1065 , or the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 65 zeros. This is a probability 100,000 times smaller than my very rough estimate published two years earlier. Prof. Harold Morowitz estimated that the simplest theoretically conceivable living organism would have to possess a minimum of 124 different protein molecules. A rough estimate of the probability of all of these protein molecules to be formed by chance in a single chance happening would be P124P = (1/1065)124 = 1/108060, the fraction 1 divided by the number 1 followed by 8060 zeros. Truly these are extremely small probabilities calculated through a statistical approach. They tell us that the probabilities for the chance formation of a single working protein molecule or of a living cell are effectively zero.Prof. Morowitz made a careful study of the energy content of living cells and of the building block molecules of which the cells are constructed. From this thermodynamic information he was able to calculate the probability that an ocean full of chemical "soup" containing the necessary amino acids and other building block molecules would react in a year to produce by chance just one copy of a simple living cell.2 He arrived at the astronomically small probability of Pcell = 1/10340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros! Yet he still believed in abiogenesis. Back in the 1970s Prof. Morowitz admitted in a public debate at a teachers' convention in Honolulu that in order to explain abiogenesis, it would be necessary to discover some new law of physics. At that time he still believed in abiogenesis, the spontaneous formation of the original living cells on the primeval earth. However, some ten years later he finally stated that in his opinion some intelligent creative power was necessary to explain the origin of life.

There are yet more mysteries in life's probability(or improbability) which science has not plumbed. One mystery is how one virus has DNA which codes for more proteins than it has space to store the necessary coded information. A gene is a portion of the long DNA molecule which carries the code for the sequence of amino acids in a chain that folds up to produce a particular protein molecule. The DNA molecule is itself made up of four code letter molecules called nucleotides. These provide the four-letter alphabet of genetics. Their names are abbreviated by the letters A, C, G and T. A three-letter "word" called a codon codes for a particular one of the twenty amino acids used to build protein chains.

The mystery arose when scientists counted the number of three-letter codons in the DNA of the virus, fX174. They found that the proteins produced by the virus required many more code words than the DNA in the chromosome contains. How could this be? Careful research revealed the amazing answer. A portion of a chain of code letters in the gene, say -A-C-T-G-T-C-C-A-G-, could contain three three-letter genetic words as follows: -A-C-T*G-T-C*C-A-G-. But if the reading frame is shifted to the right one or two letters, two other genetic words are found in the middle of this portion, as follows: -A*C-T-G*T-C-C*A-G- and -A-C*T-G-T*C-C-A*G-. And this is just what the virus does. A string of 390 code letters in its DNA is read in two different reading frames to get two different proteins from the same portion of DNA. Could this have happened by chance? Try to compose an English sentence of 390 letters from which you can get another good sentence by shifting the framing of the words one letter to the right. It simply can't be done. The probability of getting sense is effectively zero.

Reasoning from these and other mathematical probability calculations, we can conclude that, without God the Creator, life's probability is zero.

Source: http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=C ... ge&pid=291

Again, logic isn't something that evolutionary scientists like too well. So all the proof in the world will fall on their deaf ears. But nevertheless, we are called to tell them the truth. :

 

[Guest]

±

±

 

[John]

A - The absurd universe - It just happens to be that way.
B - The unique universe - There is a deep underlying unity in physics which necessitates the universe being this way. Some 'Theory of Everything' will explain why the various features of the Universe must have exactly the values that we see.
C - The multiverse - Multiple Universes exist which have all possible combinations of characteristics, and we naturally find ourselves within the one that supports our existence.
D Intelligent Design - An intelligent Creator designed the Universe specifically to support complexity and the emergence of Intelligence.
E - The life principle - There is an underlying principle that constrains the universe to evolve towards life and mind.
F - The self-explaining universe - A closed explanatory or causal loop: 'perhaps only universes with a capacity for consciousness can exist'.
G - The fake universe - We are living in a virtual reality simulation.

LOL The Matrix

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

 

[Drew]

Chemistry isn't random, and neither is a spontaneous generation of a fully formed amino acid chain proposed by the current hypotheses about abiogenesis.

I agree and while jwu knows lots more about evolution than I do, I would like to take a shot at filling out the argument I think he is making.

I think that that argument that johnmuise is putting forth has the appeal of the argument that it is vanishingly unlikely that 10 million aircraft parts, if scattered on the floor, could "assemble themselves" into an aircraft if there were an exceedingly violent earthquake that shook the parts all around.

As jwu has pointed out, this is not a proper analogy. There are additional considerations and they are these: there are other factors at play here than "randomness" - namely the laws of chemistry. If our universe were not structured and constrained by such laws, then the johnmuise argument would gain force. But ours is not such a universe - these laws promote the development of "intermediate" structures that greatly reduce the "end to end" probability of arriving at a certain end state.

Consider this analogy (not the greatest, I admit). Suppose there are 100 marbles in a jar - 50 of them red and 50 of them blue. And suppose they are randomly distributed at first. If the jar is somehow violently shaken, it is indeed unlikely that all the red marbles will end up in a layer on top of a layer that just contains blue marbles.

But suppose that a blue marble weighs slightly more than a red marble. This "asymetry" greatly increases the likelihood of the described (layered) outcome. Why? The law of gravity will "discriminate" based on this weight difference - and tend to introduce structure that would otherwise be very unlikely. One doesn't need to be Einstein to see how stable laws can "induce" structure in the world.

Correct me if I am wrong in my amplification of your point, jwu.

 

[Heidi]

Chemistry isn't random, and neither is a spontaneous generation of a fully formed amino acid chain proposed by the current hypotheses about abiogenesis.

I agree and while jwu knows lots more about evolution than I do, I would like to take a shot at filling out the argument I think he is making.

I think that that argument that johnmuise is putting forth has the appeal of the argument that it is vanishingly unlikely that 10 million aircraft parts, if scattered on the floor, could "assemble themselves" into an aircraft if there were an exceedingly violent earthquake that shook the parts all around.

As jwu has pointed out, this is not a proper analogy. There are additional considerations and they are these: there are other factors at play here than "randomness" - namely the laws of chemistry. If our universe were not structured and constrained by such laws, then the johnmuise argument would gain force. But ours is not such a universe - these laws promote the development of "intermediate" structures that greatly reduce the "end to end" probability of arriving at a certain end state.

Consider this analogy (not the greatest, I admit). Suppose there are 100 marbles in a jar - 50 of them red and 50 of them blue. And suppose they are randomly distributed at first. If the jar is somehow violently shaken, it is indeed unlikely that all the red marbles will end up in a layer on top of a layer that just contains blue marbles.

But suppose that a blue marble weighs slightly more than a red marble. This "asymetry" greatly increases the likelihood of the described (layered) outcome. Why? The law of gravity will "discriminate" based on this weight difference - and tend to introduce structure that would otherwise be very unlikely. One doesn't need to be Einstein to see how stable laws can "induce" structure in the world.

Correct me if I am wrong in my amplification of your point, jwu.

The whole point is that it's irrational to adopt a theory that is against unfathomable odds, nor does it happen in reality. There's no good reason to do it, period.

 

[Drew]

The whole point is that it's irrational to adopt a theory that is against unfathomable odds, nor does it happen in reality. There's no good reason to do it, period.

Heidi, surely you realize that we are questioning the reasoning that underlies your position that the odds are unfathomable. Jwu (and I if I understand him (her?) properly and have properly filled out his position) have made an actual counterargument to the claims in the OP.

We have not merely stated a position, we have filled it out with supporting arguments. You cannot simply dismiss these counterarguments without engaging them, without addressing theit content.

 

[Jayls5]

The whole point is that it's irrational to adopt a theory that is against unfathomable odds, nor does it happen in reality. There's no good reason to do it, period.

Heidi, surely you realize that we are questioning the reasoning that underlies your position that the odds are unfathomable. Jwu (and I if I understand him (her?) properly and have properly filled out his position) have made an actual counterargument to the claims in the OP.

We have not merely stated a position, we have filled it out with supporting arguments. You cannot simply dismiss these counterarguments without engaging them, without addressing theit content.

Oh she can, and she will, and we laugh when it happens with such predictability.

 

[Jayls5]

Heidi pestered me about this argument and how it somehow "proved" abiogenesis was impossible, so she got me to write a response on another thread. Here it is:

Those mathematical odds are based on false premises, and someone pointed that out. We have no idea what the odds are of abiogenesis. Most of the attempts to calculate those odds are based on speculation of attributes of the old earth such as temperature, chemical composition, amount of electricity, rate of circulation of fluids - none of which are known for sure. The odds of the compounds themselves coming together are based on the assumption that smaller links in the chain don't have a natural tendency to bond themselves, which we know does happen. The analogy of a coin flip occurring on heads a million (or whatever number was claimed) times in a row would be incorrect. By analogy, I could argue that the chances of me being produced by natural means is statistically impossible, and here's how: The chances of the particular sperm hitting the particular egg of my grandfather is infinitesimally small. An average ejaculate can have as little as 40,000,000 sperm, and the chances of the sperm of my grandfather hitting the particular egg that would make my grandfather is obviously even less. We then take that number, and we apply the same odds of my father being created and divide it by the odds of the grandfather. We then take that number, and apply the odds of me coming about as a result of the ridiculously low odds of my father coming from my grandfather. Now, of course, this occurs down a chain of thousands of years of descendants (even according to biblical accounts). The chances of me being created is essentially zero just going back a few generations! Yet, I am alive... and by NATURAL means! The chance of just about everyone right now being alive is statistically so small it's almost inconceivable. Yet, it NATURALLY happens - undeniably. So, we obviously have an error in our thinking here if you take that argument seriously. It's not a simple matter of 1 out of some number we invent. It's a complex series of situations each with a probabilistic possibility of its own. Once my grandfather was made, the chances of any other sperm and egg meeting from my great grandfather/grandmother and eventually creating me is ZERO. Once my grandfather was made, that was the only "combination of sperm an egg" (grandfather) that would be passing on genetic material any further. We simply don't know what conditions existed when (or if) the first living cell was made.

The fact that the conditions recreated by Miller's experiment results in an unlikely possibility of life merely shows that Miller's conception of what conditions created life have a good possibility of being wrong. It doesn't mean that abiogenesis can't occur by other means. It's a fairly obvious non sequitur if you're trying to assert it. I simply do not subscribe to a particular view of abiogenesis. I just say, "I don't know" and leave the possibility open due to lack of evidence.

 

[John]

but your parents already exist, so while its hard to imagine out of 40,000,000 little swimmers you would be the one that made it, it fails to the improbability of the abiogenics theory, because there was no life then suddenly there was.

 

[Jayls5]

but your parents already exist, so while its hard to imagine out of 40,000,000 little swimmers you would be the one that made it, it fails to the improbability of the abiogenics theory, because there was no life then suddenly there was.

The point was that even when we take an established natural means of reproduction, it results in odds that are effectively zero of me being created just a few generations down the line.

That 40 million was a conservative number, and I didn't even bother to calculate the fact that this would presuppose that conception occurred in one try. The odds of a sperm selecting a specific egg is already extremely unlikely, and then we take the possibility of all of the unlikelihood of each of my ancestors eventually leading to my genetic code may as well be zero. Yet, it's natural, and yet, it happens. This fact exposes the error in reasoning given by the original poster, because in practice, it does not follow in reality that extremely unlikely odds necessitates impossibility.

That, and the fact that the argument was a non sequitur from the start.