Statistical Impossibilities of Evolution (Earth, Abiogenesis, creation, hell, genesis)

[sandy whitelinger]

Why is evolution a statistical impossibility? Consider this:

In the 1970's British astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle set out to calculate the mathematical probability of the spontaneous origin of life from a primordial soup environment. Applying the laws of chemistry, mathematical probability and thermodynamics, he calculated the odds of the spontaneous generation of the simplest known free-living life form on earth - a bacterium.

Hoyle and his associates knew that the smallest conceivable free-living life form needed at least 2,000 independent functional proteins in order to accomplish cellular metabolism and reproduction. Starting with the hypothetical primordial soup, he calculated the probability of the spontaneous generation of just the proteins of a single amoeba. He determined that the probability of such an event is one chance in ten to the 40 thousandth power. Mathematicians tell us that if an event has a probability, which is less likely than one chance in 10 to the 50 power, then that event is mathematically impossible. Such an event, if it were to occur, would be considered a miracle.

Consider the scope of what ten to the 40 thousandth power means. For comparison, consider the number of fundamental particles in the entire visible universe, not just in our own galaxy with its 10 to the 11power stars, but in all the billions of galaxies, out to the limits of observable space. This number, which is estimated to be 10 to the 80 power.

Hoyle's calculations may seem impressive, but they don't even begin to approximate the difficulty of the task. Hoyle only calculated the probability of the spontaneous generation of the proteins in the cell. He did not calculate the chance formation of the DNA, RNA, nor the cell wall that holds the contents of the cell together.

Regarding the origin of life Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in biology, stated in 1982:

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

[Saw11_2000]

I'm pretty sure evolution is a fact. Hell, human evolution is even a fact. The whole controversey exists where we broke off from monkeys, many theists say it was god, and many atheists say it's science and we haven't found the missing link yet. I believe the latter. If evolution is that improbable, then we must really be unique because I'm talking to you right now!

[No*s]

Originally Posted by Saw11_2000

I'm pretty sure evolution is a fact. Hell, human evolution is even a fact. The whole controversey exists where we broke off from monkeys, many theists say it was god, and many atheists say it's science and we haven't found the missing link yet. I believe the latter. If evolution is that improbable, then we must really be unique because I'm talking to you right now!

Then there are theists that say it can be both .

[sandy whitelinger]

Evolution of unique species is not a fact, only intra species change is. Knowledge is power!

[Ceridwen018]

First of all, allow me to set you straight. You are committing a crime which is very common, very elemetary, and very characteristic of creationists everywhere. The scientific theory of evolution is NOT accountable for the origin of life in general, of amino acids, of our universe, etc. The correct term for that theory is abiogenesis. I am so glad that we have started out this potentially scientific discussion on such an ignorant and unscientifc foot.

That said, I assume that you would like to change the title of this thread to, "Statistical Impossibilities of Abiogenesis," and continue. I will pretend like the old title never happened, and instead believe that it read correctly all along.

And so we begin. Unfortunately for you, dabbling in the argument of statistical impossibility for the theory of abiogenesis, (with the intention of gaining favor for creationism), is always a dangerous game, and I will explain why.

1. Scientists who calculate the probability of the formation of amino acids are considering modern amino acids. Amino acids, like everything else, have evolved over time. Science has not yet determined any exact characteristics of ancient amino acids, which means that it is therefore impossible to calculate anything about them because we do not know their full nature.

2. There are many assumptions being made here. Scientists are assuming that there are a specific number of proteins required for the formation of life.

3. The probability calculations deal with sequential trials, as opposed to simultaneous ones. If indeed the earth formed as a result of a primordial soup, one can be certain that all of the oxygen molecules did not simply wait around doing nothing while two or three of them tried for a spark with some nitrogen. In truth, it would have been quite the opposite. EVERY available oxygen molecule would have been "put to work" so to speak.

4. Many creation scientists willfully misinterpret probability statistics. For instance, if some event has a 1 in 4 chance of occuring, that does not mean that three trials will need to be performed before it finally occurs on the fourth trial--it is simply an estimated projection. The event may take less than 4 trials, or more than 4 trials to occur. Thus, you can understand the inefficiency of probability statistics in general.

I hope this helps clarify things for you.

[Saw11_2000]

Originally Posted by sandy whitelinger

Evolution of unique species is not a fact, only intra species change is. Knowledge is power!

Huh?

There have been many different species of humans, that's a theory, and the last one evolved to form us. That is also a theory.

Such criticism overlooks the scientifically-accepted use of the word "theory" to mean a falsifiable and well-supported hypothesis.

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

So, so far, we have evolution of a unique species a theory, and here is the definition of evolution.

Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

So, also change within a species is supported, too. Bacteria are great evidence of this, as they keep "evolving" resitance to our antibiotics and "natural selection" allows them to thrive. They can be considered the same species even though they have this resistance.

If all of a sudden the new resistance evolves and becomes 5,000 times larger, I would think they would consider it a new species.

Now, I am entering the boundaries of my knowledge though.

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by sandy whitelinger

Evolution of unique species is not a fact, only intra species change is. Knowledge is power!

Please prove that bald assertion!

[No*s]

Originally Posted by sandy whitelinger

Evolution of unique species is not a fact, only intra species change is. Knowledge is power!

The minute you concede evolution within a species, you concede it on evolution between species. There are a handful of factors that cause this:

1). There is no such thing as a specie. It's as artificial as miles. We created the system to better analyze what we see, but unless you can show that the classification of "species" exists within nature, then the assertion you made has the dubious quality of saying that nature must conform to a manmade convention.

2). Little changes add up over time. If I put a fifty gallon bucket under a dripping facte, I don't need to watch to know it will fill it up. In fact, to say it wouldn't, I need a mechanism. In evolution, we can shorten a tail, change some teeth, decrease the hair, and so on as little incremental changes. Over time, it will add up and something very different will exist.

So, unless a mechanism can be shown to stop evolution from jumping the species barrier it will. Even with a postulated mechanism, we are still asserting a manmade concept has sway in nature, which will challenge it further...

[Ceridwen018]

Actually No*s, to a certain extent, 'species' are naturally classified by whether or not they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.