Major component of evolution theory proven wrong

[Apech]

 

 

Actually, the entire fiels of quantum mechanics defies the laws of physics of the observable universe. (I think that is a fair statement.) In my opinion, when we carve up a pig into one hundred and seventeen pieces we no longer have a pig. When we carve up the universe into trillions of pieces we no longer have a universe.

 

 

 

No Marbles you are wrong there - the one reason that quantum mechanics still exists as a working hypothesis is that it makes predictions which are verifiable in the observable world. It is its success at this which has made it such a strong theory - and allowed all sorts of technological advances possible (e.g. semi-conductors). The engineering level understanding far out strips the theoretical model ... it is the theorist who come up with the most outlandish explanations of why it is so that make us all baffled. It deals with the very small and the strange effects which occur there but it appeared in the first place to explain observable phenomena which standard Newtonian Mechanics could not predict. That's a fact - many physicists would prefer it if it were not so and avoid the heavy thinking by saying 'just do the numbers' i.e. don't think about why it should be so. It is the best working basis for understanding reality because it works ...

[Creation]

And fun that physics departmental research has now become a kind of TV soap opera, which I'm sure helps their funding.

 

Got a good laugh out of this.

[Gauss]

Maths and evolution:

 

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.

[Gauss]

The many worlds theory is a heavy argument in favour of a multidimensional timespace model of the universe, its future and past existing simultaneously and its cyclical behaviour(there is no linear evolution at all since the cosmos is all recycled with the wave function collapse - evnethough many scientists avoid accepting it) generating new worlds at given moments:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

 

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

[Marblehead]

No Marbles you are wrong there - the one reason that quantum mechanics still exists as a working hypothesis is that it makes predictions which are verifiable in the observable world. It is its success at this which has made it such a strong theory - and allowed all sorts of technological advances possible (e.g. semi-conductors). The engineering level understanding far out strips the theoretical model ... it is the theorist who come up with the most outlandish explanations of why it is so that make us all baffled. It deals with the very small and the strange effects which occur there but it appeared in the first place to explain observable phenomena which standard Newtonian Mechanics could not predict. That's a fact - many physicists would prefer it if it were not so and avoid the heavy thinking by saying 'just do the numbers' i.e. don't think about why it should be so. It is the best working basis for understanding reality because it works ...

 

Ha! Now comes an example of my hard-headedness.

 

Until the theory is presented in a manner that appears logical in my mind I will be unable to accept it. The fact that it works in some cases may only be coincidental.

 

But I will remain open for additional support of the hypothesis. (Can it even be classified as a theory yet?)

[Marblehead]

Maths and evolution:

 

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.

 

WoW! There sure have been a lot of accidents along our evolutionary trail!!!

[Mandrake]

Was it something in my previous post (throwing dice) that you didn't understand?

Show me how you come up with this number: ""The mathematical probability of a SINGLE CELL coming about by chance is 1/10340,000,000"

show it with full mathematical formulas, or stop spamming with sensational, vapid and unbacked claims.

Your inability to tackle this subject seriously is demonstrated by your retort to irony - "accident" - which just shows your complete lack of understanding of modern synthesis, and uninterest in studying it in its own terms.

 

Allow me:

 

Maths and my dirty room:

 

The mathematical probability of a SINGLE SPECK OF DUST landing next to my chair about by chance is 1/9999,000,000, ..., 000 the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 9999999 ZILLION zeros!

 

And then this piece must live long to attach to other dust particles.

 

And then this particular dust mote must live long enough to do the same.

 

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

 

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

 

And long before the first "accident" my dirty room, with big and unique dust motes, is nothing but a silly, mystical fairy tale.

 

 

What a fine abuse of maths!

Mandrake

 

[uote name=Gauss' date='05 April 2011 - 01:14 AM' timestamp='1301994877' post='253277]

Maths and evolution:

 

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.

[Marblehead]

The many worlds theory is a heavy argument in favour of a multidimensional timespace model of the universe, its future and past existing simultaneously and its cyclical behaviour(there is no linear evolution at all since the cosmos is all recycled with the wave function collapse - evnethough many scientists avoid accepting it) generating new worlds at given moments:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

 

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

 

I am currently at the position where I can accept the possibility of multiple universes. This is consistent with Wayne Wang's unspoken suggestion in his "Dynamic Tao".

 

And each possible universe may be subject to its own 'laws of physics'.

 

Don't know if I could accept 'many worlds' theory though as I do not have enough knowledge to make a judgement.

[Marblehead]

Allow me:

 

WoW! You had a bunch of accidents too. Hehehe.

[Apech]

Ha! Now comes an example of my hard-headedness.

 

Until the theory is presented in a manner that appears logical in my mind I will be unable to accept it. The fact that it works in some cases may only be coincidental.

 

But I will remain open for additional support of the hypothesis. (Can it even be classified as a theory yet?)

 

The problem with your argument is that the observable world operates as if quantum mechanical principles are true - this has nothing to do with theory. For instance if you applied common sense based Newtonian mechanics to the behavior of an electron in a semi-conductor you wouldn't be able to design a working circuit.

 

The fact that QM (or some of its aspects) seem counter intuitive or illogical (captain Kirk) is because it is not understood properly (by anyone I mean) ... when it is I predict it will be simple and self evident but that is probably a long way off.

 

In the meantime as a hard-headed materialist believing in the laws of nature/physics you have to accept the reality of quantum effects - because they have been experimentally demonstrated time and time again and shown to be true - but obviously what you don't have to accept is the theory or the explanation of the 'why' - because that is not understood by anyone on the planet.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Apech
typos (lots)

[Mandrake]

Yes yes! It's totally improbable; hence I must triumphantly conclude that all dusty rooms are created by an almighty being!

 

 

Mandrake

 

WoW! You had a bunch of accidents too. Hehehe.

[Mandrake]

I just want to point out that multiple worlds, and the 'many worlds' interpretation are not the same, from my understanding.

 

 

Mandrake

 

I am currently at the position where I can accept the possibility of multiple universes. This is consistent with Wayne Wang's unspoken suggestion in his "Dynamic Tao".

 

And each possible universe may be subject to its own 'laws of physics'.

 

Don't know if I could accept 'many worlds' theory though as I do not have enough knowledge to make a judgement.

[Enishi]

Here's an interesting post I found which ties in to this discussion:

 

Pre-Adaptation?

 

 

Pre-adapt or die!

 

A previous post raised the issue of pre-adaptation in evolution. The idea remains controversial, but if it is true, it could point to a design or plan built into the DNA of all living things from the outset. In his book The Science of God, Gerald L. Schroeder makes a case for pre-adaptation, which I've excerpted below.

 

Schroeder is an interesting figure - a trained scientist who tries to reconcile modern scientific data with the Bible. Since I view the Bible as a compendium of myth, legend, poetry, fiction, and a dash of history, I'm not particularly sympathetic to this project. I don't much care if the Bible can be made to seem scientifically prescient, any more than I care about seeing the Epic of Gilgamesh reinterpreted as a forecast of quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, I find Schroeder's books fascinating because he thinks outside the box of materialism and explores concepts like an information-based cosmos (see his book The Hidden Face of God).

 

In this excerpt, Schroeder considers the implications of the Cambrian Explosion - the sudden worldwide emergence of advanced life forms from very primitive antecedents circa 530 million years ago. How, he asks, did simple protozoans and sponge-like creatures become complex, articulated, lobster-like trilobites virtually overnight?

 

Over three billion years spanned the gap between the immediate appearance of one-celled life on the just-cooled Earth, 3.8 billion years ago, and the explosion of multicellular life 530 million years ago. Perhaps during those eons, random mutations in the one-celled antecedents of all modern life stored genetic material containing latent (neutral) information potentially useful for the impending explosion of animal complexity. This would then be available for expression suddenly and simultaneously at the inception of multicellular life. Species of modern algae and protozoans have the space in their DNA for this neutral information. Each of their cells contains as much as one hundred times more DNA than a cell of any mammal, including humans. Since micro-fossils of primordial algae and protozoans have shape and size similar to modern specimens, it may be inferred that their genetic library was equally large.

 

We know that the genetic material of many plants and animals contains blocks of latent information able to be immediately expressed by changes in the environment or by single mutations. Chickens are known to grow hair, not feathers. Horses are born with multiple digits. Human babies unfortunately at times emerge from the womb with their "gill slits" still open. Both mammals and birds produce gill arches during embryo development, but then both mammals and birds, according to the fossil record, share a common origin as primitive fish. Marsh plants when submerged in water develop a leaf structure different from that of the same plant grown on dry land, even when cloned and therefore genetically identical.

 

According to the "latent library" theory, all this information is quietly present in the genome, waiting for the cue to be expressed. When the marine lizard ichythosaurus appears suddenly in the fossil record with an outer shape essentially that of a fish, or a land mammal becomes fish-like in shape as the arise for the whale, we may be witnessing a stored shift of preexisting genes from latent to active states. Fossils of what appear to be ancient primitive whales having small vestigial hind legs have been found in India and Pakistan. If the fossil record is correct, the phylum Chordata, of which both lizard and mammal are members, has at its base primitive fish. Some fish-like genes are certainly held in the genomes of modern land-based chordates, hence the occasional gill slits of human babies and the gill arches and yolk sacs of mammal embryos. Reorganization and expression of stored genes could account for a rapid "evolution" of the fish-like characteristics of these species....

 

The obvious questions with regard to algal and protozoan genome size are: why does an algal cell or an amoeba retain so much genetic capacity? And why, within this huge genetic library space, would a primordial protozoan have stored information related, for example, to jointed limbs or vertebrae? There would be no immediate benefit to the amoeba and so no genetic reason for them to maintain this neutral information in their DNA. If it were not neutral, then its expression was clearly not in the forms as expressed in the Cambrian animals.

 

The concept of a latent library posits a mechanism very different from the classical theory of evolution wherein random mutations provide changes in morphology. Nonetheless, primordial preprogramming of life's developments is exemplified in the morphogenesis of the eye. A gene group, Pax-6, is a key regulator in the development of eyes in all vertebrates. Its analog (a very similar gene) has been found to control development of the visual systems of mollusks, insects, flatworms, and nemerteans (ribbon worms). These represent five of the six phyla that have visual systems. (The sixth phyla with vision has not yet been studied.) The molecular similarity among these analogs is nothing less than astounding. The paired domain of the gene contains 130 amino acids. The match of these amino acids between insects and humans is 94 percent! Between zebra fish and human the match is 97 percent.

 

Could five genetically separate phyla have evolved these similar genes individually by chance?... The likelihood that random mutations would produce the same combination five times is 10 [to the power of 170] raised to the fifth power.

 

There is no way this same gene could have evolved independently in each of the five phyla -- it must have been present in a common ancestor. The gene that controls the development of eyes was programmed into life at at a level below the Cambrian. That level is either the amorphous sponge-like Ediacarans or one-celled protozoa. But neither has eyes.

 

[pp. 90-92, The Science of God, Gerald L. Schroeder]

 

April 03, 2011 in Science | Permalink

[ralis]

Maths and evolution:

 

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.

 

 

If you are going to use math, then a proof is required. Do you have references or did you just dream this up?

[Creation]

Here's an interesting post I found which ties in to this discussion:

 

Pre-Adaptation?

Enishi,

 

Your post made me very happy. Thank you for posting that article.

[joeblast]

If you are going to use math, then a proof is required. Do you have references or did you just dream this up?

and here I thought he just disproved chaos theory! :lol: (or perhaps c.h.a.o.s. theory )

[Marblehead]

The problem with your argument ...

 

I have been known to argue using faulty logic before so this isn't the first time. Hehehe.

 

True, I don't understand therefore it is impossible for me to accept the validity of it.

 

I do know though, that when I flip the light switch to the "ON" position I see the light. What more do I need to know?

[Marblehead]

Yes yes! It's totally improbable; hence I must triumphantly conclude that all dusty rooms are created by an almighty being!

 

 

Mandrake

 

Hehehe. What can I say?

 

Maybe it's time to clean house again?

[Apech]

I have been known to argue using faulty logic before so this isn't the first time. Hehehe.

 

True, I don't understand therefore it is impossible for me to accept the validity of it.

 

I do know though, that when I flip the light switch to the "ON" position I see the light. What more do I need to know?

 

Its the middle of the day and you are wasting electricity!!!!!!!!

[Marblehead]

I just want to point out that multiple worlds, and the 'many worlds' interpretation are not the same, from my understanding.

 

 

Mandrake

 

Yeah, Like I said, I am too ignorant of the subject to go any further with this. (I can talk about the concept of the possibility of multiple universes though because of what I understand of the physics of the concept and my understanding of how it applies to Taoist Philosophy as I understand it to this concept.)

 

I don't know if I said anything there. Hehehe.

[Marblehead]

Its the middle of the day and you are wasting electricity!!!!!!!!

 

Hehehe. I need the light on in this room as there is not enough sun-supplied light for me to see properly. You wouldn't want me making more typos than I already make would you?

 

Anyhow, my life evolved rather nicely so that I can pay the electric bill whenever I get one.

 

(My solar system isn't working too well today though as it has been cloudy all day so far.)

[Gauss]

If you are going to use math, then a proof is required. Do you have references or did you just dream this up?

 

A proof of what?

 

I am just copying and pasting from someone who looked up the probability of a cell being generated by chance in genetics. It is zero(in reality). That probability is a mathematical fact and no proof is needed since there is no logical sequence present.

 

The rest was just for fun.

 

However you look at the probabilities of mutation and cell generation in genetics, there is no chance whatsoever that evolution could come about - mathematically speaking.

 

Anyway, some people will argue against the factual statistics of genetics until their brains ache and maths is a subject poorly understood by most people.

 

 

PS - some stats sources here:

 

To set a better example, let us take up the evolutionist's burden of evidence to see where it leads. Our first observation is that apparently all functions in a living organism are based largely upon the structures of its proteins. The trail of the first cell therefore leads us to the microbiological geometry of amino acids and a search for the probability of creating a protein by mindless chance as specified by evolution. Hubert Yockey published a monograph on the microbiology, information theory, and mathematics necessary to accomplish that feat. Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein common in plants and animals, is an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion. The magnitude of this impossibility may be appreciated by realizing that ten billion vigintillion is one followed by 75 zeros. Or to put it in evolutionary terms, if a random mutation is provided every second from the alleged birth of the universe, then to date that protein molecule would be only 43% of the way to completion. Yockey concluded, "The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability."7

 

Richard Dawkins implicitly agreed with Yockey by stating, "Suppose we want to suggest, for instance, that life began when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one."8The 100 billion billion is 1020. So Dawkins' own criterion for impossible in probability, one chance in more than 1020, has been exceeded by 50 orders of magnitude for only one molecule of one small protein. Now that Professor Dawkins has joined the ranks of non-believers in evolution, politesse forbids inquiring whether he considers himself "ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked."

 

Let us proceed to criteria more stringent. For example, Borel stated that phenomena with very small probabilities do not occur. He settled arbitrarily on the probability of one chance in 1050 as that small probability. Again according to this more stringent criterion, we see that evolving one molecule of one protein would not occur by a wide margin, this time 25 orders of magnitude.9

 

Let us go further. According to Dembski, Borel did not adequately distinguish those highly improbable events properly attributed to chance from those properly attributed to something else and Borel did not clarify what concrete numerical values correspond to small probabilities. So Dembski repaired those deficiencies and formulated a criterion so stringent that it jolts the mind. He estimated 1080 elementary particles in the universe and asked how many times per second an event could occur. He found 1045. He then calculated the number of seconds from the beginning of the universe to the present and for good measure multiplied by one billion for 1025 seconds in all. He thereby obtained 1080 x 1045 x 1025 = 10150 for his Law of Small Probability.9

 

I have not been able to find a criterion more stringent than Dembski's one chance in 10150. Anything as rare as that probability had absolutely no possibility of happening by chance at any time by any conceivable specifying agent by any conceivable process throughout all of cosmic history. And if the specified event is not a regularity, as the origin of life is not, and if it is not chance, as Dembski's criterion and Yockey's probability may prove it is not, then it must have happened by design, the only remaining possibility.

 

Now to return to the probability of evolving one molecule of one protein as one chance in 1075, we see that it does not satisfy Dembski's criterion of one chance in 10150. The simultaneous availability of two molecules of one protein may satisfy the criterion, but they would be far from the necessary complement to create a living cell. For a minimal cell, 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations would be needed.5,10 If these raw materials could be evolved at the same time, and if they were not more complex on average to evolve than the iso-1-cytochrome c molecule, and if these proteins were stacked at the cell's construction site, then we may make a gross underestimation of what the chances would be to evolve that first cell. That probability is one chance in more than 104,478,296, a number that numbs the mind because it has 4,478,296 zeros. If we consider one chance in 10150 as the standard for impossible, then the evolution of the first cell is more than 104,478,146 times more impossible in probability than that standard.

 

Reproduction may be called a regularity because billions of people have witnessed billions of new individuals arising that way, and in no other way, for thousands of years. The origin of life was a unique event and certainly not a regularity. Therefore, according to mathematical logicians, the only possibilities left are that life either was generated by chance or by deliberate design. The standard for impossible events eliminated evolution so the only remaining possibility is that life was designed into existence. The probability of the correctness of this conclusion is the inverse of the probability that eliminated evolution, that is, 104,478,296 chances to one.

 

Although the certainty of design has been demonstrated beyond doubt, science cannot identify the designer. Given a designer with the intelligence to construct a cell and all life forms, it is not logical that he would construct only one cell and leave the rest to chance. The only logical possibility is that the designer would design and build the entire structure, the entire biosphere, to specified perfection. That seems to be as far as science can go.

 

Life was designed. It did not evolve. The certainty of these conclusions is 104,478,296 (1 followed by 4,478,296 zeros) to one. This evidence suggests a Designer who designed and built the entire biosphere and, for it to function, the entire universe. Primary and secondary sources from history properly provide additional information on the Designer because the biological sciences are not equal to that task.

References

 

1 Darwin, F., ed (1888) The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, London: John Murray, vol. 3, p. 18.

2 Shelley, Mary W. (1831) Frankenstein: or, The Modern Prometheus, London: Henry Colburn and Richard Bentley, Introduction, p. 9.

3 Huxley, Thomas H. (1870) "Biogenesis and Abiogenesis" in (1968) Collected Essays of Thomas H. Huxley, vol. 8, Discourses Biological and Gelogical, New York: Greenwood Press, p. 256.

4 Behe, Michael J. (1996) Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, New York: Touchstone, pp. 262-268.

5 Denton, Michael (1986) Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, p. 263.

6 Johnson, Phillip E. (1993) Darwin On Trial, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, p. 9.

7 Yockey, Hubert P. (1992) Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 255, 257.

8 Dawkins, Richard (1996) The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, New York: W.W. Norton & Co., p. 146.

9 Dembski, William A. (1998) The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 5,209,210.

10 Morowitz, H. J. (1966) "The Minimum Size of Cells" in Principles of Biomolecular Organization, eds. G.E.W. Wostenholme and M. O'Connor, London: J.A. Churchill, pp. 446-459.

 

* At time of publication, Dr. Mastropaolo was an adjunct professor of physiology for the ICR Graduate School.

 

Cite this article: Mastropaolo, J. 1999. Evolution Is Biologically Impossible. Acts & Facts. 28 (11).

 

PS:

Edited April 8, 2011 by Gauss

[zerostao]

A proof of what?

 

I am just copying and pasting from someone who looked up the probability of a cell being generated by chance in genetics. It is zero(in reality). That probability is a mathematical fact and no proof is needed since there is no logical sequence present.

 

The rest was just for fun.

 

However you look at the probabilities of mutation and cell generation in genetics, there is no chance whatsoever that evolution could come about - mathematically speaking.

 

Anyway, some people will argue against the factual statistics of genetics until their brains ache and maths is a subject poorly understood by most people.

 

 

PS - some stats sources here:

 

To set a better example, let us take up the evolutionist's burden of evidence to see where it leads. Our first observation is that apparently all functions in a living organism are based largely upon the structures of its proteins. The trail of the first cell therefore leads us to the microbiological geometry of amino acids and a search for the probability of creating a protein by mindless chance as specified by evolution. Hubert Yockey published a monograph on the microbiology, information theory, and mathematics necessary to accomplish that feat. Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein common in plants and animals, is an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion. The magnitude of this impossibility may be appreciated by realizing that ten billion vigintillion is one followed by 75 zeros. Or to put it in evolutionary terms, if a random mutation is provided every second from the alleged birth of the universe, then to date that protein molecule would be only 43% of the way to completion. Yockey concluded, "The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability."7

 

Richard Dawkins implicitly agreed with Yockey by stating, "Suppose we want to suggest, for instance, that life began when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one."8The 100 billion billion is 1020. So Dawkins' own criterion for impossible in probability, one chance in more than 1020, has been exceeded by 50 orders of magnitude for only one molecule of one small protein. Now that Professor Dawkins has joined the ranks of non-believers in evolution, politesse forbids inquiring whether he considers himself "ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked."

 

Let us proceed to criteria more stringent. For example, Borel stated that phenomena with very small probabilities do not occur. He settled arbitrarily on the probability of one chance in 1050 as that small probability. Again according to this more stringent criterion, we see that evolving one molecule of one protein would not occur by a wide margin, this time 25 orders of magnitude.9

 

Let us go further. According to Dembski, Borel did not adequately distinguish those highly improbable events properly attributed to chance from those properly attributed to something else and Borel did not clarify what concrete numerical values correspond to small probabilities. So Dembski repaired those deficiencies and formulated a criterion so stringent that it jolts the mind. He estimated 1080 elementary particles in the universe and asked how many times per second an event could occur. He found 1045. He then calculated the number of seconds from the beginning of the universe to the present and for good measure multiplied by one billion for 1025 seconds in all. He thereby obtained 1080 x 1045 x 1025 = 10150 for his Law of Small Probability.9

 

I have not been able to find a criterion more stringent than Dembski's one chance in 10150. Anything as rare as that probability had absolutely no possibility of happening by chance at any time by any conceivable specifying agent by any conceivable process throughout all of cosmic history. And if the specified event is not a regularity, as the origin of life is not, and if it is not chance, as Dembski's criterion and Yockey's probability may prove it is not, then it must have happened by design, the only remaining possibility.

 

Now to return to the probability of evolving one molecule of one protein as one chance in 1075, we see that it does not satisfy Dembski's criterion of one chance in 10150. The simultaneous availability of two molecules of one protein may satisfy the criterion, but they would be far from the necessary complement to create a living cell. For a minimal cell, 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations would be needed.5,10 If these raw materials could be evolved at the same time, and if they were not more complex on average to evolve than the iso-1-cytochrome c molecule, and if these proteins were stacked at the cell's construction site, then we may make a gross underestimation of what the chances would be to evolve that first cell. That probability is one chance in more than 104,478,296, a number that numbs the mind because it has 4,478,296 zeros. If we consider one chance in 10150 as the standard for impossible, then the evolution of the first cell is more than 104,478,146 times more impossible in probability than that standard.

 

Reproduction may be called a regularity because billions of people have witnessed billions of new individuals arising that way, and in no other way, for thousands of years. The origin of life was a unique event and certainly not a regularity. Therefore, according to mathematical logicians, the only possibilities left are that life either was generated by chance or by deliberate design. The standard for impossible events eliminated evolution so the only remaining possibility is that life was designed into existence. The probability of the correctness of this conclusion is the inverse of the probability that eliminated evolution, that is, 104,478,296 chances to one.

 

Although the certainty of design has been demonstrated beyond doubt, science cannot identify the designer. Given a designer with the intelligence to construct a cell and all life forms, it is not logical that he would construct only one cell and leave the rest to chance. The only logical possibility is that the designer would design and build the entire structure, the entire biosphere, to specified perfection. That seems to be as far as science can go.

 

Life was designed. It did not evolve. The certainty of these conclusions is 104,478,296 (1 followed by 4,478,296 zeros) to one. This evidence suggests a Designer who designed and built the entire biosphere and, for it to function, the entire universe. Primary and secondary sources from history properly provide additional information on the Designer because the biological sciences are not equal to that task.

References

 

1 Darwin, F., ed (1888) The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, London: John Murray, vol. 3, p. 18.

2 Shelley, Mary W. (1831) Frankenstein: or, The Modern Prometheus, London: Henry Colburn and Richard Bentley, Introduction, p. 9.

3 Huxley, Thomas H. (1870) "Biogenesis and Abiogenesis" in (1968) Collected Essays of Thomas H. Huxley, vol. 8, Discourses Biological and Gelogical, New York: Greenwood Press, p. 256.

4 Behe, Michael J. (1996) Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, New York: Touchstone, pp. 262-268.

5 Denton, Michael (1986) Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, p. 263.

6 Johnson, Phillip E. (1993) Darwin On Trial, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, p. 9.

7 Yockey, Hubert P. (1992) Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 255, 257.

8 Dawkins, Richard (1996) The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, New York: W.W. Norton & Co., p. 146.

9 Dembski, William A. (1998) The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 5,209,210.

10 Morowitz, H. J. (1966) "The Minimum Size of Cells" in Principles of Biomolecular Organization, eds. G.E.W. Wostenholme and M. O'Connor, London: J.A. Churchill, pp. 446-459.

 

* At time of publication, Dr. Mastropaolo was an adjunct professor of physiology for the ICR Graduate School.

 

Cite this article: Mastropaolo, J. 1999. Evolution Is Biologically Impossible. Acts & Facts. 28 (11).

 

PS:

z

Edited April 8, 2011 by zerostao

[zerostao]

zz double post

Edited April 8, 2011 by zerostao

[Marblehead]

ZZZ

 

(I fell asleep.)