Creationism = Dark Ages?

[ricmat]

That and checked the catalog of the area libraries- none available and I’ll have to request a copy when I manage to dig up my library card. I’ve yet to come across any knowledge in a book that hasn’t found its way to the internet however- especially information as valuable as this!

It’s possible that it’s on the internet, and I just don’t know where to look. But that really makes no difference to whether or not the arguments are correct.

And the lack of proof wouldn’t make me right, it would just make your point with respect to probability moot.

Rather, it seems to me that the fact that you haven’t personally found the answer yet means only that you haven’t personally found the answer yet. It makes nothing moot.

But thank you for attempting to find the book and read it. That puts you a cut above many of the folks here.

 

[buffalo]

That and checked the catalog of the area libraries- none available and I’ll have to request a copy when I manage to dig up my library card. I’ve yet to come across any knowledge in a book that hasn’t found its way to the internet however- especially information as valuable as this!

And the lack of proof wouldn’t make me right, it would just make your point with respect to probability moot.

One note - do you think that Darwinists are going to publicize their own death? They know very well the higher the odds against the worse the theory looks. They will stay away from this and just claim yeah we know it takes a long long time.

In the meantime try your hand a this:

The Richard Dawkins Mutation Challenge

 

[tjm190]

It’s possible that it’s on the internet, and I just don’t know where to look. But that really makes no difference to whether or not the arguments are correct.Rather, it seems to me that the fact that you haven’t personally found the answer yet means only that you haven’t personally found the answer yet. It makes nothing moot.

I could just as easily say earning an undergraduate degree in biology would prove evolution to you- that doesn’t oblige you to do it. I could also say “evolution is true, read 3 bio text books”- but if my point relies on information I can not present, then I have no point. Any point I can not demonstrate is moot- that’s just how these things work.

But thank you for attempting to find the book and read it. That puts you a cut above many of the folks here.

I’m interested in how he handles the calculation part of his argument- if he actually attempts it as you claim that would be quite a marvel.

 

[tjm190]

One note - do you think that Darwinists are going to publicize their own death? They know very well the higher the odds against the worse the theory looks. They will stay away from this and just claim yeah we know it takes a long long time.

In the meantime try your hand a this:

The Richard Dawkins Mutation Challenge

There are websites dedicated to every loopy belief out there- I assume a ‘silver bullet’ such as this would be publicized via the internet.

 

[buffalo]

There are websites dedicated to every loopy belief out there- I assume a ‘silver bullet’ such as this would be publicized via the internet.

Every time the theory is updated it gets more and more implausible. EES - self organization? See a trend here?

 

[tjm190]

Every time the theory is updated it gets more and more implausible. EES - self organization? See a trend here?

The theory itself has changed very little since its inception- it is still accepted that accumulated mutations, with natural selection ‘choosing’ what would and would not be passed down, is the cause of speciation.

 

[buffalo]

The theory itself has changed very little since its inception- it is still accepted that accumulated mutations, with natural selection ‘choosing’ what would and would not be passed down, is the cause of speciation.

Hmmm - just a couple of examples - PE, now EES, now an understanding that earliest cells were complex complete with nanomachinery. Odds going up so high they crossover right into design.

 

[prodigalson12]

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.

 

[prodigalson12]

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-TG-T-CC-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: -AC-T-GT-C-CA-G- and -A-CT-G-TC-C-AG-. 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.

 

[prodigalson12]

Footnotes

1. H.P. Yockey, “A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory,” J. Theoretical Biology, (1977), 67, pp.337-398.
2. H.J. Morowitz, Energy Flow in Biology (Academic Press, New York, 1968), p. 99.

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.

 

[tjm190]

That is exactly the over simplified calculation I expect to find- they make assumptions they shouldn’t, and do not state them. For example “the sequence of amino acids needed to form a particular working protein molecule”, when they mean “a particular sequence of amino acids.” Every particular sequence is very unlikely- but just because the cells we see today happen to have developed a particular way does not mean that was the only possible outcome. Let’s say I flip a fair coin a million times and get a particular outcome. That particular outcome had exactly a 1/2^1000000 chance of occurring. Can I therefore conclude that an intelligent force guided the coin, since the odds of the given outcome are nil?

I admit, the odds of things turning out the exact way they are now are slim- if it was all truly random, then I doubt if we rewound and started over then I would still be typing this particular message at this exact point in time.

Also, the odds they compute are more along the lines of “what are the odds of any given outcome, given that all outcomes are equally likely.” They can not make any meaningful assumptions with respect to the probability of individual outcomes without knowledge conditions of the early Earth.

 

[tjm190]

“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!”
You mean the odds of a specific cell, given all outcome are equally likely, and that there was only one chance to get it right.

 

[buffalo]

That is exactly the over simplified calculation I expect to find- they make assumptions they shouldn’t, and do not state them. For example “the sequence of amino acids needed to form a particular working protein molecule”, when they mean “a particular sequence of amino acids.” Every particular sequence is very unlikely- but just because the cells we see today happen to have developed a particular way does not mean that was the only possible outcome. Let’s say I flip a fair coin a million times and get a particular outcome. That particular outcome had exactly a 1/2^1000000 chance of occurring. Can I therefore conclude that an intelligent force guided the coin, since the odds of the given outcome are nil?

I admit, the odds of things turning out the exact way they are now are slim- if it was all truly random, then I doubt if we rewound and started over then I would still be typing this particular message at this exact point in time.

Also, the odds they compute are more along the lines of “what are the odds of any given outcome, given that all outcomes are equally likely.” They can not make any meaningful assumptions with respect to the probability of individual outcomes without knowledge conditions of the early Earth.

Bogus - There are only two outcomes in your scenario.

 

[tjm190]

Bogus - There are only two outcomes in your scenario.

The coin flipping scenario? There are 2^1000000 if order is important, 1 million if it isn’t.

 

[buffalo]

The coin flipping scenario? There are 2^1000000 if order is important, 1 million if it isn’t.

The coin only has two sides.

 

[prodigalson12]

tjm190,

Sure it has a actual number of probability within a logical structure unto itself alone, there is one flaw to this though, the planet and our sun have a very finite period they can remain in tact, in existence, so those original laws of probabilities need to all come into place, well within it, and if you do the math, the two are at complete odds, even with the claimed carbon dating, even with the claimed understanding of how old the universe is, it needs to be much, much older in order to accommodate the laws of probabilities.

 

[tjm190]

tjm190,

Sure it has a actual number of probability within a logical structure unto itself alone, there is one flaw to this though, the planet and our sun have a very finite period they can remain in tact, in existence, so those original laws of probabilities need to all come into place, well within it, and if you do the math, the two are at complete odds, even with the claimed carbon dating, even with the claimed understanding of how old the universe is, it needs to be much, much older in order to accommodate the laws of probabilities.

I’m not sure I follow the argument here- I say again, a conclusion based on a single false assumption is completely invalid. I found two without delving into it to much- that and the fact that the calculation only covered a single instance.
You seem to be saying that if we accept your conclusion, the universe must be much older than it is- which is true. But the conclusion is a false one.

 

[Handrail_Screw]

It’s obvious that you don’t know anything about ID, therefore you don’t know what you’re talking about. Read the book I recommended, then we’ll have something intelligent to discuss.

The book actually goes into the different scientific methods that are commonly used - and I do mean COMMONLY used, including those used by darwinism.

I know ID is not science, i also know that you don’t understand science.

 

[Handrail_Screw]

O lord help us. Ignorance speaks with a loud voice.

Calculate the odds of coming up with a self-replicating molecule - e.g. a simple protein.- and I’m not talking about salt or crystals. Because they replicate the same thing over and over. Which is not what you need to come up with something new.

I wasn’t aware a simple protein was an example of a self replicating molecule. It seems you lack a basic understanding of abiogenesis, i suggest next time you read a book that you read a real science book instead of the creationist pseudo-science.

 

[Handrail_Screw]

The founder of “Chemical Evolution” has disavowed that theory, a long time ago. Perhaps you haven’t heard.

And we’re not talking “chemicals” as in elements. We’re talking about very complex modules that need to become complex enough to replicate. That’s really complex. Read the book.

Of course, if you’re talking about non-random in the sense that the reactions are being “guided” instead of random - well, I agree with you on that.

You do realise that scientist have recreated RNA? Oh and please don’t say that the proves intelligence is needed, for that would just make you look more uneducated in science than you already do.