A response to creationists’ claims of evolution’s mathematical possibility

October 31, 2009 at 11:39 am (evolution)

I had to ask my psychology professor about this, since I know very little about the subject. I will first post my inquiry to him, his response, and then I will break down the response. All linkified.

You know more about evolution, so you’re the expert here. I read this on “Today’s Creation Moment” RSS feed, and am slightly perplexed. I’m not saying I deny evolution, but I do want to know the factuality of what they had to say about it’s probability.

Job 10:12 “Thou hast granted me life and favour, and thy visitation hath preserved my spirit.”

Evolutionists explain that life started from non-living matter in some sort of “primeval soup.” Over the years, they have presented several scenarios of how this might have happened. They have suggested isolated ponds, pools of water on the sides of volcanoes, and in the oceans. Let’s consider the general mathematical principles involved in any of these scenarios.

In science, the person who proposes a theory is supposed to present the evidence for that theory. Yet, for the incredible claim that life sprang into being out of non living materials, no evidence is offered. Just how incredible are evolution’s claims about the origin of life? Given the conditions evolutionists claim existed at the origin of life, the chance of evolving the simple, common, iso 1 cytochrome “c” protein is one chance out of one followed by 75 zeros. But that’s not a living, reproducing thing. Given the same conditions, the chance of getting a DNA molecule with the ability to reproduce is 100 billion, billion to one. The chance of getting a minimal cell works out to one chance out of a 1 followed by 4,478,296 zeros!

Rigorous examination of evolution’s claims about the origin of life shows that every evolutionary claim about how life started is just as fanciful. As every believer has testified, God is the source of all life, including yours and mine. It has always been so and will always be so.

Prayer: Dear Father in heaven, I thank You for the gift of life and eternal life. Amen.

References: Joseph Mastropaolo, “Evolution Is Biologically Impossible,” Impact #137, November 1999.

His response:

Good questions,

1. it’s just that the creationists quit there, throw up their hands and say see it’s so improbable as to be impossible so the ONLY other answer is “my god did it” when logically any answer would work, “Allah did it or the Flying Spag Monster” all are equally non-answers

2. MORE importantly, what evolutionists, geneticists, cell and molecular biologists claim is something entirely different. First they would agree that if the whole DNA molecule or a protein like cytochrome C should somehow just all fall together from 1,000 separate parts it would so improbable as to have never occurred. BUT, what Creationists wont talk about is biologists, evolutionist claim a different step by step path to those complex molecules, from simpler ones. The reducing atmosphere of volcanic clouds of the early earth, and the constant bombardment of comets and meteorites provide all the building blocks of life (amino acids etc). Those experiments have been done, it works and comets, etc., a percentage of their rocky composition is organic molecules, (amino acids etc.). Some of these self assemble into enzymes , small proteins even RNA like molecules. (experiments again have been done). The going theory now is RNA evolved first. Chemical combine and recombine on their own, then with a replicating , molecule like RNAm , that can also assemble proteins, you can build up bigger and bigger molecules Took a billion years or so, but given that much time, its now not at all improbable that all those experimentally confirmed steps occurred.

Look up “abiogenesis’ on the Net. It’s the field of biologic and molecular researchers working on the origin of life. The Wikipedia article isn’t bad. And there are others. RNA first is one of a number of theories researchers are working on. Kinda where genetics was 30-40 years ago.

The creationists always stop short of the info that’s out there. And unfortunately us scientists don’t get this info out to the general public. The churches spread all this crap, and don’t tell you the whole story of what we know. Chemical evolution is not at all unlikely in gradual steps. Some organisms like viruses (H1N1 has only 8 genes) don’t move, don’t breathe, don’t metabolize, are they really alive, all they do is replicate, infect a cell and make it make a gozillion copies of itself. Early life mite be very simple, just chemical replicators, then molecules build up a little more that metabolize sugar from the sun, etc, and you get bacteria, then…you get the picture.

waz

The question comes from http://www.creationmoments.com/radio…ipt.php?t=2703. Here’s his response broken down:

1. it’s just that the creationists quit there, throw up their hands and say see it’s so improbable as to be impossible so the ONLY other answer is “my god did it” when logically any answer would work, “Allah did it or the Flying Spag Monster” all are equally non-answers

He’s saying that creationists argue the negative proof logical fallacy, where if something hasn’t been disproven, it must exist.

2. MORE importantly, what evolutionists, geneticists, cell and molecular biologists claim is something entirely different. First they would agree that if the whole DNA molecule or a protein like cytochrome C should somehow just all fall together from 1,000 separate parts it would so improbable as to have never occurred.

Cyt c is a type of heme protein, similar to amino acids, that literally interacts with other structures of DNA to help life evolve. The probability of this to form is super-low. But somehow it did.

BUT, what Creationists wont talk about is biologists, evolutionist claim a different step by step path to those complex molecules, from simpler ones. The reducing atmosphere of volcanic clouds of the early earth, and the constant bombardment of comets and meteorites provide all the building blocks of life (amino acids etc). Those experiments have been done, it works and comets, etc., a percentage of their rocky composition is organic molecules, (amino acids etc.). Some of these self assemble into enzymes , small proteins even RNA like molecules. (experiments again have been done). The going theory now is RNA evolved first. Chemical combine and recombine on their own, then with a replicating , molecule like RNAm , that can also assemble proteins, you can build up bigger and bigger molecules Took a billion years or so, but given that much time, its now not at all improbable that all those experimentally confirmed steps occurred.

A video on how abiogenesis works: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhWds7djuWo. The current theory is that RNA has evolved before DNA did. Again, the probability of this to occur is low, but not impossible as it took billions of years to do so. And has. The latter part of his response goes into the evolution of bacteria and the transfer of it. Take his example of H1N1, it connects with your body, and while it may do undesirable effects to it, your adaptation failure is a sign of weaknesses in the process of evolution, however this does not disprove it, but in fact further evident it.

Advertisements

3 Comments

  1. HAppeeptded said,

    I just discovered SatelliteTV on my PC! Ultra cheap at only $50 once off to get the software and an account on the Internet. I get more channels(in HD I might ad) than I get on cable so tomorrow I reckon I’m going to cancel my cable subscription. Thought I’d share this with you guys, worth to check out.

  2. Mikeharvey said,

    New here, from Toronto, Canada

    Just a quick hello from as I’m new to the board. I’ve seen some interesting posts so far.

    To be honest I’m new to forums and computers in general :)

    Mike

  3. sluraphappeld said,

    Wonderful site=) I will need a decent amount of time to examine this website.

    gaming chair wireless

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: