Jump to content
Alan McDougall

What are the Odds of Life evolving by chance alone?

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

It has reasoning, but only from a certain perspective of understanding deriving from a specific idea.

Simply repeating your beliefs is not "reasoning".

Reasoning would require an argument from generally accepted premises or axioms, using the rules of logic to reach conclusions that must be true of the premises are true.

Your premise is simply that you believe in a god. Your "logical" argument is that, therefore a god must exist.

This is called begging the question and is a logical fallacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DrP said:

understanding of stuff that people have made up and have no evidence for. That's not reason. That's fiction.

Made up? Or sought to understood themselves and reasoned an idea about reality?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2012 at 4:23 AM, Alan McDougall said:

 

http://crl.i8.com/Evolution/Dna.html

 

 

 

DNA Molecules and the Odds Against Evolution

Within each cell there is an area called the nucleus which contains the all-important chromosomes. Chromosomes are microscopically small, rod-shaped structures which carry the genes. Within the chromosomes is an even smaller structure called DNA. This is one of the most important chemical substances in the human body -- or in any other living thing. Increasing scientific understanding of DNA molecules has revealed enormous problems for materialism.

 

DNA is a super-molecule which stores coded hereditary information. It consists of two long "chains" of chemical "building blocks" paired together. In humans, the strands of DNA are almost 2 yards long, yet less than a trillionth of an inch thick.

 

In function, DNA is somewhat like a computer program on a floppy disk. It stores and transfers encoded information and instructions. It is said that the DNA of a human stores enough information code to fill 1,000 books -- each with 500 pages of very small, closely-printed type. The DNA code produces a product far more sophisticated than that of any computer. Amazingly, this enormous set of instructions fits with ease within a single cell and routinely directs the formation of entire adult humans, starting with just a single fertilized egg. Even the DNA of a bacterium is highly complex, containing at least 3 million units, all aligned in a very precise, meaningful sequence.

 

DNA and the molecules that surround it form a truly superb mechanism -- a miniaturized marvel. the information is so compactly stored that the amount of DNA necessary to code all the people living on our planet might fit into a space no larger than an asprin tablet!

 

Many scientists are convinced that cells containing such a complex code and such intricate chemistry could never have come into being by pure, undirected chemistry. No matter how chemicals are mixed, they do not create DNA spirals or any intelligent code whatsoever. Only DNA reproduces DNA.

 

Two well known scientists calculated the odds of life forming by natural processes. They estimated that there is less than 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000power that life could have originated by random trials. 10 to the 40,000power is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it!

 

- "...life cannot have had a random beginning...The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the 40,000power, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court....The enormous information content of even the simplest living systems...cannot in our view be generated by what are often called "natural" processes...For life to have originated on the Earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instruction should have been provided for its assembly...There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago."

 

Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe,

Evolution from Space [Aldine House, 33 Welbeck Street, London W1M 8LX:

J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981), p. 148, 24,150,30,31).

 

How can one gain some conception of the size of such a huge number? According to most Evolutionists, the universe is less than 30 billion years old -- and there are fewer than 10 to the 18th Power seconds in 30 billion years. So, even if nature could somehow have produced trillions of genetic code combinations every second for 30 billion years, the probabilities against producing the simplest one-celled animal by trial and error would still be inconceivably immense! In other words, probabilities greatly favor those that believe an intelligent designer was responsible for originating even the simplest DNA molecules.

 

Chemist Dr. Grebe: "That organic evolution could account for the complex forms of life in the past and the present has long since been abandoned by men who grasp the importance of the DNA genetic code."

 

Researcher and mathematician I.L Cohen: "At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt...the implications of the DNA/RNA were obvious and clear....Mathematically speaking, based on probability concepts, there is no possibility that Evolution vs the mechanism that created the approximately 6,000,000 species of plants and animals we recognize today."

 

Evolutionist Michael Denton: "The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle."

 

Famed researcher Sir Fred Hoyle is in agreement with Creationists on this point. He has reportedly said that supposing the first cell originated by chance is like believing "a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeng 747 from the materials therein."

 

Many, if not most, origin-of-life researchers now agree with Hoyle: Life could not have originated by chance or by any known natural processes. many Evolutionists are now searching for some theoretical force within matter which might push matter toward the assembly of greater complexity. Most Creationists believe this is doomed to failure, since it contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

 

It is important to note that the information written on DNA molecules is not produced by any known natural interaction of matter. Matter and molecules have no innate intelligence, allowing self organization into codes. There are no know n physical laws which give molecules a natural tendency to arrange themselves into such coded structures.

 

Like a computer disk, DNA has no intelligence. The complex, purposeful codes of this "master program" could have only originated outside itself. In the case of a computer program, the original codes were put there by an intelligent being, a programmer. Likewise, for DNA, it seems clear that intelligence must have come first, before the existence of DNA. Statistically, the odds are enormously in favor of that theory. DNA bears the marks of intelligent manufacture.

 

Dr Wilder-Smith is an honored scientist who is certainly well-informed on modern biology and biochemistry. What is his considered opinion as to the source of the DNA codes found in each wondrous plant and animal? "...an attempt to explain the formation of the genetic code from the chemical components of DNA...is comparable to the assumption that the text of a book originates from the paper molecules on which the sentences appear, and not from any external source of information." " As a scientist, I am convinced that the pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the workings of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of the cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules of that cell. There is an author which transcends the material and the matter of which these strands are made. The author first of all conceived the information necessary to make a cell, then wrote it down, and then fixed it in a mechanism of reading it and realizing it in practice -- so that the cell builds itself from the information..."

 

One need only look carefully at any living creature to gain some concept of their enormous complexity. If you have a pet, consider the complexities that must be involved -- enabling that "package of matter" to move about, play, remember, show signs of affection, eat, and reproduce!

 

If that is not enough to boggle your mind, imagine being given the task of constructing a similar living pet from carbon, calcium, hydrogen, oxygen, etc. -- the animal's basic constituent parts.

 

If you have ever held a beloved pet in your hands, completely limp and dead, you may have some comprehension of the helplessness of even the most intelligent and sophisticated scientist when it comes to the overwhelming problem of trying to create life.

 

In contrast, the natural world does not have the advantages people bring to the problem. In nature, there are only matter, energy, time, chance and the physical laws -- no guiding force, no purpose, and no goal.

 

Yet, even with all of modern man's accumulated knowledge, advanced tools, and experience, we are still absolutely overwhelmed at the complexities. This is despite the fact that we are certainly not starting from absolute zero in this problem, for there are millions of actual living examples of life to scrutinize.

 

THE INCREDIBLE COMPLEXITY OF MAN

 

All living things are extremely complex, even the tiniest single-celled animals and bacteria. However, none surpasses the overall complexity of the human being. Not only is each person constructed of trillions of molecules and cells, but the human brain alone is filled with billions of cells forming trillions of trillions of connections. The design of the human brain is truly awesome and beyond our understanding. Every cubic inch of the human brain contains at least 100 million nerve cells interconnected by 10 thousand miles of fibers.

 

It has been said that man's 3 pound brain is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the entire universe! Far more complicated than any computer, the human brain is capable of storing and creatively manipulating seemingly infinite amounts of information. Its capabilities and potential stagger the imagination. The more we use it, the better it becomes.

 

The brain capabilities of even the smallest insects are mind-boggling. The tiny speck of a brain found in a little ant, butterfly or bee enable them not only to see, smell, taste and move, but even to fly with great precision. Butterflies routinely navigate enormous distances. Bees and ants carry on complex social organizations, building projects, and communications. These miniature brains put our computers and avionics to shame, in comparison.

 

The marvels of the bodies of both animals and man are evidently endless. Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith makes this thought-provoking and humbling statement:

 

"When one considers that the entire chemical information to construct a man, elephant, frog or an orchid was compressed into two minuscule reproductive cells (sperm and egg nuclei), one can only be astounded. In addition to this, all the information is available on the genes to repair the body (not only to construct it) when it is injured. If one were to request an engineer to accomplish this feat of information miniaturization, one would be considered fit for the psychiatric clinic."

 

It is certainly true that a machine carefully made by a craftsman reflects the existence of it's creator. It would be foolish to suggest that time and chance could make a typewriter or a microwave oven, or that the individual parts could form themselves into these complex mechanisms due to the physical properties of matter. Yet, life is far, far more complex than any man-made machine.

 

The more scientists study life, the more they become deeply impressed. Nature is full of intricate design and beauty. In contrast to man-made objects, which look increasingly crude in finish and detail the closer they are viewed (i.e., through powerful microscopes), the closer life is examined the more complex and wondrous it appears.

 

Planet Earth is filled with myriad forms of life, each with enormous levels of complexity. Materialists believe life in all its amazing forms consist merely of atoms and molecules. They believe these atoms and molecules formed themselves into millions of intricate animals and plants. This view was born out of an earlier, more naive period in science when the extreme complexity of living systems was not understood. Even if nature could build the necessary proteins and enzymes, it is far from producing life. There is an enormous difference between producing a building block and producing a fully operating and serviced 100-story skyscraper from those building blocks. Buildings require builders; programs require programmers.

 

Today, most scientists are convinced that life could never have come into being without some form of highly intelligent and powerful designer.

 

THE BOTTOM LINE on the origin of life

 

- During all recorded human history, there has never been a substantiated case of a living thing being produced from anything other than another living thing.

 

- As yet, evolutionism has not produced a scientifically credible explanation for the origin of such immense complexities as DNA, the human brain, and many elements of the cosmos.

 

- It is highly premature for materialists to claim that all living things evolved into existence, when science has yet to discover how even one protein molecule could actually have come into existence by natural processes.

 

- there is no scientific proof that life did (or ever could) evolve into existence from non-living matter. Further, there is substantial evidence that spontaneous generation is impossible. Only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has even come close to producing this ultra-complex code which is so essential to all known life.

 

However what do your scientific minds have to say about the above?

You say this is a problem for materialism and I assume you include naturalism as well.

The problem I see is that your comment boils down to an argument from incredulity. It is not an abductive argument because you are appealing to the supernatural. Something that has no evidence in its favour (making it the least likely answer) but is also an unfalsifiable proposition. Magic / miracles can account for anything.

More importantly it merely pushes the question back one step. If complexity requires design, then why does not this intelligent author require a creator? By positing without justification that this creator (that usually aligns with one's ancient holy texts) doesn't require creation, or is eternal, then your argument runs foul of Occam's Razor by introducing an unnecessary extra assumption.

Nature itself only need be eternal, and we know at least that nature exists.

On 7/23/2012 at 4:23 AM, Alan McDougall said:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2012 at 1:35 PM, Keenidiot said:

The likelihood that you were born faces such vanishingly small odds as to be impossible. Yet, despite these odds you were.

A world full of almost impossible people.  Profound science, that.

On 5/24/2018 at 8:55 PM, GalvestonTommy said:

 

Of course I know that with what has been recently discovered, scientists have been working on this only for the past century or less. This is a relatively minute time span compared to the calculated eons that nature has had. It's that deep-time-of-the-gaps explanation again, given enough time any thing can happen.

One last thing while talking about abiogenesis, I would be interested in knowing something about the background of some of the fellow posters. As mentioned, in addition to the last 8+ years studying biochemistry, etc., I have a degree in architecture, about 50 years in engineering type projects, some teaching in college, author of a textbook on a computer language which is a derivation of the lisp language (primary language used in artificial intelligence programs), co-author of a textbook on a major graphic and cadd software. Would any of you be willing to post any particulars that you might say stir your interest in this subject? Not trying to be too nosy, just interested.

It is not remotely true that "any thing" (sic) can happen.  Not remotely true.  I won't go into the reasons except to point out that this is the perpetual excuse of materialists.  Call it Science of the Gaps.

 

As to backgrounds and expertise, how much training and expertise did Orville and Wilbur Wright have in aeronautical engineering?

"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RenaissanceChemist said:

A world full of almost impossible people.  Profound science, that.

It is not remotely true that "any thing" (sic) can happen.  Not remotely true.  I won't go into the reasons except to point out that this is the perpetual excuse of materialists.  Call it Science of the Gaps.

 

As to backgrounds and expertise, how much training and expertise did Orville and Wilbur Wright have in aeronautical engineering?

"

I don't what you mean with your first comment; the chance of YOU with YOUR characteristics existing is very very very unlikely, yet we all exist. I don't get the "profound science" comment.

In the case of abiogenesis (I personally feel RNA world has a good shot at being the real reason), it is true that not ANYTHING can happen, 2 billion years ago a human would not randomly appear due to "chance". However due to the vast scale of reactions happening and the long time that these were happening, an unlikely event (amino acids forming, or rudimentary RNA forming) can definitely become possible. If you disagree, I am interested in what your view on this is?

-Dagl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 11:48 AM, Endercreeper01 said:

Made up? Or sought to understood themselves and reasoned an idea about reality?

 

When it goes against what people have tried and tested scientifically or against the most probable outcomes or what we actually observe and is based on their imagination then yes - it's called making stuff up.

40 minutes ago, Dagl1 said:

I don't what you mean with your first comment; the chance of YOU with YOUR characteristics existing is very very very unlikely, yet we all exist. I don't get the "profound science" comment.

Over 14.5 billion years it becomes a lot more likely.  Add in some mechanisms that we haven't discovered or included yet  - like the organisation of molecules in an ordered manner from interactions within the interstitial layers of clays or other materials, or things we are not aware of yet and it becomes more likely still.  It only has to not equal zero and it would be EXPECTED to happen eventually.   If it WAS guided by some being then that would suggested even more complexity and be even less likely according to your own logic.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DrP said:

Over 14.5 billion years it becomes a lot more likely.  Add in some mechanisms that we haven't discovered or included yet  - like the organisation of molecules in an ordered manner from interactions within the interstitial layers of clays or other materials, or things we are not aware of yet and it becomes more likely still.  It only has to not equal zero and it would be EXPECTED to happen eventually.   If it WAS guided by some being then that would suggested even more complexity and be even less likely according to your own logic.

 

 

Are you sure you are reacting to the right person???

read what I wrote again;p I feel like you are arguing against the wrong person. I personally think RNA world is a pretty nice hypothesis. I certainly don't think it is guided. Maybe you are reacting to the person I was also reacting to? Renaissancechemist?

-Dagl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dagl1 said:

Are you sure you are reacting to the right person???

read what I wrote again;p I feel like you are arguing against the wrong person. I personally think RNA world is a pretty nice hypothesis. I certainly don't think it is guided. Maybe you are reacting to the person I was also reacting to? Renaissancechemist?

-Dagl

OK - I think the 'profound science' comment was sarcasm. I was supporting what he said. If the chances are non zero then you'd expect to see it happen eventually given the right circumstances. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DrP said:

OK - I think the 'profound science' comment was sarcasm. I was supporting what he said. If the chances are non zero then you'd expect to see it happen eventually given the right circumstances. 

 

Yes, I also interpreted it as sarcasm (also based on his other posts) thus I was wondering what he meant with "the profound science" comment;p 
My apologies for being a bit unclear.

Dagl1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, RenaissanceChemist said:

Claiming that most biologists believe in Darwinian evolution is a logical fallacy, the Fallacy of the Argument From Authority.

It's fact most biologists worth their salt support evolution, and that is certainly no fallacy. Claiming anyone expert and professional in the field under discussion, is admirable and the way to go...the fallacy would be asking your local pastor or butcher on advice on that subject.

Quote

Science isn't about consensus. 

 Science is about the scientific methodology, and the weight of evidence, and on the subject at hand, that evidence is extraordinarily strong.

Quote

"If we all  accepted as true what is thought to be true there would be little hope of advance." - Orville Wright

Science is always open as other scientific theories that are changing all the time...Some though are as close to certain as one could wish for...evolution is at the top rung in that regard. Abiogenesis, simply put, once there was no life, then there was, is pretty damning evidence.

Quote

Claiming intellectual superiority is not "reasoning".  It is arrogance.

As I said, some scientific theories are as close to certain as we could wish. Supporting such, is not arrogance, it is logic.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, RenaissanceChemist said:

Science isn't about consensus.  

Well, it is - just not the consensus of opinion - rather the consensus of data. 

Fortunately we have a plethora of data on evolutionary theory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎22‎/‎2012 at 8:23 PM, Alan McDougall said:

 

- "...life cannot have had a random beginning...

It was not random and life doesn't evolve by chance. Things evolve via cause and effect.

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.

This 'large scale evolution' formed our Solar system and Earth had the correct 'composition' for life to develop/evolve.

Edited by Itoero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.