1,000,000,000/1 Against Evolution !

[alexander garcia]

No really it's more like multiply that number by it's self and do it again and that is closer to the odds against evolution!!!!! And I will back that bet!!! Here is what happened yesterday. I looked in on a thread were I was told that evolution now has nothing to do with will ( for the older poeple that went to school years ago ) The gerraffe did not grow his neck to get to the tender leaves on top as we were told ( I did not believe science then either smile ) now it was all by mutation ( for us uneducated poeple in America or any where ) that means ACCIDENTALL. So you have billions of BAD mutations to get ONE GOOD mutation or usefull mutation. can you highly educated people count? The odds of ONE GOOD mutation are so farbillions to one against you in one mutation and you don't even have one cell yet and we have billions and billions of cells and then take that crazy number and multiply it by the number of things on this Earth and then how many cells do they have? Math that has never changed says that this number is so big it in it's self is stupid cause unless you are counting the grans of sand in the whole world this number will never ever come up excerp it is the odds against your stupid theory!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now leave what ever you were smoking in collage and get some common sence or do you think that, lets not get all in an uproar lets just say the odds are 1 billion to 1 against you do you think that is a good bet? Cause it is your life and soul you are betting!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm just tring to get you to see! Sorry for trashing you hope you see.

 

[darkwaldo]

We're here, and evolution is still going strong today sooo, why does it matter what the odds are? With a universe as vast and old as this one lots of crazy things are bound to happen.

 

[jewscout]

what would be nice is some source material to back up your arguement
there's plenty of creationist science whatnot on the web...there shouldn't be a problem

 

[d.]

what would be nice is some source material to back up your arguement
there's plenty of creationist science whatnot on the web...there shouldn't be a problem

no, don't you see? 'math that has never changed' says that evolution is a stupid theory. how can you argue with math that has never changed? you just can't do it.

i was about to turn away from the truth, but the many exclamation marks convinced me this dude is onto something.

 

[Fade]

Alex,

I have no idea what you are trying to say. In fact I think you have no idea what you are trying to say.

At any rate, you can't just make up stuff and expect us to take it seriously. That's religions job.

 

[alexander garcia]

Hi, can you count?simple math if it takes 1,000,000,000 mistakes to get 1 good mutation, how many to get a erson the number is bigger than the sand on the sea ( Which is only an expretion cause I don't know how much sand there is on the sea) I'm just doing the math. science is proved wrong all the time math is the same so read this over and over and I hope you see. if it takes 1,000,000,000 to make 1 how many does it take to make 1,000,000,000. What do the odds matter nothing do make a let and if you can alway bet on the longest shot you can find but you will never see any odds like these cause there is not a number big enoff. I'm sorry cause if you are sirious I'll explain the odds and say I'm sorry! Odds go by the liklyhood of winning. the favorit is even money 1/1 all others on the chance of them winning they get odds aginst them 2/1 4/1 well evolution by the mutation theory if there were NO BAD MUTATIONS none at all. If every single mutation was good we would have more than 1,000,000,000/1 against evolution a horse that is not in the race has a better chance of winning. if a doctor saw these odds aginst you he would say you been dead for a long time and didn't know it.

 

[darkwaldo]

Can we have that in english? If it's not too much trouble...

Or at least use a little proper punctuation, spelling, and grammar. I know I'm not very eloquent myself but you're certainly not improving your case by writing the way you do.

 

[robtex]

MOD POST: Please just as a reminder. Lets keep this friendly and address the topic at hand. I am moving the thread from general debates to evolution vs creation which is still in the debate section but more appropiate given the topic.

 

[michel]

Alexander, what are you trying to prove ? It sounds to me as if you believe that the chances are that evolution (as is) is a most unlikely explanation for how 'we' are here; is that what you mean ?

 

[WeAreAllOne]

Alexander, what are you trying to prove ? It sounds to me as if you believe that the chances are that evolution (as is) is a most unlikely explanation for how 'we' are here; is that what you mean ?

I second that. Take your time get your thoughts down because I'm lost.:kissbette

 

[dorcas3000]

Well, I have read that there was a scientific model (the name I have is P.S. Moorehead and M.M. Kaplan from like 1967)that explored the probablility of the smallest living organism to evolve by random processes, that turned out to be one chance in 10^(340000000) (a 1 with 340million zeros following it.)

Another statistical model, presented by Kofahl and Segraves, gave the probablility of a single enzyme developing every 1 billion years, in 95 psf stew of protein molecules that could mix freely, which was 1 chance in 80 billion. My reference says:

The probability of finding two of the active molecules would be about 10^22 and the probability that they would be identical would be 10^70. And could life start with just a single enyme molecule? Furthermore, what is the possibility than an active enzyme molecule, one formed, could find its way through thousands of miles and millions of years to that randomly formed RNA or DNA molecule which contains the code for that particular enzyme molecule's amino acid sequence, so that new copies of itself could be produced? Zero for all practical purposes.

Now, I don't know what to think of this. None of this came from a random internet souce, they are all cited in books. Are these calculations outdated? Have other experiments and calculations proved these assumptions incorrect?

 

[roli]

What do numbers actullly have to do with anything, they are infinite as far as this theory of evolution is concerned.
All the mathmatical, scientific and logical systematical equations and experiments out there will never in man's existence bring closure on such issues.

History has proven that there are just some things we can't understand or equate.
But hey! it sure seems to stimulate and empower those who are insistant on attempting to prove or disprove such theories through the philosophical arena.
Such a laborious journey to be always refuting in a circular fashion such issues,seems to be, ironically, illogical as opposed to accepting the truth.
If we examined and refuted all other aspects of our universe as we do God's existence and not take some things at face value for what they are, we might just find the purpose to life.
It's much like me telling my wife I love her and her doing exactly what philosophers have done and are doing towards God's existence,How could you love me ,do you really love me, give me the ratio's of your love,you are delusional and it is only relative and then say to me," I have no emperical evidence to support your love etc.
The relative mind enters in and only refutes God's existence for the sole purpose of justifying one's lifestyle and behaviors in hopes he can evade the truth in his mind

2Ti 3:1But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! 7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

If God gave man the ability to slove the mysteries that exist in the universe primarly His own existence by logic, reason and the intellect ,that would discriminate against those lacking in that area and cause that select group of intellectuals to appear as gods themselves among society ,thus you have the conception of the Humanist Manifesto, 1,2,
Not only that ,God would have allowed Himself to be brought down to man's level of understanding, behavior,attitudes and actions making him in the appearance and nature as sinful man.
God is not as man perceive's Him to be and only time will make it clear:
Isa 55:8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts,Nor are your ways My ways," says the Lord.9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.
10 "For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven,
And do not return there, But water the earth, And make it bring forth and bud,
That it may give seed to the sower And bread to the eater,
11 So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void,
But it shall accomplish what I please,
And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

Man will cease to exist or christ will return long before any equations prove evolution or creation.We have the simplicity of nature and His word as proof enough,what we do with that self eveident and logical proof will prove our destiny, Amen

 

[scitsofreaky]

Well, I have read that there was a scientific model (the name I have is P.S. Moorehead and M.M. Kaplan from like 1967)that explored the probablility of the smallest living organism to evolve by random processes, that turned out to be one chance in 10^(340000000) (a 1 with 340million zeros following it.)

The problem is that none of this has anything to do with evolution. Evolution says nothing about how life started, just what it did after it started. Abiogenesis deals with how life began.
I've never seen any numbers against evolution itself, but even if there were, it would totally contradict all physical evidence, and I don't know about you, but I find physical evidence more compelling than statistical mumbojumbo (which is what most of stats seem to be).

 

[dorcas3000]

The problem is that none of this has anything to do with evolution. Evolution says nothing about how life started, just what it did after it started. Abiogenesis deals with how life began.
I've never seen any numbers against evolution itself, but even if there were, it would totally contradict all physical evidence, and I don't know about you, but I find physical evidence more compelling than statistical mumbojumbo (which is what most of stats seem to be).

So wait, evolution and the "origin of life" or abiogenesis really CAN be separated in scientific thought?

 

[lilithu]

AG, your math is based on an incorrect understanding of evolutionary theory. While it is true the natural selection is driven by random mutations, that does not mean that it is completely random. There are always constraints, contraints based on the environment, constraints, based on the the genes and morphology of the pre-existing organism in question.

To illustrate this, I have often heard people refer to the 100 monkeys with typewriters analogy. If a 100 monkeys are given typewriters and randomly hit keys, how long would it take for them to randomly type the manuscript to Hamlet? It seems obvious to all that this is so unlikely bordering on impossible, and people liken this to the probability evolution occured via natural selection. But this analogy is making the same mistake that you are making. It assumes that every keystroke is random. They're not. Let's say the monkeys are typing randomly and one of them by chance, creates a word, "be." That's now a word. It is set. It doesn't need to be recreated by chance again. The same thing with genes, once they are created, they exist as a unit and do not need to be recreated. Now the monkeys keep typing and more words are created, and some of these words serve as nouns and some as verbs and some as participles. Once these are created, they don't need to be created by chance again. So now you have the constraints of rudimentary sentence structure, "to be." Add in a word that serves as a negator and a conjunctive and you get "To be / or / not / to be." Each word may have been arrived at randomly typed letters but the sentence is not random. The sentence is constrained by the function of the words and sentence structure. The same thing goes on in natural selection. New mutations are constrained within the pre-existing circumstance. Proteins do not suddenly become fats and vice versa. If the protein changes, it can only become an new protein. As the "sentence structure" becomes more complex, there are regulatory proteins and structural proteins. Again, one does not become the other. On the level of the organism, legs can become arms or wings or can replicate to additional pairs of appendages, but they do not become eyes or spleens. It is not completely random. Mutations happen within the constraints of what already pre-exists. So your odds, while still high (erm..low?), are not nearly as staggering as you predict.

 

[Popeyesays]

Well, I have read that there was a scientific model (the name I have is P.S. Moorehead and M.M. Kaplan from like 1967)that explored the probablility of the smallest living organism to evolve by random processes, that turned out to be one chance in 10^(340000000) (a 1 with 340million zeros following it.)

Another statistical model, presented by Kofahl and Segraves, gave the probablility of a single enzyme developing every 1 billion years, in 95 psf stew of protein molecules that could mix freely, which was 1 chance in 80 billion. My reference says:


Now, I don't know what to think of this. None of this came from a random internet souce, they are all cited in books. Are these calculations outdated? Have other experiments and calculations proved these assumptions incorrect?

I personally have no problem equating the divine origin of Creation and the mechanical process of evolution.

God said "BE!" and everything was. We can watch matter and energy develop from quantum bits to trans-uranic elements over the course of time, but before the command of God there was no time.

Why quibble about it?

As to your odds-makers, what was their methodology? One cannot create statistical probability out of thin air, so what was the method they used, and was it worth one more "loogie" in the spitoon?

Regards,
Scott

 

[dorcas3000]

what?? I am completely missing your point, lilithu.

 

[Popeyesays]

what?? I am completely missing your point, lilithu.

She is saying that once RNA is created, the next step is not random anymore. It maintains itself, and it is prone to combine with other RNA to create DNA. DNA is prone to combine into genes, and the genes will maintain themselves.

You don't have to wait for ONE of those monkeys to write the whole play, if you preserve the words as they appear out of random.

Regards,
Scott

 

[scitsofreaky]

So wait, evolution and the "origin of life" or abiogenesis really CAN be separated in scientific thought?

Yes because they deal with two different areas. Evolution has absolutely no bearing on how the amnio acids combined (and such). The law of evolution, if I am not mistaken, is that species change over time (yes, evolution is both a theory and a law, see http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/theory.html), which has no bearing on the begining of life itself.

 

[lilithu]

So wait, evolution and the "origin of life" or abiogenesis really CAN be separated in scientific thought?

In the grand scheme of things, it should all tie in together. But scitsofreaky is right that evolutionary theory only attempts to explain the diversity of life, not how life originated.

Basically, it was clear to Darwin and others that life forms on this earth are amazingly diverse. Yet it was also clear that one can see how different forms are related to each other. So several thinkers tried to come up with theories as to how this happened. The idea of evolution itself was not new. Darwin's major contribution was to link the competition for natural resources (food and mates) with this evolutionary process. In other words, natural selection.