Statistical Impossibilities of Evolution

[sandy whitelinger]

Why is evolution a statistical impossibility? Consider this:

In the 1970's British astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle set out to calculate the mathematical probability of the spontaneous origin of life from a primordial soup environment. Applying the laws of chemistry, mathematical probability and thermodynamics, he calculated the odds of the spontaneous generation of the simplest known free-living life form on earth - a bacterium.

Hoyle and his associates knew that the smallest conceivable free-living life form needed at least 2,000 independent functional proteins in order to accomplish cellular metabolism and reproduction. Starting with the hypothetical primordial soup, he calculated the probability of the spontaneous generation of just the proteins of a single amoeba. He determined that the probability of such an event is one chance in ten to the 40 thousandth power. Mathematicians tell us that if an event has a probability, which is less likely than one chance in 10 to the 50 power, then that event is mathematically impossible. Such an event, if it were to occur, would be considered a miracle.

Consider the scope of what ten to the 40 thousandth power means. For comparison, consider the number of fundamental particles in the entire visible universe, not just in our own galaxy with its 10 to the 11power stars, but in all the billions of galaxies, out to the limits of observable space. This number, which is estimated to be 10 to the 80 power.

Hoyle's calculations may seem impressive, but they don't even begin to approximate the difficulty of the task. Hoyle only calculated the probability of the spontaneous generation of the proteins in the cell. He did not calculate the chance formation of the DNA, RNA, nor the cell wall that holds the contents of the cell together.

Regarding the origin of life Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in biology, stated in 1982:

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

 

[Saw11_2000]

I'm pretty sure evolution is a fact. Hell, human evolution is even a fact. The whole controversey exists where we broke off from monkeys, many theists say it was god, and many atheists say it's science and we haven't found the missing link yet. I believe the latter. If evolution is that improbable, then we must really be unique because I'm talking to you right now!

 

[No*s]

I'm pretty sure evolution is a fact. Hell, human evolution is even a fact. The whole controversey exists where we broke off from monkeys, many theists say it was god, and many atheists say it's science and we haven't found the missing link yet. I believe the latter. If evolution is that improbable, then we must really be unique because I'm talking to you right now!

Then there are theists that say it can be both .

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Evolution of unique species is not a fact, only intra species change is. Knowledge is power!

 

[Ceridwen018]

First of all, allow me to set you straight. You are committing a crime which is very common, very elemetary, and very characteristic of creationists everywhere. The scientific theory of evolution is NOT accountable for the origin of life in general, of amino acids, of our universe, etc. The correct term for that theory is abiogenesis. I am so glad that we have started out this potentially scientific discussion on such an ignorant and unscientifc foot. :sarcastic

That said, I assume that you would like to change the title of this thread to, "Statistical Impossibilities of Abiogenesis," and continue. I will pretend like the old title never happened, and instead believe that it read correctly all along.

And so we begin. Unfortunately for you, dabbling in the argument of statistical impossibility for the theory of abiogenesis, (with the intention of gaining favor for creationism), is always a dangerous game, and I will explain why.

1. Scientists who calculate the probability of the formation of amino acids are considering modern amino acids. Amino acids, like everything else, have evolved over time. Science has not yet determined any exact characteristics of ancient amino acids, which means that it is therefore impossible to calculate anything about them because we do not know their full nature.

2. There are many assumptions being made here. Scientists are assuming that there are a specific number of proteins required for the formation of life.

3. The probability calculations deal with sequential trials, as opposed to simultaneous ones. If indeed the earth formed as a result of a primordial soup, one can be certain that all of the oxygen molecules did not simply wait around doing nothing while two or three of them tried for a spark with some nitrogen. In truth, it would have been quite the opposite. EVERY available oxygen molecule would have been "put to work" so to speak.

4. Many creation scientists willfully misinterpret probability statistics. For instance, if some event has a 1 in 4 chance of occuring, that does not mean that three trials will need to be performed before it finally occurs on the fourth trial--it is simply an estimated projection. The event may take less than 4 trials, or more than 4 trials to occur. Thus, you can understand the inefficiency of probability statistics in general.

I hope this helps clarify things for you.

 

[Saw11_2000]

Evolution of unique species is not a fact, only intra species change is. Knowledge is power!

Huh?

There have been many different species of humans, that's a theory, and the last one evolved to form us. That is also a theory.

Such criticism overlooks the scientifically-accepted use of the word "theory" to mean a falsifiable and well-supported hypothesis.

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

So, so far, we have evolution of a unique species a theory, and here is the definition of evolution.

Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

So, also change within a species is supported, too. Bacteria are great evidence of this, as they keep "evolving" resitance to our antibiotics and "natural selection" allows them to thrive. They can be considered the same species even though they have this resistance.

If all of a sudden the new resistance evolves and becomes 5,000 times larger, I would think they would consider it a new species.

Now, I am entering the boundaries of my knowledge though.

 

[Pah]

Evolution of unique species is not a fact, only intra species change is. Knowledge is power!

Please prove that bald assertion!

 

[No*s]

Evolution of unique species is not a fact, only intra species change is. Knowledge is power!

The minute you concede evolution within a species, you concede it on evolution between species. There are a handful of factors that cause this:

1). There is no such thing as a specie. It's as artificial as miles. We created the system to better analyze what we see, but unless you can show that the classification of "species" exists within nature, then the assertion you made has the dubious quality of saying that nature must conform to a manmade convention.

2). Little changes add up over time. If I put a fifty gallon bucket under a dripping facte, I don't need to watch to know it will fill it up. In fact, to say it wouldn't, I need a mechanism. In evolution, we can shorten a tail, change some teeth, decrease the hair, and so on as little incremental changes. Over time, it will add up and something very different will exist.

So, unless a mechanism can be shown to stop evolution from jumping the species barrier it will. Even with a postulated mechanism, we are still asserting a manmade concept has sway in nature, which will challenge it further...

 

[Ceridwen018]

Actually No*s, to a certain extent, 'species' are naturally classified by whether or not they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

 

[No*s]

Actually No*s, to a certain extent, 'species' are naturally classified by whether or not they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

Thank you for the correction.

I was under the impression that there were species that could (like horses and donkeys producing mules).

 

[Ceridwen018]

Well, you're right about that--horses and donkeys CAN produce mules, but mules themselves are infertile--they cannot breed with each other, nor can they back-breed with horses or donkeys. Because of that, horses and donkeys are not considered able to sucessfully reproduce. The same has been true for other experimental crosses, such as the tiger and lion cross, or "liger" as Napoleon Dynamite would say.

 

[No*s]

Well, you're right about that--horses and donkeys CAN produce mules, but mules themselves are infertile--they cannot breed with each other, nor can they back-breed with horses or donkeys. Because of that, horses and donkeys are not considered able to sucessfully reproduce. The same has been true for other experimental crosses, such as the tiger and lion cross, or "liger" as Napoleon Dynamite would say.

OK, thanks Ceridwen . At least one of my points will still stand, though lol.

 

[BUDDY]

First of all, allow me to set you straight. You are committing a crime which is very common, very elemetary, and very characteristic of creationists everywhere. The scientific theory of evolution is NOT accountable for the origin of life in general, of amino acids, of our universe, etc. The correct term for that theory is abiogenesis. I am so glad that we have started out this potentially scientific discussion on such an ignorant and unscientifc foot. :sarcastic

First of all, allow me to point out that no two people with differing opinions will ever make grounds toward a reasoned discussion of topics, when they first treat each other in such an unkind and untactful way. I think there was a thread just the other day about the way Christians and non-christians treat each other, and this "talking down too" attitude is indicative of the kind of thing that keeps our two sides seperated and uncommunicative. I would work on your approach if I were you and try to keep from calling people ignorant, if your intent is to actually have a kind and thoughtful discussion. If this is not your intent, and you do mean to simply belittle people, then I would just say, "great job, mission accomplished".

As to the subject, it is perfectly reasonable, in my opinion, to talk statistics when discussing evolution of species. To bring amino acids into the discussion and say we can't talk about it because we don't know the nature of them is, is a little bit of a cop out though. It's the difference between 1 in 10x300 and 1 in 10x301. The difference is so minimal that it does not bring much to the overall point; that the chances of life coming from non-life are so minutely minute, that it has to be considered impossible. An alternate theory must be discussed that does not bring with it such great statistical odds of impossibility.

 

[linwood]

An alternate theory must be discussed that does not bring with it such great statistical odds of impossibility.

Then what theory might you suggest?
Because it sure isn`t creationism given your standard.

 

[BUDDY]

Then what theory might you suggest?
Because it sure isn`t creationism given your standard.

Excellent Question!!!
I should have said, "chances of life coming from non-life are so minutely minute, without some sort of outside influence". I do believe in creationism, but scientifically and statistically, it is just as unreasonable to prove or disprove as the evolution of species theory. However, I believe in it anyway. Maybe I am ignorant, or maybe I just want to, but it is what I believe.

 

[hoomer]

ha creationism is wrong...its too simple.....it DOESNT allow for micro evolution...which is essentially small changes that occur./...."adaptation"......

macro evolution is unproven,,,,micro is pretty much proven......

BUT evolution IS wrong as it ONLY ACCOUNTS for a MATERIALITIC view of reality....

thus creationism AND evolution are BOTH wrong.....

I prpose a 3rd option

EMANATIONISM

In contrast to the familiar Judaeo-Christian monotheistic view, according to which the whole universe just appears ready- made through Divine Fiat (or command), and the materialistic view which simply ignores first principles, Emanationism explains creation as a gradual process of emanation and descent from a transcendental Absolute to mundane reality. Thus there is no Creator God standing apart from, even if intimately connected with, the universe as in monotheism; but rather a series of stages of down-grading of Consciousness-Being, by means of which the Absolute principle actually becomes the multiplicity of entities and objects

It has been suggested (by Professor Huston Smith, in his book

Forgotten Truth) that the basic cosmology, arrived at independently by many different philosophies and spiritual traditions, shows Reality to be divided into a very minimum of four levels or planes of reality: the Infinite or Absolute (the topic of Monism), the Celestial or Divine, the Intermediate or Psychic (with which occultism deals), and the Terrestrial or Physical (the level considered by Materialism). Each of these can in turn be sub-divided

Thus, applying this in an emanationsit perspective, the process of creation, in the emanationist cosmogony and cosmology, proceeds through a number of distinct stages. First the Absolute produces the Spiritual reality (or "God"). The Spiritual reality in turn produces the Psychic reality. And finally, the Psychic reality produces the Physical reality; the material world. Each reality constitutes a specific stage of manifestation

Emanationism understands the more subtle and spiritual realities as preceding and generating the grosser and more material ones, and not vice-versa as materialism assumes; and that moreover those grosser realities are the result of an out-flowing from the subtle, rather than being created ex nihilo - out of nothing - as the Theistic religions claim

Emanationism also avoids the Monist's dilemma of how to reconcile Unity (the Absolute) and Multiplicity (the World) by recognising that both the universe and the Absolute are "equally" real and valid, but they simply have a different position or status in the spectrum of being.

http://www.kheper.net/topics/worldviews/emanationism.htm

 

[linwood]

Excellent Question!!!
I should have said, "chances of life coming from non-life are so minutely minute, without some sort of outside influence".

Much better, I have no problem in believing the possibility of an outside influence on this planet.
I`d bet we have differing ideas of what that influence might have been.

 

[linwood]

In contrast to the familiar Judaeo-Christian monotheistic view, according to which the whole universe just appears ready- made through Divine Fiat (or command), and the materialistic view which simply ignores first principles,

Hoomer, you make the same mistake the Op made.

Evolution says nothing of first cause because it isn`t supposed to .
Evolution speaks only of the changes of life AFTER first cause.

You speak of abiogenesis, not evolution/

Evolution is grounded in an immense amount of evidence.
So immense that it is highly unlikely it will ever be falsified.
Changes can and will be made but the basic tenents of evolution are practically unassailable.

Go read..learn..
talkorigins.org

 

[LISA63]

Bacteria are great evidence of this, as they keep "evolving" resitance to our antibiotics and "natural selection" allows them to thrive. They can be considered the same species even though they have this resistance.
If all of a sudden the new resistance evolves and becomes 5,000 times larger, I would think they would consider it a new species.

Hmmm I seen this post in the I.D. premise thread originally posted by KBC1963 and I thought it may be wise for you to consider this before you use the "evolving" resitance argument.

Israeli biophysicist Professor Spetner in an article published in 2001
Spetner maintains that the immunity of bacteria comes about by two different mechanisms, but neither of them constitutes evidence for the theory of evolution. These two mechanisms are:

1) The transfer of resistance genes already extant in bacteria.
2) The building of resistance as a result of losing genetic data because of mutation.

Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to antibiotics. This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell... The organisms having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well. Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have... succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics.
Spetner then goes on to say that this is not "evidence for evolution":
The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner... is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution. The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacterium's genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species. So, we cannot talk of any evolution here, because no new genetic information is produced: genetic information that already exists is simply transferred between bacteria.
The second type of immunity, which comes about as a result of mutation, is not an example of evolution either. Spetner writes:
...A microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic through a random substitution of a single nucleotide... Streptomycin, which was discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first reported in 1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in this way. But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT[Neo Darwinian Theory]. The type of mutation that grants resistance to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and degrades its molecular match with the antibiotic molecule. This change in the surface of the microorganism's ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule from attaching and carrying out its antibiotic function. It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information. The main point is that (Evolution) cannot be achieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of them there are. Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only degrade specificity.
To sum up, a mutation impinging on a bacterium's ribosome makes that bacterium resistant to streptomycin. The reason for this is the "decomposition" of the ribosome by mutation. That is, no new genetic information is added to the bacterium. On the contrary, the structure of the ribosome is decomposed, that is to say, the bacterium becomes "disabled". (Also, it has been discovered that the ribosome of the mutated bacterium is less functional than that of normal bacterium). Since this "disability" prevents the antibiotic from attaching onto the ribosome, "antibiotic resistance" develops. Finally, there is no example of mutation that "develops the genetic information".
The same situation holds true for the immunity that insects develop to DDT and similar insecticides. In most of these instances, immunity genes that already exist are used. The evolutionist biologist Francisco Ayala admits this fact, saying, "The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds." Some other examples explained by mutation, just as with the ribosome mutation mentioned above, are phenomena that cause "genetic information deficit" in insects. In this case, it cannot be claimed that the immunity mechanisms in bacteria and insects constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. That is because the theory of evolution is based on the assertion that living things develop through mutations. However, Spetner explains that neither antibiotic immunity nor any other biological phenomena indicate such an example of mutation: The mutations needed for macroevolution have never been observed. No random mutations that could represent the mutations required by Neo-Darwinian Theory that have been examined on the molecular level have added any information.

 

[Ceridwen018]

First of all, allow me to point out that no two people with differing opinions will ever make grounds toward a reasoned discussion of topics, when they first treat each other in such an unkind and untactful way. I think there was a thread just the other day about the way Christians and non-christians treat each other, and this "talking down too" attitude is indicative of the kind of thing that keeps our two sides seperated and uncommunicative. I would work on your approach if I were you and try to keep from calling people ignorant, if your intent is to actually have a kind and thoughtful discussion. If this is not your intent, and you do mean to simply belittle people, then I would just say, "great job, mission accomplished".

I am genuinely sorry that you were offended, but I stand by what I said.

As to the subject, it is perfectly reasonable, in my opinion, to talk statistics when discussing evolution of species.

Maybe if we were discussing the evolution of a species this would be an applicable opinion, but we're not. The initial post was referring to abiogenesis--you are making the same mistake that Sandy did.

To bring amino acids into the discussion and say we can't talk about it because we don't know the nature of them is, is a little bit of a cop out though. It's the difference between 1 in 10x300 and 1 in 10x301.

I would be interested to see how you figured those numbers. Beyond that though, think of this: its basically equivalent to judging prokaryotes by studying eukaryotes. We can get a bit of an idea, but they are fundamentally different.

The difference is so minimal that it does not bring much to the overall point; that the chances of life coming from non-life are so minutely minute, that it has to be considered impossible.

There is one other problem with the whole probability idea that I failed to mention earlier. People don't seem to realize how vast a scale we're working with here. Yes, 1 out of 4 x 10 to the 23rd power, (or whatever the going rate is these days), do seem like incredibly steep odds by human standards, but one has only to realize that molecules react with each other 4 x 10 to the 23rd power times in a given "day". In truth, probability ceases to exist when paired with an infinite playing field. Now, these circumstances are not infinite, but by human standards, they may as well be.

An alternate theory must be discussed that does not bring with it such great statistical odds of impossibility.

Says who? Now, I will be the first to concede that the abiogenesis is not a complete theory by any means, but just because the statistics are difficult for you to understand provides no basis for just throwing it out.

Do you have a viable alternative?