Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Origin of life » Calculations of life beginning through unguided, natural, random events

Calculations of life beginning through unguided, natural, random events

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Admin


Admin
Calculations of life beginning through unguided, natural, random events.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2508-calculations-of-life-beginning-through-unguided-natural-random-events



The estimated number of elementary particles in the universe is 10^80. The most rapid events occur at an amazing 10^45 per second. Thirty billion years contains only 10^18 seconds. By totaling those, we find that the maximum elementary particle events in 30 billion years could only be 10^143.

The simplest known free-living organism, Mycoplasma genitalium, has 470 genes that code for 470 proteins that average 347 amino acids in length. The odds against just one specified protein of that length are 1:10^451.


According to Borel's law, any occurrence with a chance of happening that is less than one chance out of 10^50, is an occurrence with such a slim a probability that is, in general, statistically considered to be zero. (10^50 is the number 1 with 50 zeros after it, and it is spoken: "10 to the 50th power")


Estimating the probability of just a single 150-amino acid functional protein coming into existence by random chance at 10E164. 
To show how utterly improbable this is, he gave the example: If every elementary particle in the universe (10E80) interact with each other 10E43 times per second and each interaction produced a 150-amino acid combination every second since the big bang (10E17), the total maximum number of combinations that could have been generated by now is 10E140. 

Someone did an estimate that helped put these numbers in perspective: To demonstrate how far 10E140 combinations are from all 10E164 total combinations, consider that if 10E164 was represented by the distance from Earth to the star Sirius A (8.6 LY away), and the 10E140 maximum possible combinations generated since the big bang represented the distance we've traveled toward Sirius A so far, then we have traveled about the width of a single hydrogen atom. 

Achieving a 50/50 probability of generating a single functional protein by sampling half of all combinations would occur at the halfway point (4.3 LY away). But with the maximum 10^140 combinations that could possibly have been generated by now, we've still traveled less than the width of a single hydrogen atom, And all this is for the probability of SINGLE functional protein coming into existence by random chance. The simplest living cell needs somewhere around 250 minimum unique proteins.


Objection: every sequence is just as improbable as another.
Answer: It's true that any particular equal-length sequence is just as improbable as any other. But if the goal is to have a sequence, a particular string starting at 1, then 2,3,4,5,6 ............ 500, then intuitively you know there sequence has a specific order. The relevant point to be outlined here is: The sequence 1,2,3,4 ..........  500, exhibits a specification or particular pattern. What must be explained, is the origin not of any kind of sequence, but a particular, specific sequence.
Suppose you see a blueprint to make a car engine with 100 horse powers to drive a BMW 5X. Not any blueprint will produce this particular car engine with the right size and fit and power. Only a blueprint with the precise, specific, complex arrangement of orders that is understood by the common pre-established agreement between the engineer, and the manufacturer, will permit to be encoded, transmitted, decoded and transformed in an equivalent artifact that has the specific, recognizable function which meets the pre-established goal. The information for that particular car engine can be encoded in Bits. Lets suppose its the size of a CD, 600mb. What has to be calculated, are the odds to get that specific sequence of instructions, which permit to give rise to that particular car engine. Not any sequence will do.
We know by experience, that intelligence is able to produce factories, engines, machines, codes, computers, software, hardware etc. The odds are 1, since it happens and are a proven, it's a fact.Now you take a random character generator. The odds to have a specific string of 470 characters, equivalent of a medium-sized protein of that length are 1:10^451. So there would have to be this number of trials and errors to get the right sequence. 

Answering the Lottery fallacy fallacy
The fine tuning argument is not driven by the improbability of just any universe coming into existence, like the probability of someone winning the lottery, which might be high. Instead the argument is driven by the specified probability of a life-permitting universe coming into existence. A useful illustration that’s sometimes used is that of a gigantic swimming pool, filled with hundreds of billions of white marbles (representing life-prohibiting universes or failed universes), but containing only one black marble (representing a successful and life permitting universe). While it is true that the probability of pulling out any particular marble is the same as that of pulling out any other particular marble and provided we are going to pull out a marble, then the probability of pulling out a marble is 1 (i.e. it is certain that it will happen), it is also true that the probability of pulling out a black marble is mind bogglingly lower than the probability of pulling out a white marble.
http://rightreason.org/2010/the-lottery-fallacy-fallacy/

Enzymes: The Cell's Miniature Factories 1
The importance of the three-dimensional structure of proteins can best be illustrated by the function of enzymes. Virtually all of the complex chemical reactions in living cells involve special proteins called enzymes. Enzymes act to speed up (catalyze) chemical reactions in biological systems. Enzymes are employed in the production of DNA, RNA, proteins, and nearly every chemical reaction in the cell. Digestion, thought, sight, and the function of nerve and muscles all require the use of enzymes. In fact, these activities would be impossible without them.
Enzymatic reactions occur like "lock and key" mechanisms. An enzyme (the lock) has a highly specific three-dimensional shape which will only allow chemicals with the correct three-dimensional fit (the key) to bind and result in a chemical reaction. (Figure 3).

Since all spark and soup experiments produce a 50/50 mix of right and left-handed amino acids, chemists have tried to decipher how only left-handed amino acids became integrated into the proteins of living systems. For decades chemists have attempted to separate out a pure mixture of left-handed amino acids from a racemic mix by chance chemistry alone. Chance or un-directed chemistry has, however, consistently proven to be an inadequate mechanism for the separation of the right and left-handed amino acid forms.31 So, how did it happen? Mathematically, random-chance would never select such an unlikely pure molecule out of a racemic primordial soup.
The solution is simple, yet it has profound implications. To separate the two amino acid forms requires the introduction of biochemical expertise or know-how, which is the very antithesis of chance! However, biochemical expertise or know-how comes only from a mind. Without such know-how or intelligent guidance, the right and left-handed building blocks of life will never separate. Consequently, enzymes, with their lock and key mechanisms, and ultimately, life, are impossible!32
However, the existence of a mind or a Creator involved in the creation of life is anathema to the atheist's scenario. But the volume of biochemical knowledge supports this fact: To produce pure mixtures of left-handed amino acids and right-handed nucleotides, requires intelligent guidance. And since no human chemists were around before the origin of life on earth, the source of this intelligent guidance must have been extraterrestrial!

Objection: Biological molecular machines and factories ( Cells ) are full of information-rich, language-based codes and code/blueprint-based structures.  Instructional/specified complex information is required to get the right amino acid sequence which is essential to get functionality in a vast sequence space ( amongst trillions os possible sequences, rare are the ones that provide function ), and every protein is irreducibly complex in the sense, that a minimal number of amino acids are required for each protein to get function. One  objection is given in response to this argument is that one shouldn't be surprised to find these precisely sequenced proteins because if they would not exist, we wouldn't exist. Therefore, the fact that they exist means it should only be expected by the mere fact of our own existence - not at all surprising. So the probability is 1.
Answer: this argument is like a situation where a man is standing before a firing squad of one thousand men with rifles who take aim and fire - - but they all miss him. According to the above logic, this man should not be at all surprised to still be alive because, if they hadn't missed him, he wouldn't be alive.  The nonsense of this line of reasoning is obvious. Surprise at the highly unlikely  instructional complex coded information stored in the Genome and irreducible complex cell structures, given the hypothesis of a mindless origin, is only to be expected - in the extreme.

Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D.
According to the most generous mathematical criteria, abiogenesis and monogenesis are impossible to unimaginable extremes.

Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis, 2005 Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Biology
To give you an idea of how incomprehensible, I use the following illustration. An ameba starts out at one side of the universe and begins walking towards the other side, say, 100 trillion light years away. He travels at the rate of one meter per billion years. He carries one atom with him. When he reaches the other side, he puts the atom down and starts back. In 10^186 years, the ameba will have transported the entire mass of the universe from one side to the other and back a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times. That is my definition of impossible. And what resulted from success, if it did occur would not be a living cell or even a promising combination. Spontaneous origin of life on a prebiological earth is IMPOSSIBLE!


To arrive at a statistical "proof," we need a reasonable criterion to judge it by:
As just a starting point, consider that many statisticians consider that any occurrence with a chance of happening that is less than one chance out of 10^50, is an occurrence with such a slim a probability that is, in general, statistically considered to be zero. (10^50 is the number 1 with 50 zeros after it, and it is spoken: "10 to the 50th power"). This appraisal seems fairly reasonable when you consider that 10^50 is about the number of atoms which make up the planet earth. --So, overcoming one chance out of 10^50 is like marking one specific atom out of the earth, and mixing it in completely, and then someone makes one blind, random selection, which turns out to be that specific marked atom. Most mathematicians and scientists have accepted this statistical standard for many purposes.     The Criterion: The "Cosmic Limit" Law of Chance 3


As of 2014, Koonin serves on the advisory editorial board of Trends in Genetics and is co-Editor-in-Chief of the open access journal Biology Direct. He served on the editorial board of Bioinformatics from 1999-2001. Koonin is also an advisory board member in bioinformatics at Faculty of 1000.

Let us see what he writes in regard of the origin of life:

The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution, Eugene V. Koonin, page 351:
The origin of life is the most difficult problem that faces evolutionary biology and, arguably, biology in general. Indeed, the problem is so hard and the current state of the art seems so frustrating that some researchers prefer to dismiss the entire issue as being outside the scientific domain altogether, on the grounds that unique events are not conducive to scientific study.

A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle. The difficulties remain formidable. For all the effort, we do not currently have coherent and plausible models for the path from simple organic molecules to the first life forms. Most damningly, the powerful mechanisms of biological evolution were not available for all the stages preceding the emergence of replicator systems. Given all these major difficulties, it appears prudent to seriously consider radical alternatives for the origin of life

The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution, Eugene V. Koonin page 435:
The requirements for the emergence of a primitive, coupled replication-translation system, which is considered a candidate for the breakthrough stage in this paper, are much greater. At a minimum, spontaneous formation of the following is required:
• Two rRNAs, with a total size of at least 1,000 nucleotides.
• Approximately 10 primitive adaptors of about 30 nucleotides
each, for a total of approximately 300 nucleotides.
• At least one RNA encoding a replicase, about 500 nucleotides (low bound) required. Under the notation used here, n = 1,800, resulting in E <10^1018.
In other words, even in this toy model that assumes a deliberately inflated rate of RNA production, the probability that a coupled translation replication emerges by chance in a single O-region is P < 10^1018. Obviously, this version of the breakthrough stage can be considered only in the context of a universe with an infinite (or, at the very least, extremely vast) number of O-regions ( observable regions ).
The model considered here is not supposed to be realistic, by any account. It only illustrates the difference in the demands on chance for the origin of different versions of the breakthrough system and, hence, the connections between this version and different cosmological models of the universe.

All things considered, my assessment of the current state of the art in the study of the origins of replication and translation is rather somber. Notwithstanding relevant theoretical models and suggestive experimental results, we currently do not have a credible solution to these problems and do not even see with any clarity a path to such a solution. Any even remotely realistic origin of life scenario must incorporate well-defined pre-cellular, abiogenic compartmentalization; inorganic catalysts to catalyze “pre-biochemical” reactions prior to the emergence of bona fide enzymes; thermal and/or electrochemical potential gradients required for the generation of energy in accessible forms; a solution to the extremely difficult problem of the origin of genetic information (see the discussion earlier in this chapter). In general, the early concepts underestimated the dimensions of the origin of life problem and failed to investigate special abiogenic conditions that must have been a prerequisite for the jump-start of biological evolution. Subsequently, several groups of researchers attempted to get away from the concept of the homogeneous primary soup, replacing it with some form of inorganic compartments, and sought to address all the origin of life problems in conjunction by combination of modeling, experiment, and observation in nature. The common idea of these hypotheses is the existence of a single framework that could simultaneously provide compartmentalization, energy gradients, and catalysts.



A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory
Hubert P. Yockey
The Darwin-Oparin-Haldane “warm little pond” scenario for biogenesis is examined by using information theory to calculate the probability that an informational biomolecule of reasonable biochemical specificity, long enough to provide a genome for the “protobiont”, could have appeared in 109 years in the primitive soup. Certain old untenable ideas have served only to confuse the solution of the problem. Negentropy is not a concept because entropy cannot be negative. The role that negentropy has played in previous discussions is replaced by “complexity” as defined in information theory. A satisfactory scenario for spontaneous biogenesis requires the generation of “complexity” not “order”. Previous calculations based on simple combinatorial analysis over estimate the number of sequences by a factor of 105. The number of cytochrome c sequences is about 3·8 × 10^61. The probability of selecting one such sequence at random is about 2·1 ×10^65. The primitive milieu will contain a racemic mixture of the biological amino acids and also many analogues and non-biological amino acids. Taking into account only the effect of the racemic mixture the longest genome which could be expected with 95 % confidence in 109 years corresponds to only 49 amino acid residues. This is much too short to code a living system so evolution to higher forms could not get started. Geological evidence for the “warm little pond” is missing. It is concluded that belief in currently accepted scenarios of spontaneous biogenesis is based on faith, contrary to conventional wisdom.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022519377900443


The origin of the first cell, cannot be explained by natural selection
The cell is irreducible complex, and hosts a hudge amount of codified, complex, specified information. The probability of useful DNA, RNA, or proteins occurring by chance is extremely small. Calculations vary somewhat but all are extremely small (highly improbable). If one is to assume a hypothetical prebiotic soup to start there are at least three combinational hurdles (requirements) to overcome. Each of these requirements decreases the chance of forming a workable protein. First, all amino acids must form a chemical bond (peptide bond) when joining with other amino acids in the protein chain. Assuming, for example a short protein molecule of 150 amino acids, the probability of building a 150 amino acids chain in which all linkages are peptide linkages would be roughly 1 chance in 10^45. The second requirement is that functioning proteins tolerate only left-handed amino acids, yet in abiotic amino acid production the right-handed and left-handed isomers are produced in nearly the same frequency. The probability of building a 150-amino-acid chain at random in which all bonds are peptide bonds and all amino acids are L-form is roughly 1 chance in 10^90. The third requirement for functioning proteins is that the amino acids must link up like letters in a meaningful sentence, i.e. in a functionally specified sequential arrangement. The chance for this happening at random for a 150 amino acid chain is approximately 1 chance in 10^195. It would appear impossible for chance to build even one functional protein considering how small the likelihood is. By way of comparison to get a feeling of just how low this probability is consider that there are only 10^65 atoms in our galaxy.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10818565



Paul Davies, the fifth miracle, page 54:
Chance and the origin of life
Ask the simple question: Given the conditions that prevailed on the Earth four billion years ago, how likely was it that life arose?
The following answer won’t do: “Life was inevitable, because we are here.” Obviously life did originate—our existence proves that much. But did it have to originate? In other words, was the emergence of life from a chemical broth or whatever inevitable, given millions of years? Nobody knows the answer to this question. The origin of life may have been a sheer fluke, a chemical accident of stupendous improbability, an event so unlikely that it would never happen twice in the entire universe. Or it may have been as unremarkable and predetermined as the formation of salt crystals. How can we know which explanation is the right one? Let’s take a look at the chemical-fluke theory. Terrestrial life is based on some very complicated molecules with carefully crafted structures. Even in simple organisms, DNA contains millions of atoms. The precise sequence of atoms is crucial. You can’t have an arbitrary sequence, because DNA is an instruction manual for making the organism. 

Change a few atoms and you threaten the structure of the organism. Change too many and you won’t have an organism at all. The situation may be compared to the word sequence of a novel. Change a few words here and there at random, and the text will probably be marred. Scramble all the words and there is a very high probability that it won’t be a novel any more. There will be other novels with similar words in different combinations, but the set of word sequences that make up novels is an infinitesimal fraction of all possible word sequences. The odds are fantastic  against shuffling amino acids at random into the right sequence to form a protein molecule by accident. That was a single protein. Life as we know it requires hundreds of thousands of specialist proteins, not to mention the nucleic acids. The odds against producing just the proteins by pure chance are something like 1^40.000 to 1. This is one followed by forty thousand zeros, which would take up an entire chapter of this book if I wanted to write it out in full. Dealing a perfect suit at cards a thousand times in a row is easy by comparison. In 40000 a famous remark, the British astronomer Fred Hoyle likened the odds against the spontaneous assembly of life to those for a whirlwind sweeping through a junkyard and producing a fully functioning Boeing 747.




With a half-trillion stars wheeling through the spiral patterns of the Milky Way Galaxy, it seems illogical to assume that among them only one world supports intelligent life.’ The use of the word ‘illogical’ was unfortunate, because the logic is perfectly clear. There are indeed a lot of stars – at least ten billion billion in the observable universe. But this number, gigantic though it may appear to us, is nevertheless trivially small compared to the gigantic odds against the random assembly of even a single protein molecule. The universe may be big, but if life formed solely by random agitation in a molecular junkyard, there is scant chance it will have happened twice.

With such a extraordinary elucidation, it would/should be a easy leap of faith to infer =====>>>> DESIGN !! Why Davies does not do it, but keeps a agnostic standpoint, is a mistery to me.



Objection:  Chance can create life, despite the small possibility. There are 31 million seconds in a single year, meaning that if you multiply that by ten billion you get an astronomical amount of chances and don't forget just because something is largely unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible
Answer: 

Talking about life getting together is similar to talking about cars forming themselves, or even basic computer programs making themselves. These things are not just improbable, they are impossible without intelligence. 

Paul Davies once said : 
How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software … ? Nobody knows …… there is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.

Literature from those who posture in favor of creation abounds with examples of the tremendous odds against chance producing a meaningful code. For instance, the estimated number of elementary particles in the universe is 10^80. The most rapid events occur at an amazing 10^45 per second. Thirty billion years contains only 10^18 seconds. By totaling those, we find that the maximum elementary particle events in 30 billion years could only be 10^143. Yet, the simplest known free-living organism, Mycoplasma genitalium, has 470 genes that code for 470 proteins that average 347 amino acids in length. The odds against just one specified protein of that length are 1:10^451.

The protein that enables a firefly to glow, and also reproduce (as its illuminated abdomen also serves as a visible mating call), is a protein made up of a chain of 1,000 amino acids. The full range of possible proteins that can be coded with such a chain is 17 times the number of atoms in the visible universe. This number also represents the odds against the RANDOM coding of such a protein. Yet, DNA effortlessly assembles that protein, in the exactly correct, and absolutely necessary sequence and number of amino acids for the humble firefly. What are we to say of the 25,000 individual, highly specialized, absolutely necessary, and exactly correctly coded proteins in the human body? 

Dembsky : We also know from broad and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information-rich systems: we have positive experience-based knowledge of a cause that is sufficient to generate new instructing complex information, namely, intelligence.  the design inference  does not constitute an argument from ignorance. Instead, it constitutes an "inference to the best explanation" based upon our best available knowledge.  It asserts the superior explanatory power of a proposed cause based upon its proven—its known—causal adequacy and  based upon a lack of demonstrated efficacy among the competing proposed causes.  The problem is that nature has too many options and without design couldn’t sort them all out. Natural mechanisms are too unspecific to determine any particular outcome. Mutation and natural selection or luck/chance/probablity could theoretically form a new complex morphological feature like a  leg or a limb with the right size and form , and arrange to find out the right body location to grow them , but it could  also produce all kinds of other new body forms, and grow and attach them anywhere on the body, most of which have no biological advantage or are most probably deleterious to the organism. Natural mechanisms have no constraints, they could produce any kind of novelty. Its however that kind of freedom that makes it extremely unlikely that mere natural developments provide new specific evolutionary arrangements that are advantageous to the organism.  Nature would have to arrange almost a infinite number of trials and errors until getting a new positive  arrangement. Since that would become a highly  unlikely event, design is a better explanation. 

Even the simplest of these substances [proteins] represent extremely complex compounds, containing many thousands of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen arranged in absolutely definite patterns, which are specific for each separate substance.  To the student of protein structure the spontaneous formation of such an atomic arrangement in the protein molecule would seem as im- probable as would the accidental origin of the text of irgil’s “Aeneid” from scattered letter type.1
– A. I. Oparin

Mondore, The Code Word
What is the probability of complex biochemicals like proteins and DNA arising by chance alone?
The chance that amino acids would line up randomly to create the first hemoglobin protein is 1 in 10^850. The chance that the DNA code to produce that hemoglobin protein would have randomly reached the required specificity is 1 in 10^78,000.



Harold Urey, a founder of origin-of-life research, describes evolution as a faith which seems to defy logic:
“All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.

― Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis 
“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.”

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 24.

“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 (10^20)2,000 = 10^40,000, 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 [by chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”

Ibid., p. 130. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/nave-html/faithpathh/hoyle.html
Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one part in 10^40,000 must be judged superior to random shuffling [of evolution]. The theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40,000 of being the correct explanation of the many curious facts discussed in preceding chapters. Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 3.

Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero.

In the 1970s Hoyle calculated the mathematical probability of the coincidental formation of only the 2,000 types of proteins found in a single amoeba. (There are some 200,000 different types of proteins in a human cell.) The figure that he calculated was 1 over 10^40,000—an incredible number obtained by putting 40,000 zeros after the 1 (Eastman&Missler, 1996, p. 61).

― Stephen C. Meyer, Darwinism, Design and Public Education 

“The information contained in an English sentence or computer software does not derive from the chemistry of the ink or the physics of magnetism, but from a source extrinsic to physics and chemistry altogether. Indeed, in both cases, the message transcends the properties of the medium. The information in DNA also transcends the properties of its material medium.”

― Jonathan Wells, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism And Intelligent Design

“The secret of DNA's success is that it carries information like that of a computer program, but far more advanced. Since experience shows that intelligence is the only presently acting cause of information, we can infer that intelligence is the best explanation for the information in DNA.”

Kuhn, J. A. 2012. Dissecting Darwinism. Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings. 25 (1): 41-47.
Based on an awareness of the inexplicable coded information in DNA, the inconceivable self-formation of DNA, and the inability to account for the billions of specifically organized nucleotides in every single cell, it is reasonable to conclude that there are severe weaknesses in the theory of gradual improvement through natural selection (Darwinism) to explain the chemical origin of life. Furthermore, Darwinian evolution and natural selection could not have been causes of the origin of life, because they require replication to operate, and there was no replication prior to the origin of life.


According to Dembski and Borel  (Dembski, 1998, pp. 5, 62, 209, 210).
specified events of small probability do not occur. Dembski estimated 10^80 elementary particles in the universe and asked how many times per second an event could occur. He used the Planck value of 10^45. He then calculated the number of seconds from the beginning of the universe to the present and for good measure multiplied by ten million for 10^25 seconds in all. He thereby obtained 10^80 x 10^45 x 10^25 = 10^150, or more exactly 0.5 x 10^150, for his Law of Small Probability to eliminate chance
Currently, there does not seem to be a scientific criterion more generous to evolution than Dembski’s one chance in 0.5 x 10^150. Anything as rare as that probability had absolutely no possibility of happening by chance at any time by any conceivable specifying agent by any conceivable process throughout all of cosmic history. To test against that criterion, we take one chance in 2.3 x 10^75 for one protein (Yockey, 1992, pp. 255, 257) and multiply by the 60,000 proteins required for the abiogenesis of a minimal cell (Denton, 1986, p. 263; Morowitz, 1966, pp. 446-459) and obtain one chance in more than 104,478,296 (Mastropaolo, 1999, p. iii). That exceeds Dembski’s most generous criterion for impossible by more than 104,478,146. Or if 0.5 x 10^150 to 1 is the most generous probability science can provide to demarcate possibility from miracle, then with more than four million orders of magnitude to spare abiogenesis must be considered miraculous. To put abiogenesis in biology textbooks as evolutionists have done throughout the United States is to teach evolution religion as science and that violates the requirement of the U.S. Constitution prohibiting the establishment of a state religion (Constitution of the United States of America, 1787, Amendment I, see note).

Richard Dawkins,(Dawkins, 1996, pp. 144, 146).
Suppose we want to suggest, for instance, that life began when both DNA and its protein- based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one”  (Dawkins, 1996, pp. 144, 146).

Paul Davies, the fifth miracle, page 54:
Life as we know it requires hundreds of thousands of specialist proteins, not to mention the nucleic acids. The odds against producing just the proteins by pure chance are something like 1O^40000 to 1.
There are indeed a lot of stars—at least ten billion billion in the observable universe. But this number, gigantic as it may appear to us, is nevertheless trivially small compared with the gigantic odds against the random assembly of even a single protein molecule. Though the universe is big, if life formed solely by random agitation in a molecular junkyard, there is scant chance it has happened twice.

Regarding the probability of spontaneous generation, Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate, George Wald stated in 1954:
"One has to only contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here-as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."

The late Nobel prize winning scientist George Wald once wrote,
 “However improbable we regard this event [evolution], or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once… Time is in fact the hero of the plot… Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs the miracles.”


1. http://xwalk.ca/origin.html#fn15


more reading:
Confusing Probability: The “Every-Sequence-Is-Equally-Improbable” Argument
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/confusing-probability-the-every-sequence-is-equally-improbable-argument/

Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis

http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/chadwick/default.html



Last edited by Admin on Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:00 pm; edited 14 times in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
Infinite monkey theorem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
For physically meaningful numbers of monkeys typing for physically meaningful lengths of time the results are reversed. If there were as many monkeys as there are atoms in the observable universe typing extremely fast for trillions of times the life of the universe, the probability of the monkeys replicating even a single page of Shakespeare is unfathomably minute.

Ignoring punctuation, spacing, and capitalization, a monkey typing letters uniformly at random has a chance of one in 26 of correctly typing the first letter of Hamlet. It has a chance of one in 676 (26 × 26) of typing the first two letters. Because the probability shrinks exponentially, at 20 letters it already has only a chance of one in 2620 = 19,928,148,895,209,409,152,340,197,376 (almost 2 × 10^28). In the case of the entire text of Hamlet, the probabilities are so vanishingly small as to be inconceivable. The text of Hamlet contains approximately 130,000 letters. Thus there is a probability of one in 3.4 × 10183,946 to get the text right at the first trial. The average number of letters that needs to be typed until the text appears is also 3.4 × 10183,946, or including punctuation, 4.4 × 10360,783.

Even if every proton in the observable universe were a monkey with a typewriter, typing from the Big Bang until the end of the universe (when protons might no longer exist), they would still need a still far greater amount of time – more than three hundred and sixty thousand orders of magnitude longer – to have even a 1 in 10^500 chance of success. To put it another way, for a one in a trillion chance of success, there would need to be 10360,641 universes made of atomic monkeys.[note 6] As Kittel and Kroemer put it in their textbook on thermodynamics, the field whose statistical foundations motivated the first known expositions of typing monkeys, "The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event...", and the statement that the monkeys must eventually succeed "gives a misleading conclusion about very, very large numbers."

In fact there is less than a one in a trillion chance of success that such a universe made of monkeys could type any particular document a mere 79 characters long.
the guys who invented these types of mathematical analogies disagree...once the chance of an event occurring exceeds a particular threshold...the chance of success is equal to zero in any operational sense of the word.

Why a Living Cell Cannot Arise by Chance
12 Reasons Why Evolution Cannot 
Explain the Origin of Life on Earth pg.39:

So how can we know that it is impossible for a living cell to arise by chance? The answer lies in understanding that a single cell is vastly more complicated than anything human minds have ever engineered. Let us consider the components of a simple cell using the well-studied organism Escherichia coli, which is a single-celled organism found in the human gastrointestinal tract. In 1996 a two-volume, 2,800-page set of articles that summarized some of our knowledge of the biochemistry and biology of this organism was published. Using this data, George Javor, professor of biochemistry at Loma Linda University, calculated the following statistics:

[size=12]A single living E. coli contains around 2.4 million protein molecules made up of approximately 4,000 different types of proteins. Along with these proteins, the cell contains around 255,000 nucleic acid molecules made up of 660 different types of nucleic acids. Included with these nucleic acids are around 1.4 million polysaccharides (long chains of sugar-type molecules) molecules made up of three different types of polysaccharides. Associated with these polysaccharides are around 22 million lipid molecules made up of 50 to 100 different types of lipids. These lipids also cooperate with many millions of metabolic intermediate molecules made up of about 800 different types of compounds that have to be at just the right concentration, otherwise the cell will die. Along with the metabolic intermediates, there are many millions of mineral molecules made up of 10 to 30 different types of minerals.[/size]

We know that intelligence is able to create high-information containing codes, like books, computer codes, and complex machines and factories. We observe in the natural world organisms made by the same principles, namely codified specified information, and irreducible and interdependent molecular machines and cell factories, while the only possible natural mechanisms, namely chance or random chemical reactions, do not have this broad range of intelligence-like capabilities. Its safe therefore to conclude, that the origin of life is best explained through a intelligent creator, and not well explained through natural mechanisms. This is not a inference based on what we do not know, commonly called " argument from ignorance", as proponents of naturalism frequently like to argue, but it is a conclusion based on what science has discovered in the last few decades about how cells work, and how they are build up. The only rational explanation for the origin of cells, and life, is creation through a intelligent designer. 

According to Dembski and Borel  (Dembski, 1998, pp. 5, 62, 209, 210).

specified events of small probability do not occur. Dembski estimated 10^80 elementary particles in the universe and asked how many times per second an event could occur. He used the Planck value of 10^45. He then calculated the number of seconds from the beginning of the universe to the present and for good measure multiplied by ten million for 10^25 seconds in all. He thereby obtained 10^80 x 10^45 x 10^25 = 10^150, or more exactly 0.5 x 10^150, for his Law of Small Probability to eliminate chance

Currently, there does not seem to be a scientific criterion more generous to evolution than Dembski’s one chance in 0.5 x 10^150. Anything as rare as that probability had absolutely no possibility of happening by chance at any time by any conceivable specifying agent by any conceivable process throughout all of cosmic history. To test against that criterion, we take one chance in 2.3 x 10^75 for one protein (Yockey, 1992, pp. 255, 257) and multiply by the 60,000 proteins required for the abiogenesis of a minimal cell (Denton, 1986, p. 263; Morowitz, 1966, pp. 446-459) and obtain one chance in more than 104,478,296 (Mastropaolo, 1999, p. iii). That exceeds Dembski’s most generous criterion for impossible by more than 104,478,146. Or if 0.5 x 10^150 to 1 is the most generous probability science can provide to demarcate possibility from miracle, then with more than four million orders of magnitude to spare abiogenesis must be considered miraculous. To put abiogenesis in biology textbooks as evolutionists have done throughout the United States is to teach evolution religion as science and that violates the requirement of the U.S. Constitution prohibiting the establishment of a state religion (Constitution of the United States of America, 1787, Amendment I, see note).

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum