Damn Lucky Evillotionits

In fact this one is very highly "possible" when it is compared with the other calculations.

The calculations of British mathematician Roger Penrose show that the probability of universe conducive to life occurring by chance is in 10(over)10(over)123. The phrase "extremely unlikely" is inadequate to describe this possibility.


Consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.

Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.

But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."

The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.

All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!

Category:

Comedy

Tags:

• evolution
• chance
• coincidence
• random
• mutation
• Boeing
• 747
• Richard
• Dawkins
• Charles
• Darwin
• natural
• selection
• atheism

[antonyhamill]

Woah! Them "Evillotioists" (sic) Must be gutted that you didn't have the intelligence to spell their name correctly. You damn Kristiahn Kweationist

[HighFlyingDutchman]

@antonyhamill

haha

:D i know how to spell it

the title is just kidding

hehe

but im not a kristiahn

lol :D

peace

[bigboy45454545]

Oh I know the answer! "God did it".............Do I win a prize for my false assumptions and stupidity?

[Noisegator]

Oh the stupid! It BURNS!

.

Organic chemicals (indeed all chemicals) do not organise by chance. They do so according to their inherent natures.

.

Proto-life was not composed of the same polymers we find in modern cells today. It certainly would not have needed the hundreds of organels proposed by the OP.

.

Get a clue.

[AxeVEVO]

Give me 4 Billion years. I BET I can make that damn machine pull up any combo you want a trillion times. That's trillion with a T. 

[rkyeun]

I'm confused. Is this video an argument you're actually presenting, or a parody to make denialists look stupid?

[disrxt]

Are the contestants allowed to pull the lever for a couple of billion years storing any precursors that help the process? I'm sure you think it's more more logical to just say, "It's magic!" like a Kalahari bushman finding a Coca Cola bottle that fell from a plane. Ascribe anything your personal ignorance can't explain to magic.

[brmadman4455]

@cr4zyu Well, you're the one making the argument, so shouldn't you be the one to explain your logic? Also, while you're at it, can you explain why you only talk about carbon 14 when there are several other methods to date fossils?

[cr4zyu]

gregrutz: "Fossils can be covered slowly in the bottom of a lake." And remian complete and intact? Not so! Scanengers make a big mess of a pile of bones big or small. One piftheenth of a % and you claim it all. Fossils are formed by rapid deposition of sediments. Natural Selection DOES NOT cause evolution, it causes Natural Selections. Dogs make dogs, apes make apes. So with the 'miracle' of time you contradict you own statement. You are missing a far richer, more coherent explanation. Chio.

[gregrutz]

@cr4zyu Wrong, fossils can be covered slowly in the bottom of a lake.

Natural Selection causes evolution, glad you accept it.

Dogs make dogs, apes make apes. That is why we are still apes.

[cr4zyu]

@Noisegator Thanks for your reply. "The Origin of the Genetic Code" tube at 1m:09s states: "Growth was originally driven by replication-induced osmotic pressure and thermodynamics". My question about "inherent nature" relates to statements like the above. Such statements amplify the need to understand that before "matter and processes" there had to be 'rules of (information) engagement'. This requires pre-existent intelligence, as information of itself requires no media.