The Odds of Evolution Are Zero

Zero times anything is zero. The odds of life just happening by chance are zero.

This universe just springing into being by chance is impossible. It takes a leap of blind faith to believe in evolution, unguided or guided. Of course, there are tiny changes within kinds. It seems to me usually when the evolutionists make their case, they point to these tiny changes.

The analogies to the improbability of evolution by a random process are endless.

Scrabble pieces are randomly spilled out on the board, and they spell out the Declaration of Independence word for word. (Source: Dr. Stephen Meyer, author of Darwin’s Doubt).

A monkey sits at a typewriter and types thousands of pages. He types out word for word, with no mistakes, the entire works of Shakespeare.

The odds against our universe, of the earth, of the creation, to have just come into being with no intelligent design behind the grand scheme are greater than all of these impossible scenarios.

Forget the works of Shakespeare. What are the odds of a monkey randomly typing away simply spelling the 9-letter word “evolution” by chance? That doesn’t sound too hard, does it?

Dr. Scott M. Huse, B.S., M.S., M.R.E., Th.D., Ph.D., who holds graduate degrees in computer science, geology, and theology, wrote a book about creation/evolution back in the early 1980s, The Collapse of Evolution. Huse has done extensive study on these questions of random probability. I had the privilege of interviewing him about it for Dr. D. James Kennedy’s television special, “The Case for Creation” (1988). It was a type of Scopes Trial in reverse---filmed on location in Tennessee, in the very courtroom where the 1925 monkey trial took place.

Later, Huse created a computer program to see what are the odds of a monkey typing the word “evolution”? He notes that the odds are 1 in 5.4 trillion, which statistically is the same thing as zero. Any casino that offered such horrible odds would lose customers quickly, because no one would ever win. Forgive my bluntness, but the suckers have to win something before they start losing big.

Here’s what Scott told me in an email: “The typical personal computer keyboard has 104 keys, most of which are not letters from the alphabet. However, if we ignore that fact and say the monkey can only hit keys that are letters of the alphabet, he has a one in twenty-six chance of hitting the correct letter each time.

“Of course, he has to hit them in the correct sequence as well: E then V then O, etc. Twenty-six to the power of nine (the number of letters in the word “evolution”) equals 5,429,503,678,976.

“So, the odds of him accidentally typing just the 9-letter word ‘evolution’ are about 1 in about 5.4 trillion …From a purely mathematical standpoint, the bewildering complexity of even the most basic organic molecules [which are much more complicated than a nine-letter word] completely rules out the possibility of life originating by mere chance.”

Take just one aspect of life---amino acids and protein cells. Dr. Stephen Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science at Cambridge University. In his New York Times bestselling book, Darwin’s Doubt (2013), Meyer points out that “the probability of attaining a correct sequence [of amino acids to build a protein molecule] by random search would roughly equal the probability of a blind spaceman finding a single marked atom by chance among all the atoms in the Milky Way galaxy---on its face clearly not a likely outcome.” (p. 183)

And this is just one aspect of life, the most basic building-block. In Meyer’s book, he cites the work of engineer-turned-molecular-biologist, Dr. Douglas Axe, who has since written the book, Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed (2016).

In the interview I did with Scott Huse long ago, he noted, “The probability of life originating through mere random processes, as evolutionists contend, really honestly, is about zero…. If you consider probability statistics, it exposes the naiveté and the foolishness, really, of the evolutionary viewpoint.”

Dr. Charles Thaxton was another guest on that classic television special from 1988. He is a scientist who notes that life is so complex, the chances of it arising by mere chance is virtually impossible. Thaxton, now with the Discovery Institute, has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry, and a post-doctorate degree in molecular biology and a Harvard post-doctorate in the history and philosophy of science.

Thaxton notes, “I’d say in my years of study, the amazing thing is the utter complexity of living things….Most scientists would readily grant that however life happened, it did not happen by chance.”

The whole creation points to the Creator. Huse sums up the whole point: “Simply put, a watch has a watchmaker and we have a Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ.”

[[I am certain that either 1) these alleged “scientists” misrepresented themselves, or 2) you seriously misunderstand what they said.]]

LOL- whenever scientists don’t toe you TOE line, they aren’t ‘real scientists’ in your mind- Sir- they were and are real scientists- and nope- Demski states that evolution via mutation is impossible- far far far beyond the upper probability limits- I didn’t misrepresent anything brojoek

[[That is so much non-scientific nonsense, where to even begin correcting you?]]

It’sw not just me you ‘need to correct brojoek- many scientists recognize kinds- whether you give them credit for being ‘real scientists’ or not-

As i said- we’ve been over and over these same talking points many times in the past- I have no desire to engage you or anyone else who deceitfully dismisses anyone you don’tr agree with as a ‘psuedoscientist’

You can go aroudn claiming the TOE is settled fact all youl ike- but the fact is that hte debate rages on between scientists of all stripes- both Creation and secular- many secular macroevolution supporting scientists are at the very least willing to admit there are serious problems with the hypothesis- Demski being one of them- you can poo poo the likes of demski all you like- but he’s well respected in the scientific community where ‘real scientists’ value his input on both sides of the debate-

[[That’s evolution, man-made but still evolution.]]

Bzzzt- sorry- you obviously don’t understand adaption vs macroevolution

[[My point here is: your suggestion of “adding” or “subtracting” alleged “information” is just an anti-evolutionist fantasy.]]

Good golly- you really don’t understand macroevolution do you? Pf course you need to add new information to move a species KIND beyond it’s own KIND

Again- you can ignore this all you like=- but ‘real scientists’ know there is a problem here- and hte debate rages on- you can think and claim it’s settled- but nope- you’re wrong-

[[Well... first, whatever “wars” you fantasized were “fought”, your side lost decisively, since none of your anti-evolution arguments are accepted scientifically, none, including your ridiculous distinctions between “speciation” and “macroevolution”.]]

Bzzzt wrong- and drop the idiotic ‘fantasizing’ statements- they cheapen your arguments-

[[So “kinds” is not in science, is not science, is non-science and, indeed, is nonsense scientifically.]]

In intellectually honest circles it sure is- many secular scientists have declared that it’s a problem for the TOE- You know very little about the issue if you claim kinds is not a part of the science- even secular scientists admit to kinds- but of course- they can’t possibly be ‘real scientists’ in your mind because they don’t agree that species is all there is when classifying-

[[your side lost decisively, since none of your anti-evolution arguments are accepted scientifically,]]

Oh but you are wrong- a great many arguments are acknolwedged scientifically- the intellectually honest scientists don’t run away fro mthe problems by claiming ‘you lose’ to the other side either- they confront hte problems head on and try at least to coem up with natural explanations- that is what ‘real scientists’ do- they don’t sit aroudn insultign one another and claiming victory by dismissing everyoen that doesn’t agree with their opinion 100%

[[Bop434: “The bottom line here is that evolutionary theory does indeed violate the principle of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.”

Total nonsense, once you realize Earth is God’s reaction chamber.]]

I pointed you to the facts- but by your own admission- you refuse to read them- oh well- have a nice day

Return

For four cards, the formula is 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 = 24. Try it! You can arrange only 4 cards in 24 separate ways.

If there were 5 cards, then the chances of a particular arrangement by chance are 1 in 120 (1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5).

We suggest that you click here to see how this works, otherwise you find it difficult to believe what follows. Because when you get to the 20th card, there are more different combinations of cards than there are seconds in two billion years...

With 9 there are 362,880, with 10 there are 3,628,800, with 11 there are 39,916,800, with 12 there are 479,001,600, with 13 there are 6,227,020,800, with 14 there are 87,178,291,200, with 15 there are 1,307,674,368,000, with 16 there are 20,922,789,888,000, with 17 there are 355,687,428,096,000, with 18 there are 6,402,373,705,728,000, with 19 there are 121,645,100,408,832,000, and with 20 there are 2,432,902,008,176,640,000 random combinations.

There are only 1,051,200,000,000,000 seconds in two billion years. So, with the random combinations of just 20 cards, one has already surpassed the number of seconds in two billion years by more than two thousand times...

There are 1,051,200,000,000,000 seconds in two billion years and there are 1,000,000,000,000,000 neurological connections - this would require a rate of evolution of approximately one fully perfected connection per second for two billion years. And is hardly even the beginning, because at the same time one would have to evolve a non-physical digital (?) code that describes not only millions upon millions of separate colors, but also every sensation, emotion and thought of man.

http://creationdesign.org/english/chances.html

An occurrence that has more than one chance in 10⁵⁰, it has a statistically zero chance of actually occurring.

"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10⁵⁰ has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence."

I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (New York: NW Research Publications, Inc., 1984), p. 205 (as quoted in Vance Ferrell, The Evolution Handbook (Evolution Facts, Inc., Altamont TN, 2001) p. 260

In order to circumvent the problem of statistical zero, evolutionists often argue that "Given enough time, anything can happen." This is not a rational argument. It proves nothing. It is a reference to practically infinite periods of time that lie beyond statistical zero.

"A further aspect I should like to discuss is what I call the practice of avoiding the conclusion that the probability of a self-producing state is zero ... When for practical purposes the condition of infinite time and matter has to be invoked, the concept of probability is annulled. By such logic we can prove anything ... "

P.T. Mora, The Folly of Probability, as quoted in Origins 13(2):98-104 (1986) Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Lind University, 1986. Emphasis supplied.

In fact the chances of the chance formation of just DNA - much less all of the applications of DNA - are so remote, they are far beyond statistical zero.

"This means that 10⁸⁹¹⁹⁰ DNA molecules, on average, must form to provide the one chance of forming the specific DNA sequence necessary to code 124 proteins. 10⁸⁹¹⁹⁰ DNAs would weigh 10⁸⁹¹⁴⁷ more than the earth ... A quantity of DNA this colossal could never have been formed.

R.L. Wysong, The Creation Evolution Controversy, (Inquiry Press, Midland MI, 1976) p.115, as quoted in The Evolution Handbook (Evolution Facts, Inc., Altamont TN, 2001) p. 261. Same Website as above

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!

http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/

Bob434: "LOL- whenever scientists don’t toe you TOE line, they aren’t ‘real scientists’ in your mind- Sir- they were and are real scientists- and nope- Demski states that evolution via mutation is impossible- far far far beyond the upper probability limits- I didn’t misrepresent anything brojoek "

Sorry, I had to look up your William Dembski (note spelling).
Turns out he's no scientist, he's an anti-evolution theologian, philosopher & mathematician.
The only "scientific" work he ever did was publishing books opposed to real science.
So it's all just rubbish & nonsense.

As to whether it's legitimate to argue against natural science, of course it is -- so long as not done under false pretenses or disguised as science itself.
Name yourself for what you truly are -- for example, a theologian who considers the Supernatural superior to mere natural scientific explanations -- then make your case.

What you can't do is pretend to be scientific when your real purpose is to defeat science.

As for what is, or is not, real science, that is established by the scientific community, in US law and confirmed in numerous court rulings.
Natural science is what real scientists say it is, not what anti-scientists pretend & mock it to be.

As for your misrepresentations, Bob434, I'm confident they originate in your misunderstandings, but I'm also certain you really don't want to know the facts of this matter, do you?

Bob434: " It’sw not just me you ‘need to correct brojoek- many scientists recognize kinds- whether you give them credit for being ‘real scientists’ or not- "

But there are genuine differences between real science and pseudo-science, differences established by the scientific community itself and recognised in US law.
Within real science itself are many discussions & debates on subjects related to evolution, but none of the type represented by anti-science theologians like your William Dembski.
Natural science is on firmer ground than the Dembskis would have us believe.

One reason is the mathematical odds which you calculate as so impossibly high are actually quite inevitable once you realize both the chemical conditions and time frames necessary for "complexification".

Bob434: "You can go aroudn claiming the TOE is settled fact all youl ike- but the fact is that hte debate rages on between scientists of all stripes- both Creation and secular- many secular macroevolution supporting scientists are at the very least willing to admit there are serious problems with the hypothesis- Demski being one of them- you can poo poo the likes of demski all you like- but he’s well respected in the scientific community where ‘real scientists’ value his input on both sides of the debate-"

But your Dembski is not well respected anywhere, he is a theologian, pseudo-scientist at Discovery Institute, defeated in court and now resigned.
Again, my opinion on these matters is you are entitled to whatever beliefs you wish, so long as you don't call those beliefs "scientific", because they're not.

Bob434: " Bzzzt- sorry- you obviously don’t understand adaption vs macro-evolution. "

Scientifically there is no difference except the time periods evaluated -- it's short term versus longer terms.

[[So it’s all just rubbish & nonsense.]]

BS- he’s the most respected mathematician around- it’s your whole attitude about anyone that doesn’t agree with you belief- and make no mistake- it’s a belief- full of faith that discredits you and your arguments- his finding coincide with many other great mathematicians down throguh the ages and he is tyaken seriously in the science world- your cavalier dismissive comments not withstanding-

the fact that you don’t even know that he is NOT an antievolution ‘theologian’ shows you bias and simplistic willingness to automatically dismiss anyone that doesn’t follow your line of thought- Dembski argues FOR evolution and you woudl have known that had you steered yourself clear of all the ignorant sites that can’t stand Dembski because he doesn’t follow their belief system word for word-

Thankfully- there are some real scientists who are objective enough to take what he says seriously and are intellectually honest enough to admit that yes indeed- his calculations DO amount ot a serious problem for macroevolution

You and I are going to have to simply agree to disagree because I have absolutely no desire to discuss such issues with someone who has hardly anything more to offer than simplistic dismissals and character attacks on anyone who doesn’t tout the hard-line macroevolution hypothesis

[[But your Dembski is not well respected anywhere,]]

I’ll leave with your silly statement on that one- He’s one of the most re4spected mathematicians around- period- your blog sites that claim he isn’t are nothing but pretend wannabe-s who can’t hold a candle to his brilliance- I’ll continue my discussions with folks whom I may disagre3e with but who aren’t in the habit of childish character assassinations like you and your friend practice-

There are plenty of real scientists who take him very seriously, and take behe seriously and take challenges seriously- they don’t run away from challenges by engagign in childish character assasinations and claiming ‘real science is what your preferred scientist state it is- your court rulings were BIASED by the way- but that doesn’t matter to you one bit because it props up your biologically, mathematically, chemically and thermodynamically impossible hypothesis- You can crow about it all you like but the court’s bias was so thick you could cut it with a knife- course you’ll never admit to it- but real scientists admit it-

Have a nice day

and just for the record- no science has not proven macroevolution no no, macroevolution is not established science- it is nothing more than an unsupported hypothesis that flies in the face of several impossibilities- a belief system, a philosophy that ignore evidences-

You have your personal opinion that it’s true despite all the impossibilities, yet it’s just that=- a belief, and to go around claiming everything else isn’t ‘real science’ discredits your arguments tremendously-

no ‘real scientist’ would stoop to such levels- nor woudl anyoen serious about discussign hte issues in an intellectually honest manner- and they don’t try to keep shutting down debates by constantly attacking those they disagree with- they engage in polite meaningful discussions that respect the other side- and don’t have to prop up their beliefs by claiming the opponent isn’t a ‘real scientist’ and trying to discredit them when their evidences are valid and problematic- doing such things is the cowards way out-

[[so long as you don’t call those beliefs “scientific”, because they’re not.]]

Something like that is just an immature thing to say- Mathematics IS a science in it’s own right- your side uses it all the time- so don’t sit there and claim he’s nothing but a ‘psuedoscientist’ and don’t keep claiming he isn’t respected anywhere- that is a flat out lie- not worthy of discussions like this- or at least it shouldn’t be- you have a nasty habit of trying to shut down discussions by using ridicule and high brow snobbery- that has no place in real discussions-

Bob434: "BS- he’s the most respected mathematician around- "

But mathematics is like any other logical program - G.I.G.O. -- garbage in, garbage out, if you begin with nonsense assumptions then your conclusions will necessarily be nonsense.
And that is your William Dembski.

Bob434: "it’s your whole attitude about anyone that doesn’t agree with you belief- and make no mistake- it’s a belief- full of faith that discredits you and your arguments..."

More rubbish & nonsense.
That's because, as I've posted now several times, science strictly defined is the opposite of any religion, in that science has no truth, no belief, no faith and nothing supernatural.
Instead, science deals only in observations (facts) and explanations (hypotheses) some confirmed as theories, and that's all.
A confirmed theory (i.e., evolution) is not "believed", it's only temporarily accepted as valid, pending falsification by new data or better explanations.
Indeed, the very idea of "settled science" is wrong, since the term really only implies an idea has been confirmed so often no future falsification is expected.
But strictly speaking, falsification could come any day, and that's one thing making science different from any religion.

Bob434: "his finding coincide with many other great mathematicians down throguh the ages and he is tyaken seriously in the science world- your cavalier dismissive comments not withstanding-"

But as a mathematician, your Dembski is neither a biologist, nor chemist, nor bio-chemist, nor physicist, nor paleontologist, nor radiologist, nor expert in any other discipline that he wishes to pass judgment on with his GIGO mathematics.

As for your claim Dembski is "taken seriously", I'd say that can only be as a threat to science, and today, well, not so much...

"William Albert "Bill" Dembski (born July 18, 1960) is an American mathematician, philosopher and theologian.
A former proponent of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design (ID), specifically the concept of specified complexity, he was previously a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC).[1]
On September 23, 2016 he announced his official retirement from intelligent design, resigning all his 'formal associations with the ID community, including [his] Discovery Institute fellowship of 20 years.'[2]"

Bob434: "the fact that you don’t even know that he is NOT an antievolution ‘theologian’ shows you bias and simplistic willingness to automatically dismiss anyone that doesn’t follow your line of thought- Dembski argues FOR evolution and you woudl have known that had you steered yourself clear of all the ignorant sites that can’t stand Dembski because he doesn’t follow their belief system word for word"

Wrong again.
Far from arguing "for evolution", your Dembski argues for something entirely different, possibly falsely named as "evolution" but in fact a very different explanation, as you no doubt well know, but for some reason want to conceal right now.

Bob434: ""Thankfully- there are some real scientists who are objective enough to take what he says seriously and are intellectually honest enough to admit that yes indeed- his calculations DO amount ot a serious problem for macroevolution"

But those calculations are based on false assumptions and are therefor GIGO.
Nobody not already committed to his theological position takes such nonsense seriously.

Bob434: "He’s one of the most re4spected mathematicians around"

A mathematician with no expertise in any science related to evolution, therefore GIGO.

Bob434: "There are plenty of real scientists who take him very seriously, and take behe seriously and take challenges seriously- they don’t run away from challenges by engagign in childish character assasinations "

The reason no real scientist takes people like Demski seriously is because Demski doesn't take science seriously enough to learn it, or practice it.
Instead he practices the politics of anti-science.

Here is a list of quotes from your Dembski.

Bob434: "your court rulings were BIASED by the way- but that doesn’t matter to you one bit because it props up your biologically, mathematically, chemically and thermodynamically impossible hypothesis- You can crow about it all you like but the court’s bias was so thick you could cut it with a knife- course you’ll never admit to it- but real scientists admit it-"

For nearly 100 years US courts have consistently ruled in favor of teaching evolution science in public schools.
Those courts consistently found that evolution is science and creationism or ID or whatever other name it goes under is not science.

Of course, you can and should learn creationism, ID & other such beliefs in church, but I promise you solemnly, you don't want government employees teaching your children any religion, especially their own.
Teach evolution science in school, teach your Creation religion in church.

Bob434: "and just for the record- no science has not proven macroevolution no no, macroevolution is not established science- it is nothing more than an unsupported hypothesis that flies in the face of several impossibilities- a belief system, a philosophy that ignore evidences-"

How many times now have I posted that macro-evolution does not exist as a separate process from adaption or so-called "micro-evolution"??
And yet over and over and over again you tell me macro-evolution does exist and yet it doesn't at the same time!
Seriously, is there some malfunction in your logical circuits?

Bob434: "Mathematics IS a science in it’s own right- your side uses it all the time- so don’t sit there and claim he’s nothing but a ‘psuedoscientist’ and don’t keep claiming he isn’t respected anywhere- that is a flat out lie-"

Of course mathematics is science, but nothing makes a mathematical theologian necessarily expert in biology or paleontology, etc.
Further, your man Dembski is not a real scientist at all, but instead is an anti-science political activist, has been most of his life.
It's not even science he really cares about so much as the politics of his theological position.

Bob434: "you have a nasty habit of trying to shut down discussions by using ridicule and high brow snobbery- that has no place in real discussions-"

No, I've shut down nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- FRiend.
But it's you, FRiend, who raised up this Dembski fellow as some kind of great authority whom I must bow down to and worship for his genius in mathematics, which Dembski somehow weaponized to "prove" that science is bunk!

Well, I don't bow and I don't worship your sombeech Dembski no matter how brilliant you claim he is.
I've seen nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- to justify your worship of him.
He's an anti-science political activist, nothing else, near as I can tell.

[[Nobody not already committed to his theological position takes such nonsense seriously.]]

Sure they odn’t- that’s why many mathematical scientists got together and stated the same thing he does-

[[Well, I don’t bow and I don’t worship your sombeech Dembski]]

Real classy -

[[No, I’ve shut down nothing — zero, zip, nada — FRiend.]]

Yuo can deny tryign to all you like- but you don’t even recognize what you are doing- it’s typical of your side- attack the messengers, attack their character- etc etc etc- Every time i post anythign you immediately attack the source- attack the writers- instead of discussin the issue in an intellectually honest manner-

[[How many times now have I posted that macro-evolution does not exist as a separate process]]

You can post it as many times as youl ike- they absolutely ARE separate from NS- wholly different processes- at least honest scientists admit that- so yeah whatever- keep posting- I’ll listen to those evolutionists who are honest enough to admit that at the very least

[[The reason no real scientist takes people like Demski seriously]]

Another ignorant attack on dembski- it just doesn’t stop with you-

[[That’s because, as I’ve posted now several times, science strictly defined is the opposite of any religion, in that science has no truth, no belief, no faith and nothing supernatural.]]

lol- no faith- good one- keep believing that- ‘opposite of religion’ lol- good one

Goodbye brojoek-

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.