Posted on 06/15/2017 12:50:19 PM PDT by Kaslin
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.
A hurricane blows through a junkyard and assembles a fully functioning 747 jet.
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.”
>>With NO evidence of...
>>1. ‘Changing’ environment...
Gunnison Colorado typically has some of the lowest temperatures in the state... reported by the weatherman.
Ask the dinosaurs who used to live in the tropical rainforest there about ‘Change’.
Pretty sure they weren’t around to vote for Obama.
CREATIONAL
Hmm, if the ‘C’ and ‘E’ are removed...
RATIONAL
Wouldn’t that be nice?
Neither "stasis" nor "macro-mutation" are demonstrably valid ideas, regardless of Gould or others.
DNA analyses show us that Darwin's "descent with modifications" happens in every generation -- we all come with a small number of mutations our ancestors never had.
Most such are harmless or harmful, but a small number helpful in natural selection.
And where human animal husbandry multiplies the effects of natural selection, dramatic changes can happen very quickly indeed -- consider dogs from wolves.
It also means that "stasis" is not really static over geological time periods, since genetic drift continues even while outer physical forms (i.e., fossils) remain similar.
I'm saying: fossils from very different time periods which might look the same will not, in fact, be the same species.
For example, consider African & Indian elephants -- obviously similar & related, they are not the same species and cannot naturally interbreed.
So, with similar looking fossils from the past.
Bob434: "Here’s the circular reasoning quote:
‘Stasis, as palpable and observable in virtually all cases (whereas rapid punctuations are usually; but not always, elusive), becomes the major empirical ground for studying punctuated equilibrium’
"in other words- lack of evidence for punctuated equilibrium is proof of punctuated equilibrium"
Assuming this is Gould, that's not at all what he said.
Instead, he's remarking on the similarity of some fossils found in different geological strata, thought to be millions of years different in ages.
That's the "stasis" bothering him.
My point is that over millions of years, "similar" does not mean "the same" and species from the end of that period are not, in fact, the same as those from the beginning, regardless of how similar they look.
My example of African & Indian elephants holds here -- sure they are similar, though different enough to be separate species which cannot interbreed naturally.
They demonstrate that Gould's "equilibrium" is not as equal as might be supposed.
As for "punctuated", human animal husbandry demonstrates that huge changes in form can happen "overnight" geologically speaking, when conditions are right for them.
Sure, your typical fossil records would show the "sudden appearance" of new species (dogs) and virtual disappearance of primordial wolves.
But we know it did not really happen "overnight" and various species do coexist, for now, at the same time.
Viruses demonstrate “macro” evolution quite succinctly.
The name means "walking whale", but recent studies suggest it was more whale-like than walking land animal.
Compare skeletons of Ambulocetus & walrus:
I’ve always said it’s a “leap of faith” to believe in evolution ...... if one’s going to have faith, IMO it should be in Almighty God.
It's totally true, fossils are quite rare, and millions of years can pass between one well preserved fossil of a particular biological family and the next.
If those two fossils, separated by millions of years of geological strata, appear quite similar then that begs explanation, along with their differences, no matter how apparently minor.
But it's important to remember that the total number of fossils collected over the past 150+ years is in the billions, representing hundreds of thousands of species including innumerable transitional forms.
Indeed, I have long argued that every fossil is transitional between its ancestors and descendants, if any.
The only real question then is: how many and how closely related are the various transitional species found?
Bob434: "...there’s no evidence for punc eek but of course that’s the answer to lack of transitionals"
Of course the evidence of "equilibrium" is the similarity of some fossils over many years of geological strata.
They demonstrate that forms can remain similar over long periods, if conditions didn't change.
As for transitional forms, any number of the hundreds of thousands of fossil species identified can be classified as transitional.
Here are some examples:
My non-scientific answer is: the same Mind Who created nature in the first place.
You disagree?
Elsie: "With NO evidence of... 1. 'Changing' environment... 2. 'NEW"\'??? predators??? 3. Selective Diseases? "
You saw my word "suspect", right?
And as a student of English language, you do comprehend the difference between "suspect" and "proved", right?
As for evidence, every layer in the geological strata is chock full of evidence of changing environments, and some reveal new predators.
Fossil evidence of disease is hard to find, but is clearly here today, so has been speculated on in prehistoric times.
Where two species previously separated meet, diseases of one may play a role in extinction of the other.
And these are problems for you because of what, exactly?
>>the same Mind Who created nature in the first place.
No “mind” seems to be required once the mechanisms for replicating DNA are in place.
But science does not require that every theory be replicated, indeed, by definition, what you can replicate & observe is no longer theory but rather confirmed fact.
That's why basic evolution remains a confirmed theory, since much of it (ancient events) cannot be observed.
What makes basic evolution confirmed are its predictions, then observed-confirmede daily by workers in related fields.
Evolution theory also uses basic assumptions for natural science, including: 1) only natural explanations for natural processes (methodological naturalism) and 2) processes we see today operated the same in the past (consistent).
You well know that many organic chemical processes require no RNA or DNA.
Whether any of those can be called "lifelike" or not is a matter of definitions -- as is any connection to basic evolution theory.
HLPhat: "Leme know when the STEM worshippers have managed to create that from non-living elements in a controlled lab environment."
Has the abiogenesis of RNA/DNA from non-living elements been confirmed in the chemistry lab - Yes or No?
>>You well know that many organic chemical processes require no RNA or DNA.
Stop talking out of your Arse.
Evolution REQUIRES RNA/DNA.
And NO - functional, LIVING, RNA/DNA has NOT been manufactured in the lab from non-living elements.
Please note transitional forms in, for example, my post #587.
And these are a problem for you, why, exactly?
I would say that science itself is the study of God's mind, which like our own minds my have portions allocated to basic bodily functions (nature) and others to teleological objectives (i.e., miracles).
That's just my non-scientific speculation of course.
Natural science by its very definition cannot deal with anything supernatural and so, for methodological purposes, assumes it away.
Don't take my word for it, read the books yourself.
And there are many others similar available.
These are simply two I know of & read.
Go ahead, read them, the knowledge won't hurt you a bit, I promise.
>>I would say that science itself is the study of God’s mind,
I would say that sounds like a lot of self-indulgent/admiring New Age manure.
>>Don’t take my word for it, read the books yourself.
Those books don’t provide a repeatable methodology for producing living RNA/DNA.
That’s the difference between SCIENCE and the garbage you’re pulling out of your vociferously opinionated and ignorant arse.
This is an example of a published paper that includes a repeatable methodology for isolating RNA from Tetrahymena:
“From 2 Q of Tetrahymena, 0.5 ig (3.7 pmoles) of
pure IVS RNA was routinely isolated.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC320658/pdf/nar00378-0064.pdf
Produce a published paper that provides a repeatable methodology describing the process used to manufacture RNA/DNA from non-living elements or STFU and stop wasting bandwidth and people’s time.
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.