Dismembering Evolution 6: Math

Math is almost universally considered to be the one thing that take a theory and actually prove it well enough to make it a law. It is also the tool most commonly used to determine if theories are even remotely possible, probable, or incredibly likely to be true. Science loves math for these specific reasons.

Yep science loves math for these reasons, but evolution hates math for the same reasons.

Mathematically speaking, anything that has 1 out of 10 to the 50th power of probability is considered impossible. I have heard it go as low as to the 1 chance out of 10 to the 46th power, and as high as 1 chance in 10 to the 62nd power. For the sake of argument let’s use the one that grants the greatest range of possibility, 1 times 10 to the 62nd power. For those of you who are unfamiliar with scientific notation, this number is this big: 1 chance in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. Any chance smaller than this is impossible.

Francis Crick, an Atheist and by no means a creationist or intelligent design supporter, a Nobel laureate for his work with James Watson in discovering the DNA helix did the following lesser known work. Inspired by the incredible intricacy of DNA and the amazing complexity of a single cell he set about working out the math to determine the probability of a single cell arising by mere chance. After much work that has been rechecked by mathematicians many times, he came up with a probability of 1 chance in 10 to the 200 power. For a better visual this number is this big: 1 chance in 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. That is the odds of a single cell coming about by mere chance. As you can see, this is far beyond the upper limits of possibility. And that number is twice as big as the biggest named number, a 1 with 100 zeroes after it, called a Google (sound familiar? Tasty tidbit: According to Google there are 24,430,000,000 web sites with the letter a in them. This obviously does not include any websites in any language that does not use the letter A, but it’s a big number, and a tiny one compared to the numbers we are using here.). It is important to mote that every 0 at the end of a number makes the new number 10 times bigger than the last one. So 10 to the 63rd power is actually 10X less likely than the upper limits of impossible at 10 to the 62nd power.

As I understand it, Crick solved his dilemma with evolution by deciding that life on Earth must have extraterrestrial origins. That Earth was “seeded” somehow by life elsewhere in the universe. While it is tempting to attack the obvious logical fallacies in this type of thinking I shall spare him the humiliation as no serious scientist is willing to step up and support the idea that life on Earth is actual alien in nature.

Fred Hoyle came up with even more unlikely results of 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000. I’m just mentioning this as a side note since Crick’s work is damning enough on it’s own without being so easily attacked as an inflated number.

Given this, it is important to note that this work inspired another evolutionist to look into the odds of a creature as complex as a human coming about from pure chance from non-life through evolution in the entire time the universe has been around. Ted Holden found that the chances of humanity evolving from non-life are 1 chance in 10 to the 167,896th power. This is such an astronomically large number that it rivals the number of particles that can be found in entire universe.

So what do Darwinists do in the face of good math damning their pet theory? They make ridiculous statements like the following: Ted's sample calculation of the odds is invalid, because it presumes a simplest-replicator many orders of magnitude larger than abiogeneticists propose, and treats individual events as independent, which no abiogeneticist proposes. In short, those odds are a straw man (Wayne Throop).

Ah, I see. So the odds of a process happening at all are meaningless because, as you can see by the life all around you, it must have happened no matter what the odds are, so quit muddying up the waters with facts. All we have to do say it' actually easier. All we have to do is say that even simpler proteins are needed than we used to say. All we have to do is say that the smallest replicators are easier to have happen and that suddenly validates the idea that all of these simple replicators actually came together, formed a more complex replicator, then formed a living cell, and then tat cell evolved into the incredible diversity of life that has covered the Earth at various times throughout history. Who cares about the odds of all this stuff actually happening, as long as we can say that the simplest self replicating molecule isn’t quite as improbable as an entire human?

Even in this series, Darwinists have repeatedly made the claim relevant data is meaningless simply because the waters can be muddied enough to allow for reinterpretation of the data. This is, in my opinion, both sloppy and dishonest. It is also remarkably common when evolution is involved (and other politicized issues like climate change), and remarkably uncommon when ideology is left out of science. Can you imagine a doctor saying that a verified case of HIV isn't really HIV because this particular strain of HIV seems to replicate at a slightly faster rate in this patient, so it MUST be a new virus. How long before this man gets tossed out of medicine for incompetence?

Further delving into the math shows that out of the known amino acids there are 10 to the 390 possible proteins that can be made. However, out of this only 2 x 10 to the12th power are usable for life. the rest is unusable gibberish in living organisms, and by the simple lack of their use in living structures, it can be reasonably assumed that the inclusion of these 10 to the 378th power proteins is fatal in life. This reasonably explains why no new phyla have emerged following any of the great extinctions. Everything that can be used to make life was already being used, all else is dross. Why does this matter? Well, if so many proteins are available, how many unusable proteins are self replicating? I would assume none, but I also know of no proteins that are viable for life that are purely self replicating, though there may be a few. But even if we assume that out of the 2 x 10 to the 12th power proteins that life uses every one is capable of self replication (they are not, but let’s just go crazy here for a second) what mechanism would attract all of these proteins together to form a living cell? There is no answer to this question to date, and since the exceedingly generous conditions I have allowed are not reality, an answer is unlikely to be forthcoming. Even so, toss in just one fatal protein, and the entire project gets dead. All replication ceases to be.

There was a conference in England some years back where a bunch of biologists and mathematicians got together to try to prove the mathematical probability of evolution. It broke down into pure bickering and has never been repeated. This happened because every model the evolutionary biologists presented, when it was calculated out, was mathematically impossible. Even on repeated rechecks, and these mathematicians were not a bunch of Creationists or intelligent designers just out to destroy evolution, the math kept showing that every scenario, every theory, every mechanism, was simply impossible. Not one part of evolution help up to the math. So what happened? The Biologists kept telling the mathematicians that they were wrong and the math was wrong because evolution happened, it's just a fact. The mathematicians did many rechecks and concluded that the math was absolutely correct and that there is no way evolution could have happened; there had to be another answer, or another mechanism. So what did the biologists do? They continued to insist the math was wrong because the existence of life proves evolution happened. Very rational and mature of them I'm sure.

This event is not very well publicized. It is not well publicized because it casts doubt on evolution, and the only other theories besides evolution that are known today are ones that involve a God or godlike being making life. Since modern science has chosen to be antithetical to religion this is an unacceptable consequence. Amazingly, in their frantic defense of evolution, the Darwinists continue to refuse to even look for other answers. Is there another answer out there that does not include God? I don’t think so. But then I don’t know everything. There may well be another answer out there, and all research into finding it is being stifled by this idiotic insistence that evolution must be correct despite the obvious errors in the theory, the hostile math, and every other problem with the theory of evolution. Science is supposed to be self correcting, but how can it correct itself when it blinds itself to correction, or even additional possibilities?

In the realm of evolution this problem is purely theological. The Atheists need something to cling to that they use to say God does not need to exist. It is the justification they need to continue in their non-belief. That’s all fine and dandy, but don’t go trying to pass it off as science. Call it what it is. Call it your religion. It already has a name. It’s called Darwinism.