polemotheos
User
Platinum Boarder
| Posts: 530 |  |
|
There is a Creator! - 2005/07/30 15:13
<b>If an object has a composition, geometry and arrangement of parts that do not form from unadorned processes then it is an intelligent creation.</b>
What shall we say of living organisms? How about the simplest ones?
For the past century many atheistic sophists have been arguing for macro evolution. If true, it would surely falsify the position of elaborate design from an intelligent Creator. In our consideration the simplest organism is an engineering masterpeice of complex systems of intricate mechanisms. Macro evolution is an argument that suggests these amazing organisms arised from insensate and haphazard chemical processes.
However total absence of spontaneously arising DNA, RNA or proteins is probably the strongest argument against macro evolution. These proteins found in living organisms are amazing machines. The simplest life form is a complex system of intricate mechanisms made of hundreds of different proteins.
Some of the most humorous arguments put forward by evolutionist is when they remove some of these “machines” from inside living cells and then claim “ah, ha, see this spring or gear does something and therefore is a cellular life precursor.” That's like doing to the same with a computer. Someone pulls some transistors from a circuit board and exclaims the computer macro evolved from the transistor. We would never say anything but a conscious and intelligent person created a computer.
Another argument of the same calibar is that living organisms share many of the same "machines". And this somehow proves a macro evolutionary process by virtue that the organisms that have the most common "machines" must be closly related on the macro evolution spectrum. Even engineers knows that you do not need to make a new circuit or mechanism ever time you design the same or similar task for your device or machine. Even in programing you have what is called high level language which inherently reuses the same patch of code or methods for similar tasks.
Be that as it may, lets give the evolutionist's argument of organisms arising from insensate and haphazard chemical processes some mathematical rigor. 
If you had a medium with the special 20 L-amino acids, and a 'macro evolution connecting means' for the formation of an average-sized protein containing 100 amino acids; They could be arranged in 20^100 or 10^130 different ways. Even if a hundred million billion (10^17) of these combinations could function for a given purpose, there is only one chance in 10^113 of getting one of these required amino acid sequences in the said protein.
The equation for independent trials with multiple simultaneous events is;
s*(1 - (1 - p(A))^n), where s is the number of simultaneous events.
It takes about one second for a protein to be created by RNA. Lets assume the macro evolution connecting means is equally as fast (100 amino acid connection reactions per second per independent trial).
s = 10^72 (a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion simultaneous protein formations per second)
p(A) = 10^130/10^17 = 10^113
n = ln((s – 1)/s)/ln(-(p(A) - 1)) = ln((10^72 - 1)/10^72)/ln(-(10^113 - 1))
n = 10^-72/10^-113 = 10^41 seconds ... divided by 60*60*24*356 = 3.2511*10^33 years
To give you a scope of the astronomically favorable odds I am giving for the evolutionist case; Imagine if all the atoms in the universe (which is estimated at 10^50) were in molecules of L-amino acids then we would run out of material in less then a second.
So now that we have our specific sequence of amino acids in a chain that could have some function to support life, we now need to fold the chain so that it becomes a functional protein. (If you don't fold the protein it has no mechanical function. If you had a large amount of unfolded protein it would essentially be goo, which can be easily made in a laboratory.) The physics and math involved in folding a protein are beyond my skills, but fortunately for us many scientists have already done the computations.
In 1996, scientists around the world, “armed with their best computer programs, competed to solve one of the most complex problems in biology: how a single protein, made from a long string of amino acids, folds itself into the intricate shape that determines the role it plays in life. ...The result, succinctly put, was this: the computers lost and the proteins won... Scientists have estimated that for an average-sized protein, made from 100 amino acids, solving the folding problem by trying every possibility would take 10^27 (a billion billion billion) years.”—The New York Times, March 25, 1997, "Designing Life: Proteins 1, Computer 0".
Assuming our 'macro evolution folding mechanism' is no faster than the speed of the “best computer programs,” we can guarantee to have a specific folding solution for a protein once in 10^27 (a billion billion billion) years.
Multiplying the folding stats with the sequence stats gives us the probability of making a single functional protein.
3.2511*10^33 times 10^27 = 3.2511*10^60 years
NASA says the universe is 14 billion years old. If we started macro evolution from the beginning the actual probability of a single protein forming is;
1.4*10^10/3.2511*10^60 = 4.3062*10^-51
For those that are not familiar with statistics, please note that anything less then 10^-50 is considered negligible. If you take into account that we did not consider the other hundreds of proteins needed for the simplest life form you should without a doubt know the likelihood of life forming by macro evolution is less then grossly negligible.
If a conscious and intelligent creator is the statistical complement of macro evolution then the probability of there being a God is;
0.999999999999999999999999-->
Or in other words, we can say with certainty there is a Creator.
Nobel laureate Francis Crick, evolutionist and co-discoverer of the DNA structure, stated, "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle,"
The fact is, computational biology does not give any evidence to support macro evolution. If anything it does the opposite.
"Artificial evolution in computers... suffers from... malaise... Most runs of computational life fizzle out of novelty quickly. While the programs sometimes keep running, churning out minor variation, they ascend to no new levels of complexity or surprise after the first spurt ...for whatever reason, computational life based on unadorned natural selection has not seen the miracle of open-ended evolution that its creators, and I, would love to see. As the French evolutionist Pierre Grasse said, `Variation is one thing, evolution quite another; this cannot be emphasized strongly enough... So while natural selection may be responsible for microchange-a trend in variations-no one can say indisputably that it is responsible for macrochange-the open-ended creation of an unexpected novel form and progress toward increasing complexity." (Kevin Kelly., "Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines", [1994], Fourth Estate: London, 1995, reprint, p.476).
Post edited by: polemotheos, at: 2005/08/29 10:26
Post edited by: polemotheos, at: 2005/09/16 05:51
Your Peace, Surrender, In You,
YHVH Re-connect Co-operative |
Forum 
