The probability that you or me would exist in our exact form with our exact genetic code is even more unlikely then that, what's your point? Unlikely things can happen, for example, one time I met my friend that I knew through the internet in the lobby of a game that anyone in the world with that game could have joined, and against all odds it was him. Do you see what I mean, just because something is unlikely doesn't mean that it's impossible.
Cosmologist and mathematician
Roger Penrose once attempted to calculate the probability that chance allowed the initial state of the universe and its entropy to be exactly 'right' to allow it to still exist now. His answer was
1 chance in 10^10^123, a probability so small as to effectively be zero.
To get a picture of this number, note that the number of baryons (protons & neutrons) in the universe is estimated to be about 10^80. We could write that number as 1 followed by 80 zeros. But to write Penrose's number would require 1 followed by a zero on every baryon in the universe, and then more.
From: Eich
Subject: Googolplex
Can you tell me how many sheets of paper it will take to make a
googolplex if you can have 20,000 zeros on each page?
Thanks.
Date: 11/18/97 at 12:11:47
From: Doctor Rob
Subject: Re: Googolplex
Since a googolplex is N = 10^(10^100), there are 10^100 zeroes in
its decimal form. If 20,000 = 2*10^4 fit on one page, you will need
(10^100)/(2*10^4) = 5*10^95 pages.
-Doctor Rob, The Math Forum
Check out our web site!
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/ Well, first let's make sure that you mean a googolplex, and not some
smaller number, like a googol. You will remember that a googol is the
number that is written by putting down a 1, then following that on the
right with 100 zeros, i.e., it is the number 10^100. (Just so you
know: computers are not good at writing exponents. So when I write
10^100, the 100 is the exponent.)
This is a really big number, of course. For instance, the number of
seconds since the beginning of time is only about a 1 followed by
18 zeros, and the number of atoms in the entire universe is
estimated to be only about 10^80, a 1 followed by 80 zeros, so you'd
need 10^20 (written out: 100000000000000000000 [that's a 1 followed by
20 zeros]) universes to have a googol of atoms. (Still with me? This
stuff gets pretty spacey after a while...).
Now a googolplex is a 1 followed by a *googol* of zeros. That's a
truly humungous number. In fact, if you took all the atoms in the
*entire universe* and lined them up, put a l on the first one, and 0's
on all the rest, you still would not have been able to write down a
googolplex, since there are only 10^80 atoms, and you need to write
10^100 zeros.
Read more :
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/59174.htmlOrigin-of-life researcher
Leslie Orgel points out:
"The self-organization of the reductive citric acid cycle without the help of 'informational' catalysts would be a near miracle...It is hard to see how any..[of the potentially self-replicating] polymers that have been described up to now...could have accumulated on the early earth...[It is] to appeal to magic."Astrophysicist
Sir Fred Hoyle has said:
"If there were some deep principle that drove organic systems toward living systems, the operation of the principle should easily be demonstrable in a test tube in half a morning….No such demonstration has ever been given. Nothing happens…except the eventual production of a tarry sludge."
Modern understanding of molecular biology allows scientists to calculate
the probability of abiogenesis. Such calculations are not a proof, but since
neo-Darwinism is based on random mutations, they are an important predictor of its validity. Probability was not an issue up through 1965, when scientists believed an infinite amount of time was available because the universe was eternal. But it is a critical issue now that science estimates Earth is only ~4.6 billion years old, which allows substantially less time for slow evolutionary processes to produce the planet and life we observe.
As an example, cytochrome c, a small protein found throughout the biological realm, had to appear early in the evolutionary process. Yet information theorist
Hubert Yockey calculated a probability of 10^-75 to generate it spontaneously from an amino acid-rich environment.7 To put this into perspective: a 10^-75 chance is less likely than winning the Powerball lottery nine weeks in a row, buying only one ticket per week!
But it gets worse. Life is composed of many more-complex molecules than cytochrome c.
Murray Eden of Massachusetts Institute of Technology calculated a probability of ~10-313 to spontaneously bring polypeptide sequences together into functional proteins. Simple self-sustaining life requires ~1,500-2,000 gene products, and Hoyle estimated a probability of 10^-40,000 to obtain 2,000 enzymes in a random trial. Physicist
Harold Morowitz has calculated that if a large batch of bacteria in a sealed container is heated so every chemical bond is broken, then cooled slowly to allow the atoms to form new bonds and come to equilibrium, there is a probability of 10^-100,000,000,000 that a living bacterium will be present at the end.
How low a probability do mathematicians believe makes an event essentially impossible?
Émile Borel has estimated 10^-50; and William Dembski has calculated a lower limit of 10^-150, based on the number of elementary particles in the universe and the age of the universe.
Yet the probability of abiogenesis is far, far less than either figure!Could the genetic code have been spontaneously generated? Biologists
J. T. Trevors and
D. L. Abel conclude:
"The argument has been repeatedly made that given sufficient time, a genetic instruction set and language system could have arisen. But extended time does not provide an explanatory mechanism for spontaneously generated genetic instruction. No amount of time proposed thus far, can explain this type of conceptual communication system. It is not just complex. It is conceptually complex."These probability arguments are irrefutable. Some evolutionists offer hand-waving contrary arguments, but even
Richard Dawkins admits
"the probability of life having arisen by chance is as vanishingly small as the likelihood of a Jumbo Jet having being constructed by a hurricane sweeping through a scrap yard."And these calculations do not even consider the seemingly insurmountable obstacle first discovered by
Louis Pasteur. Life consists of only "left-handed" amino acids and "right-handed" sugars, but a random primordial soup would have contained equal proportions of molecules in left-handed and right-handed configurations.
Even in defending abiogenesis, biologist
Francis Crick acknowledged in 1981:
"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, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."
Abiogenesis is not only unproven, it is mathematically impossible. No wonder both
Orgel and
Crick called it
a miracle. Other scenarios have therefore been suggested. Hoyle and others postulate life was transplanted from outer space —which moves the origins problem to another time and place. The multiverse hypothesis, proposed by leading origin-of-life researcher Eugene Koonin, is currently in vogue—
it replaces infinite time with an infinity of universes to account for the extraordinarily improbable existence of at least one life-sustaining planet.The real answer may be that abiogenesis is the creation myth of a culture with no need for God—a culture to which physicist Lee Smolin can proclaim: "there is nothing outside the universe."16 This statement is an unsustainable myth, yet a creator is the only alternative to abiogenesis, and this undermines the mythological foundation of the faith of atheists.
According to
Lynn Margulis, the proponents of Neo-Darwinism constitute
“a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology”. (Mann, C. (1991). "Lynn Margulis: Science's Unruly Earth Mother". Science 252 (5004): 378–381).
She also believed that proponents of the standard theory
"wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin – having mistaken him... Neo-Darwinism, which insists on [the slow accrual of mutations by gene-level natural selection], is in a complete funk." (Mann, C. (1991). "Lynn Margulis: Science's Unruly Earth Mother". Science 252 (5004): 378–381).
“I work in evolutionary biology, but with cells and micro-organisms. Richard Dawkins, John Maynard Smith, George Williams, Richard Lewontin, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould all come out of the zoological tradition, which suggests to me that, in the words of our colleague Simon Robson, they deal with a data set some three billion years out of date.” (The New York Times, November 24, 2011)
There was another prominent biologist,
Ernst Mayr (1904 – 2005), who was the first author to develop a detailed model of the connection between speciation, evolutionary rates, and macroevolution in 1954. Although initially ignored, his theory of the importance of peripatric speciation in macroevolution is now widely recognized.
It means that scientists from various sides have attacked Darwinism. Ernst Mayer’s theories of Speciational Evolution and Punctuated Equilibria, although consistent with Darwinism, nonetheless undermined Darwin’s “gradualism” in evolution just as Lynn Morgulis’ Serial Endosymbiotic Theory undermined the idea of invariable “selfishness” of the evolving species.
One of the reasons why Darwin’s theory remains so revered to this day can be explained by the words of
Ernst Mayr, who wrote:
"Now a third one of Darwin's great contributions was that he replaced theological, or supernatural, science with secular science. Laplace, of course, had already done this some 50 years earlier when he explained the whole world to Napoleon. After his explanation, Napoleon replied, "where is God in your theory?" And Laplace answered, "I don't need that hypothesis." Darwin's explanation that all things have a natural cause made the belief in a creatively superior mind quite unnecessary. He created a secular world, more so than anyone before him. Certainly many forces were verging in that same direction, but Darwin's work was the crashing arrival of this idea and from that point on, the secular viewpoint of the world became virtually universal”. (What Evolution Is by
Ernst Mayr — ScienceMasters Series/Basic Books; October 2001,
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/mayr/mayr_print.html, accessed 10-13-04).
People like
Dawkins in England who still think the gene is the target of selection are evidently wrong. In the 30s and 40s, it was widely accepted that genes were the target of selection, because that was the only way they could be made accessible to mathematics, but now we know that it is really the whole genotype of the individual, not the gene.
People like
Richard Dawkins are engaged in
propaganda of anti-religion thoughts and sentiments.
His quest is against Christianity even at the expense of science and scientific truth. The fact that the endosymbiotic theory had been actively suppressed for about a hundred years before it was finally accepted by the established scientific community is emblematic of the capitalist period of the Anglo-American civilization, which is more interested in propagating any
pseudoscientific theory that most effectively justifies its rulers’ predatory, selfish foreign policies toward external nations and peoples. That is why natural sciences have been turned into a special instrument of indoctrination and ideological propaganda and true scientific discoveries so often met with “knee-jerk” reaction.
As long as the predatory policies persist, the Neo-Darwinism will remain relevant to the contemporary level of social relations in traditional capitalist society, no matter how outdated it gets scientifically.The ruling minority elite needs public consciousness to match their criminal, predatory policies. That is why primitive Darwinism retains its positions in public debate so far.
Therefore, people in general are being educated that they are “predators”, who are destined to eat each other out. As long as the ruling classes continue to succeed in their quest to forestall the evolvement of the general social consciousness of the people, whom they desperately try to control, the gap between the proper scientific advances and general public’s scientific awareness will increase…
Read more :
http://serge-malov.livejournal.com/28768.htmlIn addition :
Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God :
http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew