How is evolution mathematically possible?

Question

It's understandable why some people think that humans evolved from ape-like creatures, but how is saying that complex life forms arose spontaneously from molecules floating around in the sea any more plausible than myth? There is no proven mechanism by which molecules can give rise to simple organisms that later give rise to more complex ones like dinosaurs, just because evolution can happen among very closely related species. A single mutation
has very little chance of benefiting an organism, so the chances that millions of organisms can have the right combination of mutations to adapt to their environment is pretty much none. If you try to write a working code for a computer program by wildy mashing buttons, you will not make any progress even if you had all the time in the world. Evolution is the default theory based on process of elimination, for lack of a better explanation without using religion. Evidence of evolution or religion doesn't always have to exclude the other.

A computer is designed by humans to process and sort
information, unlike the natural world. In the real world, evolution does not happen in a
vacuum under controlled conditions. If a species can't survive, it will be gone long before it has time to evolve, so no, a simplified simulation like the monkeys and typewriters is not conclusive. As stated in the other answers, most organisms also exceed the requirements to merely stay alive.

Answer 1

I would say that it is not. The probability of naturally-occuring random chemical reactions generating even an amino acid is so improbable that it is considered a statistical impossibility.

Answer 2

Okay, lets slow this down.

There are, in fact, multiple theories that suggest how life may have originated from base organic ingredients. Basicly, it breaks down into the "RNA first", or the (infinitely more likely imo) "metabolism first" thoeries. I'm not going to go into detail when a quick google of wikipedia search can break it down for you far more easily, but rest assured that we have many, many, physically sound thoeries for how this may have occured.

So you might ask, how did these organic ingredients come to be? Well here, the answer is even better. We know, and have demonstrated in the laboratory, that basic organic compounds can be spontaneously synthezied in the right conditions, if provided with an electrical charge.

Next, you posit that random mutations would not result in adaptation, likening the process to trying to write a computer program by randomly mashing buttons. Your analogy is essentially flawed. Most mutations are nuetral or harmful in some way, but those that are helpful have a higher chance of being passed on.

Imagine you have a roomfull of thousands of monkeys jamming on keyboards, and that once they type out, say... twenty characters, the line is saved and processed by a computer. Every time the computer finds a line that makes sense, it adds it to a working database. Only lines that add to the whole in a beneficial way are stored subsequently.

The computer in my analogy represents natural selection, the tendency for beneficial traits to be carried over into successive generations. Like it or not, after enough iterations of this process, the monkeys will develop a sensible program.

Lastly, I question the entire premise of your flawed questions. Suppose god created life and instilled within us intelligence and sentience. Would he wish for us not to use that gift? Would he prefer that we let is languish, unappreciated and unwanted? Or would he perhaps prefer that we use this gift to the best of our abilities, to try to understand fully the world that he has created, and to eventually understand the very means by which he brought us into existance?

Answer 3

Actually, your argument does not hold water, let alone logic. Mutations happen every minute in all living beings. Life has had millions of years to work on evolving, not a few months. And most (99.9%) of mutations are lethal to the cell. But that 0.01% often lead to betterment IF the mutation helps the life form to survive in its environment. This makes a lot more sense than your argument, and certainly infinitely more sense that Creationism which just doesn't get it on any front. And to correct another fine point, ape, monkeys, and man arose from a common ancestor, but that ancestor was not ape -like. I love it when Creationist harp, "IF man came from apes, why are there still apes?" What a ignorant argument...makes those who make it look ridiculous

Answer 4

Wow. It would take too long to point out all of the naivety in that statement so I won't even try. It is, however, possible for molecules to give rise to organisms (beginning with single celled organisms). There are ways for religion and science to coincide so I never really get the whole "one bashing another" thing. In response to the statement of "if we evolved from apes then why are there still apes"; think of evolution as a seperation of species moreso than one replacing another. We are not direct descendents of modern chimps, but rather we shared a common ancestor millions of years ago.

Answer 5

Strictly speaking the theory of evolution does not address the question of abiogenesis (how life began from non-life), only how life, once started, can proceed over billions of years to produce the range of species we see on the planet. There is nothing that mathematically improbable about that.

Evolution is *not* just randomness (blind luck). It is randomness (variation) + selection + DEEP time. So even if something is incredibly improbable, if there are selective pressures rewarding useful experiments with survival and propagation and punishing bad experiments with instant extinction, then huge amounts of time can produce extremely complex results.

To use your analogy (the long discredited "monkeys and typewriters" argument), "wildy mashing buttons" *will* produce a working program *if* there is some selective force that favors coherent keywords ('favors' = multiplies copies of any coherent keywords that get typed by chance and discards the rest), and then favors coherent sequences of keywords, and then favors coherent statements produced by these sequences of keywords, etc. I.e. if there is some survival filter, then any random generator will produce coherent combinations, even extremely complex combinations, given enough time.

Answer 6

Make a subscription to National Geographic and put the Bible in a drawer. The good thing of the science( don't mix it with mathematics for the moment) is that the "true" is changing on a daily basics. The true of yesterday can be false or partially false tomorrow. There are many thinks that are uncertain on the science, but I prefer to believe in the truth by the proof instead of the static "God word" of the Bible. The advanced of the science are incredible and I'm sure that in a near future your questions can be answer completely.

Answer 7

The correct code of Albumin which is more than 500 Amino acids chain (small) needs a super super computer (NA yet) running trillions of trillions of calculations per second for trillions of trillions of years! The age of earth is very short (only 4.4 billion years), and mutations occur slowly and most are negative, now think of billions of molecules like Albumin harmonize with each others to form cells, millions of cells harmonize to form tissues, tissues organize to form organs, organs form systems, and systems form the human being. Mathematically this is next to impossible.

Answer 8

Wow!! Great Question!!
Now tell me how the Theory of Evolution completely contradicts the 2nd LAW of thermodynamics, which states: that things go from order to disorder, which we can easily see going on around us, ie. new diseases, etc. Not the other way around. Creation fits into this Law much better: The earth & everything in it was created perfect, then because of sin, has been becoming more disorderly.

Answer 9

Considering that you are really smart, I understand how difficult it can be to come to some kind of understanding of your situation. Trust me it will get better with time, This is it man you live then you die. All lthat life is, is an experience so there is no need to get worked up over where we came from to try and prove that life is more divine than it actually is.

Answer 10

You're wrong. Eventually you'd write a working code. Consider that there are as many planets in our universe as all sandcorns of all beaches of all oceans and rivers on earth.