Why do th laws of mathematics and probability never come into question when discussing the?

Question

improbability of the formation of one protein through the process of evolution?

Answer 1

they do
the improbability is like a trillion to one right ?

and then after this quantum leap,the protein some decided to start forming chains ,RNA,DNA? yeah right

Answer 2

They do, there are wonderful courses on advanced probability theory and biology. If you work in the fields of genetics or proteomics you would need a very strong mathematical background.

The problem is that most people do not get more than a smattering of probability and statistical method. Few college students could tell you what a hidden Markov process, a Martingale (not the bird the mathematical concept), or a Wiener process was. Few could tell you how to study something using the field of survival statistics. Very few could tell you how to calculate Somer's D or why one would care.

Evolution is consonate with mathematics, in fact, it depends upon it. There is no violation at all. The sad part is, scripture does violate the laws of physics, but most people no longer notice them. This list is enormous. Evolution is currently the only one being complained about because so much time has passed since Gallileo and his attack on scripture. He proved scripture was wrong.

Evolution differs from other theories in that it was the very first theory that was able to show that God need not exist for the world to be explained. Later physics, chemistry, astronomy and other fields caught up with biology. The other assault it made was saying that death happened before man. Dinosaurs died then men existed.

If that is true, then in a literal sense not only is Genesis wrong but Christ is unnecessary.

I am a Christian and have no problem with evolution but fundamentalists do because the most shallow meanings are contradicted by it.

There is a wonderful site, not on evolution but on scripture and physics and astronomy, that you should look at. When you are done reading it, ask yourself if the rest of Christianity that accepts evolution, might in fact be understanding something you are missing.

http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/geocentric.shtml

One other thing, no scientist believes protein creation is a random process. It is a stochastic process. There are critical and important differences. I would agree that at any given moment at any random point in the Universe, it is improbable at the extreme of a protein forming. I am sure any scientist would agree with that statement. Of course, science isn't concerned with random processes of that nature anyway, or rarely is.

It is the equivalent of estimating the probability of a plane crashing at any point from the top of the atmosphere down. It is unlikely it will crash at the center of the Earth. It is also unlikely it will crash hundreds of miles from any plane route. It would also make no sense to look at the entire atmosphere and all underneath it for the odds of calculating a plane crashing. First, you must look where planes should be or reasonably expected to be. No one expects a plane over Tokyo to crash into Colorado within the next minute or so. Your type of reasoning is ignoring natural laws and ignoring the systems in which they exist.

Answer 3

I'd just like to know how a scientific 'theory' can violate not one but TWO scientific LAWS. Somehow, saying that "improbability goes out the window because we are here after all" seems like begging the question. Who said evolution was the answer? And why is there no room for any other line of thought? Science does indeed advance slowly, tombstone by tombstone.

Answer 4

Many creationists cite numbers they claim are the odds against the formation of proteins through evolution. It's a strawman argument, though, as evolution does not claim that these things happened by chance. That means that the numbers given are just simply wrong, and more specifically, are wildly pessimistic about the ability of evolutionary processes to produce proteins. Citing those probabilities just reveals one's ignorance of science.

I can't help but notice that Brad just simply lied in his answer, as he claimed that none of those supporting scientific explanations answered the question. Brad, perhaps you're unaware of it, but we can all see each others' answers. Yours is verifiably dishonest. It's that kind of behavior that led me to eventually conclude that creationists are not remotely honest and instead deliberately lie to defend religion against science. That doesn't say much for their religion.

You also repeated the strawman argument that evolution works "randomly". If you made a sincere effort to understand the issue, you'd know better. You clearly haven't.

Answer 5

Because mathematics is testable and repeatable, and no evolutionist in his right mind would engage in something that is testable and repeatable which refutes their religion, errrrrr, theory.

And for those who would argue that it has nothing to do with evolution of species, take a good hard look at genetics. "Genetic evolution" which produces different chromosomal or gene lengths requires mutation. That exact mutation has to occur in opposite sexes of the same species at the same time in the same place, AND they have to find each other and successfully mate. The mathematic probability of a single step of evolution in this manner is astronomical, and when you start talking single cell organism to simple mammal, the universe isn't even fractionally old enough, much less the galaxy, the sun, or the earth.

They choose to refuse to leave bad science because it means that other possibilities must exist; other possibilities which they DO NOT WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE.

Answer 6

Oh, it comes up, every now and again. Some creationist came up with a useless formula based on faulty assumptions... which I'm sure you are aware of, and have access to, but have declined to post, due to your recent experience with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Again, it is a deeply flawed but plausable sounding collection of tripe meant to deceive the scientifically (and mathematically, in this case) ignorant flock. Was this formula ever presented to a peer-reviewed scholarly journal for review? No... it only showed up on creationist web-sites, where sheeple go to get their information, in lieu or credible scientific sources. You are being played, big time... and you don't even know it.

One thing that it may interest you to know is that over the past decade, astronomers have discovered huge clouds of organic chemicals... the 'building blocks of life'... in the vicinity of 'stellar nurseries'. These clouds are thousands of light years in size. It is most probable that these types of chemicals rained down upon the earth constantly over the millions of years during which it was forming.

Answer 7

Now you're confusing evolution and abiogenesis, which have nothing to do with each other.


Please stop.

Go get educated about the subject, then come back and we can discuss it. LEARN first, DEBATE later.

It'll save you further embarassment.




PS: in case you are interested in ABIOGENESIS and the statistical ******** that has been played on the subject (this is similar to the 2nd Law stuff that we outed for you a little while ago) you can read about it here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

Answer 8

did you notice how all the people who believe in evolution called you stupid or just insulted you, but never actually answered the question or even mentioned how a protein is supposed to form randomly? a protein is extremely complex and it must have all of its parts working together in the right place at the right time to exist, the chances of that happening are astronomically low

Answer 9

The definition of God is SUPERNATURAL BEING. Intelligent Design Evolutionists err because they insist that every creative act of God had to be subject to a physical law. Anti-evolution Creationists err because they limit God, who could have created the earth any way he wanted to, by insisting He couldn't have used evolution.

There are a lot of "constants" we use to support either evolution or creation that may not be constants at all. The speed of light is one constant whose constancy has recently been called into question. Also, the earth could have revolved a LOOOOT more slowly. Hence the Biblical six days, or six revolutions of the earth on its axis, might have been as long "squadillions" of trips around the sun. That might have been enough time for God to put some evolutionary processes on the "back burner" in the seas being heated nonstop for millions of orbits around the sun, while He gave his creative attention to other matters that the evolutionists can't explain, such as the development of gender.

As long as no living thing died before man's rebellion, that scenario doesn't contradict Scripture. And it's only one of MANY scenarios one might imagine. God wasn't constrained to use evolution, or not to use it.
****
Just the same, you asked for an argument against evolution based on the laws of mathematics and probability, and I found one, by Dembski, and looked it over, although, again, there's a constant that seems a little fishy (see "sources.") It doesn't argue against Evolution by Intelligent Design. It only argues against Random Evolution.

Darwin said, human life evolved from a one-celled organism, and the changes that occurred to produce the transformation occurred AT RANDOM.

Human organisms have at least a trillion cells, specialized into tissues, organs, and interdependent systems. Also, the changes that grew a human out of a one-celled organism would have to have occurred in the correct order. The pituitary gland could mutate so it produced a specific hormone, but what good would it do if the corresponding receptor system had not yet evolved?

Give the NoDesignAtAllEvolutionists a HUGE advantage in the argument, by limiting the necessary number of mutations to 1,000 and by assuming that one out of every 2 mutations that occurred were beneficial. (We generally think of mutations as being MALADAPTIVE, or working against improvement of the organism's chance for survival.)

Thus the odds against getting 1,000 beneficial mutations in the proper order is 2^1000, expressed decimally as 10^301.

Has there been enough time for this many mutations to have been generated? Let's see. The NASA websites says the Big Bang occurred about 13.7 billion years ago. Let's give the NoDesignAtAllEvolutionists a little extra time and call it, 15 billion years ago, or 10^17 seconds ago.

Let's give the NoDesignAtAllEvolutionists another huge advantage by assuming that the mutations occurred as fast as was physically possible, and that the mutations started immediately after the Big Bang, before the dust even had started to settle.

Planck time, or 10^-42 seconds. is the smallest unit of time, approximately the time it takes for two photons to pass each other moving at a velocity of 186,000 miles per second. So the fastest rate of mutation possible would be 10^42 mutations per second.

Let's give the NoDesignAtAllEvolutionists YET another advantage by assuming that every particle of the 10^80th particles that emerged poppin' fresh from the Big Bang was a one-celled organism, ready to mutate, the proteins you mentioned already in place.

If every one of the estimated 10^80 particles in the universe had been mutating at the fastest possible rate (10^42 mutations per second) since the Big Bang, that would mean there's been time for this many mutations:

[10^80th(# particles)] x [10^42(rate of change)] x [10^17(# of seconds since the Big Bang), and this works out to 10^139 mutations.

As discussed before, though, we'd need to have 10^301 mutations in order to have a chance of getting 1000 beneficial ones in the right order.

Thus the chance of 1000 benefical mutations occurring in the right order, assuming all the particles in the universe have been changing at the fastest possible rate since the Big Bang is:
10^139th divided by 10^301st power, or one chance in 10^162.

The Evolutionist's argument is always "I know it sounds amazing, I know it sounds amazing, but GIVEN ENOUGH TIME, it could happen."

All the time we HAVE though is the time the NoDesignAtAllEvolutionists have told us has passed since the Big Bang, and that isn't enough time to give the all the particles in the universe the time they needed to have a CHANCE of producing the required number of mutations, even if they were mutating as quickly as was physically possible.

The universe would have to be a trillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion TIMES OLDER than the scientists (whom the NoDesignAtAllEvolutionists quote) have told us it is.

Answer 10

because the numbers are too small to configure. science and theology; why can't people see that they go hand in hand? all of the brilliant scientist had faith in their god and it was basically just puting parts of His creation into scale for human understaning. but to answer your question, it's either too small to put out in the open or they never did the math cuz the number's either zero out of zero or too small.