Does probability and the second law of thermodynamics rule out evolution?

Question

Relevant Observations By Notable Scientists

Harold F. Blum, Princeton University physicist, points out that if we assume the presence of amino acids in abundance, assume the proper catalysts are present, and assume favorable temperature and moisture conditions, the chances of getting a polypeptide of only ten amino acids would be only one in 10^20. And this probability, infinitesimal as it seems, is large compared to the probability of getting a simple protein. It is inconceivable. And remember, millions of proteins would be needed for the next step toward life. And remember further that even if complex amino acid chains could be produced, the second law of thermodynamics tells us that they would begin to disintegrate since they are all reversible chemical processes.

These simple and obvious facts of physics and mathematics have caused many notable scientists who have thought logically about the matter to draw...

Read full artical here: http://www.aboundingjoy.com/2ndlaw.htm

These simple and obvious facts of physics and mathematics have caused many notable scientists who have thought logically about the matter to draw conclusions similar to Nobel Prize winner Sir Ernest Chain who said: "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."

I didn’t state anything against evolution I just asked a question. I like “boxer”s post though, as it looks to me so far he is going to get 10 points, I like his link that he posted.

just a side note: I received my undergraduate studies in applied math with a minor in computer science.

Don’t hate me I’m just the messenger.

Answer 1

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

http://www.mountainman.com.au/news98_v.htm

Answer 2

This is like the big lotteries. The odds of your ticket winning are slim. At the same time there are a lot of tickets out. It may take several drawings to produce a winner. The catch is, life starts when replication is possible. You only need one winning ticket.

As improbable as the right chain forming is, once it happens, you are on the path to life. The oceans are vast and one hundred million years is a long time. I'm pretty sure that at one ticket a week, I could hit the jackpot in 100,000,000 years. Of course there are no guarantees.

Answer 3

Any attempt to prove the soundness of a theological hypothesis is destined for failure. Science and religion do not mix, and they never should.

Ultimately an extremely rare occurrence seems miraculous to us because we're the end result of that rare process. It would seem just as rare and miraculous if it had happened differently and we were the (subsequently) differing result. You cannot gain any rational perspective on a timeline as vast as billions of years from a current, human view, no matter how much math you use.

Ultimately the tools you use to attempt to prove (or disprove) the existence of a supreme being are going to fail because we don't have enough knowledge (yet) to explain the vastly unexplainable.

Or, as a wise friend once said, "Infinity is the lazy man's glib classification of all that which is not yet knowable."

Answer 4

We know evolution is true. No matter what someone says about it, we still have the proof (fossil record, etc). This reminds me of when the church tried to pick apart Galileo's findings on the movement of the earth. They pointed out minor problems, and said it was impossible for reasons like that we do not feel like we are moving. Later it was found that the earth does move. The church has always been slow when it comes to science, so we don't hold it against them. Do you know there are many ways you can pick apart the theory of gravity? That is the reason it, and evolution are theories. Both are equally true. Go dispute gravity if you like.

Answer 5

All your question shows is that two physicists (and a mathematician - sorry) don't understand the basics of biology. Evolution does not rely on random chance alone. It is the Theory of Evolution by NATURAL SELECTION. And Evolution by NS and Abiogenesis are two separate theories.

As far as the thermodynamics arguments, it is pseudo-science propaganda, as any physicist should know (not a closed system, pockets of greater entropy can exist as long as overall entropy decreases, entropy doesn't necessarily equal disorder etc).

TalkOrigins is a good place to check such claims.

Answer 6

If any of these "notable scientists" have an alternative scientific theory that explains the observable facts - that new species have replaced earlier species even since life began on earth - better than the current theory, many people are ready to listen. But if they can't put up, they should shut up.

Besides, you are not even talking about biological evolution. You are talking about the origin of life. Evolution is the study of ongoing change in already existing organisms.

.

Answer 7

I doubt that they alone rule out evolution. But in the light of real science, creation outside of intelligent design, seems unlikely. Evolution described as a perfecting of a species within it's environment does not correlate well with the theory of entropy or laws of physics.

But hey, really... I'm just a Christian and according to most atheists I have no idea what science is, let alone the ability to understand it. I have no ability to think critically and logically and I'm simply brainwashed to believe in God.

Answer 8

If you truly understand the second law of thermodynamics, then it does NOT rule out evolution.

And probability doesn't really work for this. There are many reasons why, but I'm not getting into them now. I would need like three pages.

Answer 9

To answer your question, perhaps. This is the problem with evolutionists, they think everything is so clear cut and can't leave room for perhaps. Perhaps probability and the second law of thermodynamics rules out evolution, and perhaps it doesn't. Perhaps evolution happened and perhaps it didn't. As of yet, there is no proof of species evolving into other species.
Regardless of whether evolution is a reality or not, God exists and He is responsible for all that is on the earth. Those that believe in God do not need evolution to be false, but atheists need it to be true.

Answer 10

What is more believable? The notion of an omniscient being or that natural causes created the universe. Let's see: omniscient being or something more mundane? I'll take evolution. It's far less preposterous. Try thinking for a change, OK?

Answer 11

Dipsh*t, this is not a religious question.

Next time you try to play scientist go post it somewhere where your copy-and-past crap can be criticized by knowledgeable reviewers.

Btw, no, masturbation with numbers and an ignorant understanding of the laws of Thermodynamics does not rule out evolution.