What does the theory of evolution claim?

Question

The theory of evolution claims that life is formed by chance. According to this claim, lifeless and unconscious atoms came together to form the cell and then they somehow formed other living things, including man. Let us formulate an “experiment” on this subject under the heading of “Darwinian formula” and let us examine on the behalf of evolutionists what they really claim without their actually having spelled it out:

Let evolutionists put plenty of materials present in the composition of living beings into big barrels. Moreover, let them add to these barrels any form of matter that does not exist under normal conditions, but which they may think is necessary. Let them add to this mixture as many amino acids—which have no possibility of forming under natural conditions–and as many proteins–a single one of which has a formation probability of one in 10 to the power of 950—as they like. Let them expose these mixtures to as much heat and moisture as they see fit and then let them stir these with whatever technologically developed device they choose.

Let them wait in turn beside these barrels for billions, or even trillions of years. No matter what they do, they cannot produce from these barrels a human being. They cannot produce tigers, lions, ants, roses, lilies, magnolias, pheasants, woodpeckers, whales, kangaroos, horses, parrots, bananas, oranges, olives, pomegranates, grapes and millions of other living beings such as these. Indeed, they will not be able to obtain even a single cell of any one of them.
Now, you may refer to the following a wonderful book to get to know more about Evolution Deceit:

http://fs.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=462&Format=pdf

THE COLLAPSE OF EVOLUTION(video):
http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_detail.php?api_id=1245


=* FOR ANY HELP FEEL FREE TO E-MAIL ME ON *=
[e-mail]

Answer 1

why r u answering ur own question?

Answer 2

“No matter what they do, they cannot produce from these barrels a human being. They cannot produce tigers, lions, ants, roses, lilies, magnolias, pheasants, woodpeckers, whales, kangaroos, horses, parrots, bananas, oranges, olives, pomegranates, grapes and millions of other living beings such as these. Indeed, they will not be able to obtain even a single cell of any one of them.”

Maybe not, as the current conditions in the atmosphere and at other locations are possibly different then they were when or where life was initiated.

In fact the book you pointed to contains arguments that are quite easily refutable.

Mistake 1: TOTAL PROBABILITY of forming protein 10^950 (page 29)
“… Therefore the formation of a protein in the natural environment is logically and technically impossible. In fact, to talk of the probabilities of such an event is quite unscientific.”

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

“The proteins necessary for life are very complex. The odds of even one simple protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 10^113, and thousands of different proteins are needed to form life. (See also Primitive cells arising by chance.)”

According to this website the chance of forming one simple protein molecule is 1 in 10^113.

Response:
1.The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).
2.The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
3.The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
4.The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.

Mistake 2: “Another important point that invalidates Miller's experiment is that there was enough oxygen to destroy all the amino acids in the atmosphere at the time when they were thought to have been formed.” (page 135)

Response: “First, there was little or no molecular oxygen in the atmosphere or oceans when life first appeared.”

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB020.html

I am currently observing and verifying other arguments. More coming soon.

Answer 3

Hi! First, I'd like to point out that your first statement is incorrect. Evolution is not a theory; its has been observed in bacteria and other species in our lifetime. The mechanism of evolution, however, which is currently the theory of natural selection, is certainly open to debate, as is the origin of the human species. As for your claim that the odds are too unlikely and that the earth may as well blow up in that time, has it occurred to you that the only reason we are able to ask such questions is that we live in a universe that has resulted in intelligent beings who can question their own history? Billions of paralell universes probably exist that contain no life, let alone intelligent. Probability is a wonderful thing; I once read that the chances of the right conditions coming together to spontaneously create life are the same as flipping a coin 50 000 times and it coming up heads every time. Incredibly improbable, but not impossible. Give me enough universes, galaxies, stars, planets and coins and i will create life for you. Then again, I don't have the time, but your God might. Or maybe he has a double headed coin :)

Answer 4

And the real amazing thing is that even if the remote chance that a single cell could have somehow in some mind blowingly way come into being, with its cell wall and mitochondria and nucleus and DNA and all the parts required. What did this first cell eat?
Not only that, but just thinking of the complexity of a DNA which is required before the cell; its all very ridiculous to think the words chance or probability should even be used in connection with this idea.

Answer 5

Ingenuous you...You are not asking a question but raising a point of debate (or are you hawking some huckster's video?).

Evolutionists have never spontaneously created life. Creating life is a longshot... But given enough time (10 billlon years) and enough planets (kajillions), even the improbable becomes likely. The chances of winning the Powerball lottery may be 200,000,000 to 1, but if you live 200,000,001 years and play once a year, guess what? It's likely that you'll win the Powerball!

Answer 6

You sir, are the prime example of why America is falling behind in the world and will soon be taken over by China.

Biological evolution doesn't even include "lifeless and unconscious atoms came together to form the cell" part, showing us your blatant ignorance on the subject. Please, go buy yourself an elementary school science textbook and do yourself some reading.

Answer 7

First, amino acids are entirely capable of forming under natural conditions. They have even been detected in meteorites and in interstellar space. Further, they have been created in the lab under conditions similar to that on the early earth. Of course that experiment happened 50 years ago, which is why you never heard of it.

Second, scientists have ALREADY created living viruses in the lab from nonliving components. So it looks like the bet has already been taken, and you have already lost.

Answer 8

An experiment using inorganic molecules has already been done. It's called the UREY-MILLER EXPERIMENT. In this experiment, a small environment was set up to simulate the condition of Earth billions of years ago. Just by adding electricity (simulated lightning), inorganic atoms and molecules formed RNA nucleotides.

Answer 9

the thought of evolution does not declare something with regard to the inspiration of existence. that's named abiogenesis. And it does not declare that atoms got here at the same time to type the cellular. The cellular progressed from extra straightforward existence varieties. And this has been efficiently performed in experiments.

Answer 10

Bravo! I refuse to believe that I'm sort of accident... something produced from "chemical reactions." The idiot who commented first.. WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?!? Do the math! Take a college Stats class. LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT PROBABILITY. It's soo un likely to happen. All of this crap about billions of years... WHO CARES? The earth would probably EXPLODE if it lived for a billion years. There is no way on earth that spontaneous generation is the answer. Something DOES NOT come from nothing. Things DO NOT CHANGE. I can live in freaking Greenland for a bazillion years, but will I turn hairy? (Even if I could live that long) Will I become some weird break-off from humans? NO. It just doesn't happen. You need so much FAITH to believe in this evolution crap, it might as well be a religion.

Dude, I really like what you did here. I'm 15 and I'm all for it... I've been studying this for a while and my conclusion to life: intelligent design.

Anyone else reading this... wanna debate? I love it!

Answer 11

I might suggest that everyone read Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller. It is written by a devout Christian who is a cell biologist at Brown University. He provides excellent data showing that evolution is the most likley explanation for life on Earth. And then he squares that with his own Christian belief. It is a very powerful book.