Atheists, evolutionists, and creationists - What are your thoughts on this?

Question

came across this in a blog and it reminded me of 40,000 monkey's randomly typing. Theory is one of them will eventually type out one of Shakespears plays, if their lifespan were long enough.

The amino acid numbers game: Ok…so just to give you a small dose of the statistics involved in making this thing happen. I’m going to lay out for you the probability of constructing a single functioning amino acid by random chance. Amino acids are CRITICAL for life, they make up proteins. Proteins are what carry out different functions within our bodies. Specific proteins do specific things. Anyways, take the smallest protein, it consist of 100 amino acids (there are 20 different amino acids in all). In order to create it, 100 amino acids have to be placed in an EXACT order, in order for the protein to function properly. So as those of you who have taken stats know, the odds of creating that one protein (and there are thousands….some quite longer than 100 amino acids long) is (1/20)^100 = 10e13

….some quite longer than 100 amino acids long) is (1/20)^100 = 10e130 (the number 10 with 130 zeros following it). You have a better chance of winning the powerball lottery (with a one in 20,000,000 chance of winning) everyday for 2 weeks! Along these lines the famous astronomer Sir red Hoyle and Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe (both atheists) calculated the probability of life forming by chance in five billion years (the amount of times scientist believe the earth to have existed--- this includes the time when it was just a big fire ball) on earth. The answer…. 10e40000 to 1! Essentially ZERO! Correction….this number is in all essence ZERO! Better chance of winning the lottery everyday, FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE! They then considered the universe with 100 billion galaxies each with 100 billion stars and 20 billion years (the presumed age of the universe---including big bang). Still no chance. This is where Hoyle’s famous quote came from. Equating the probability of life evolving any

This is where Hoyle’s famous quote came from. Equating the probability of life evolving anywhere in the universe is as likely as a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and perfectly assembling a Boeing 747!

Borrowed via cut and paste from a blog I found interesting from a couple years back.
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-KOLrkMY7dqJQAXOTlpIVeg--?cq=1&p=143&n=28500

Adoptive father - if not random, then guided? by what/whom? You almost insinuate "purpose" in your comment.

I haven't stated my position on it people... you're assuming and thin skinned....relax... I personally don't care if it's true either way... I'm just asking your thoughts/opinions.

Answer 1

What are the odds that a hurricane does not assemble a 747? Isn't that also 0? So... does that make the opposite true then? Just wondering..

Just kidding :)

I think the math is correct, the assumptions are flawed.

Here's one of them; "100 amino acids have to be placed in an EXACT order, in order for the protein to function properly."

Now, that is true, to a point. There are just two false assumptions; order and proper function. Some slight changes in order will produce a partially functional protein, or a different prortein with completely different function. And the major flaw is the idea of ordering, while mathematically any order is possible, there are rules to govern it. Some bonds are impossible to form, you might want to check chemistry and basic physics, you can't have unlimited options.

And on to the next flaw...

"Hoyle and Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe (both atheists) calculated the probability of life forming by chance in five billion years (the amount of times scientist believe the earth to have existed"

Do you see it already? That appears true on the surface, yet again the claim has major flaws. First the assumption that the earth is alone in the universe, and secondly that evolution is random.

In order for it to make sense statistically, the selection should be "life to evolve anywhere". It's a common mistake, even among statisticians. Selection makes anything improbable. Assuming there are billions of planets that could support some kind of life, the odds would have to take that in count. It's like this, the odds for a person of your exact DNA to exist are so unlikely you cannot exist. The odds that ANY person was born from your parents combined DNAs is close to 1:1. So the selection has mesed up the math here. Asking the wrong question gives wrong answers...

And the secon flaw, evolution is a process, so it's not random. It's the ultimate of a rigged game. Think of a deck of cards, 1:52 odds, right? And the odds of guessing 2 in a row are 52*51... and so on. That's if it was random. Evolution works by disegarding non-starters, if it's not viable, it dies off. So you turn a card, if it's not what you guessed, you throw it away, and turn another... untill you find it. It's still mathematically speaking 1 out of 52, but the process messed up the odds. It's not random.

....too tired to write more.....

Just email me if it's unclear ;)

Btw, the chance of life existing is 1:1

Answer 2

Hoyle's calculations make several assumptions, without first justifying them:

1. He assumes that the amino acids are randomly sequenced. This isn't true. Certain amino acids bind with others, and the sequence is therefore not random (which means that there are greater probabilities of some protein strings than others).

2. He assumes sequential trials, rather than simultaneous ones.

3. He assumes that the proteins with which we are familiar are the only proteins capable of producing life. (Which includes the assumption that the simplest proteins we see today are the simplest possible proteins.)

There are more assumptions, but these are the three I remember off the top of my head. Here's a link to some of the other problems with those calculations:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Answer 3

That's ridiculous. If you look at any event that has happened and calculate the odds of it happening in exactly that way they're going to be extremely long. Imagine a lottery with 10e40000 balls. Of course there are practical reasons why this is impossible, but just play along. And say that a single ball is to be selected. The chance of any particular ball being chosen is 10e40000 to 1. Which means there is a 100% chance of something virtually impossible happening. If you trace it back to the Big Bang, and if you assume all the same factors to be random that Hoyle did, then the chance of any specific event happening is incredibly small. You simply can't use statistics that way.

Answer 4

Wrong. You're ignoring many other possibilities, the most obvious which could be that time itself only exists here, within this particular universe. And that it has no meaning "prior" to this universe, so your claims about beginnings, creators, etc. are all meaningless. I'm not saying this is the case. But I am saying that since you've ignored the most obvious of countless alternative explanations you need to sit down and do a little book-learnin' before making such an error again. When you ask a question you don't get to stipulate the only possible answers, either. Are you a fisherman or a lawyer?

Answer 5

Why do you switch between the creation of life and evolution of life? Not a biologist or chemist, so I can't offer much about abiogenesis. But I do see that your calculations on probability are flawed to say the least (perhaps some bias going on with that). While creation may have occured by chance, evolution is guided through natural selection (anything but chance). You imply there must be purpose if evolution is guided... not anymore than the purpose why objects are guided toward earth. Traits (that are inherited) that are better suited for survival and reproduction have a better chance of being passed on. Simple as that.

If you insist the probability of life is as low as you claim (perhaps you are correct), explain to me the probability of an intelligent creator that has created all this.

If I recieve a royal flush are you going to tell me it didn't happen because the probability is near zero? It happened regardless of the probability.

Some of the other answers are really intelligent. Thanks for the question!

Answer 6

Does it seem funny to you that Hoyle was an atheist then?

Not to me since those probabilities are based on random chance and evolution is the furthest thing from random.

Clearly you don't understand what random means. Random and Purposeful form a false dichotomy.

Modern interpretations of quantum mechanics predict an infinite multiverse. In an infinite multiverse the odds of anything possible happening somewhere are 100%

Answer 7

the person who wrote this never encountered the concept of selection.
And forgot that in a abiotic mix there will be R and L isomers of amino acids. It would even help the argument, but as living organisms only produce the L-isomer it's just as irrelevant.
In addition not all possible proteins will be stable. Understanding evolution requires much more than a basic knowledge of statistics.

Somebody calculated the monkey game with some kind of selection. It made them typing Shakespeare a virtual certainty.

Answer 8

Right, so consider that there is a huge swirling mass of amino acids say about 10e26 or 10e28 of them, that make it fairly likely.

Also consider that your probability does not take into account if the amino acids have an affinity for forming into the right proteins.

Answer 9

Uh, hon, we've synthetically created all building blocks for life without our interference; amino acids, nucleotides, and lipids for making cell membranes.

In order to be considered a protein, it must consist of 50 amino acids strung together. The smallest protein I know off of the top of my head is insulin, with 51 amino acids.

Hoyle also died denying the Big Bang Theory, which he coined the name for, and thinking that the universe was in a steady state.

Answer 10

Yeah, I've heard this before. Couldn't confirm your numbers, but they're big. The analogy is a slot machine several miles long, where you have to get a cherry on every reel.

Of course, this would be difficult, but without getting into the technicalities, this particular slot machine would have 'hold' and 'nudge' buttons, lowering the odds significantly.

Also, it only has to have happened once. No-one has tried to count the unsuccessful attempts at life beginning.

Edit: Fred Hoyle also believed we evolved slanted noses with holes at the bottom to prevent spaceborn bacteria drifting down and being inhaled. So intelligent as he was, it's fair to say not /all/ his beliefs were robust.