Path: aur.alcatel.com!news01.aud.alcatel.com!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news3.digex.net!access5!medved From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Ted Holden) Newsgroups: alt.fan.splifford,talk.origins,alt.fan.publius Subject: Re: Questions Frequetly Avoided By the talk.origins bandar-log Date: 19 Jan 1996 09:35:10 -0500 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Lines: 342 Message-ID:
References: NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net Students: You say that you or some friend of yours is presently undergoing the standard forced indoctrination in evolutionism in your school, and the guy teaching the class is a sort of a dork, and you'd like to see him act nervous and sweat and stutter and stammer a bit and maybe even go "Tchi-Tchi-Tchi-Tchi-Tchi-Tchi-Tchi-Tchi" like a weasel? What you want to do is ask him one of the following questions. You might even want to ask one of these questions every couple of days until the guy finally can't handle it anymore and either leaves town or finds an honest job: 1. Evolution begins with the idea of one-celled animals somehow arising from inert materials (abiogenesis). Nonetheless, I've read articles indicating that the probabilistic odds against even deriving one of the required chemical components of a one-celled animal are way beyond what any mathematician would categorize as impossible. For instance, the following appeared on the internet recently: >It is estimated that the smallest possible self replicating species >would contain 124 separate protein chains. With each made of 400 >aa-molecules. Probability of forming one protein chain of 400 links > > 114 >(all L-type) from a mixture of 50/50 D- and L-forms is 1 in 10. >Probability for 124 seperate chains being created out of chance, >each containing 400 links of L-type molecules from a mixture of D- > 14,136 >and L- forms is 1 in 10 . > >Probability for 124 properly sequenced protein chains being formed > 64,480 >by chance alone is 1 in 10 . > >Probability for 124 protein chains to have been formed from L-type > 78,616 >molecules alone from a 50/50 mixture of D and L types 1 in 10 >To produce these 124-x400 L type chains would require DNA with >148,800 nucleotides. This doesent even reflect the 124 x 6 codons >for go/stop punctuation. Probability of forming one DNA strand of > 89,280 >148,800 nucleotides is 1 in 10. > >Now....the probability for this one example of DNA amd 124 chains > 167,896 >to have formed by chance alone simultaneously is 1 in 10. > >WE HAVE NOT EVEN GOTTON TO A COMPLETE PROBABILITY FOR A WHOLE CELL >YET. AND WE HAVENT EVEN TOUCHED UPON THE PROGRAMING FOR DNA TO CARRY >ALL THIS OUT. And the nuclutides for a human is like 3,000,000,000. > >Conclusion: Mathmatics do not support the theory of evolution as >it is currently concieved. Mathmatically there is a zero probability >for any kind of cell development by haphazzard chance alone. The question is: 1. How does anything beat 1 to 10 raised to the 167,896 power odds? You have to figure proteins would be destroyed faster than they could be created by any natural, undirected process, and that that the ratio between these rates is again some sort of astronomical number. Again from the internet, Bill Anderson: 15) There have been many imaginative but unsuccessful attempts to explain how just one single protein could form from any of the assumed atmospheres of the early Earth. The necessary chemical reactions all tend to move in the opposite direction from that required by evolution. Furthermore, each possible energy source, whether the Earth's heat, electrical discharges, or the sun's radiation, would have destroyed the protein products millions of time faster than they could be formed. And from Tricia Borawski: >Even the question "Given billions of tries, can a spilled >bottle of ink ever fall into the words of Shakespeare?" has >become obsolete as a result of modern man's understanding of >random mutation. Till now, this question pointed out odds so >astronomical that it rendered the event a virtual impossibility. >Now, it's not even a question of beating ridiculous odds. Now >we're shooting dice which deteriorate with each throw and >eventually self destruct. That is, we're shooting dice (genetic >"messages") which deteriorate (cause genetic diseases) with each >throw (of random mutation) and eventually self destruct (the host >organism). Thus, instead of, "Can you beat such ridiculous >odds?" the question now becomes, "After relatively few tries, >will you have any ink, paper, or dice left with which to try >again?" Since the very life that is supposed to evolve will be >destroyed in the process, it is impossible for the process to >even go on for any required length of time. This makes it highly >questionable, to say the least, that a trial-and-error method of >genetic mutations could beat even realistic odds--forget about >the preposterous odds proposed by evolutionists. Therefore, >whether life could develop in an environment (of genetic >mutations) where even fully developed biological systems cannot >survive is really no more a question of odds than whether a cow >could survive underwater long enough to conceive and give birth-- >it's simply impossible. The question is: 2. How did proteins ever first evolve given all of this? Again, Bill Anderson: 16) If, despite the virtually impossible odds, proteins arose by chance processes, there is not the remotest reason to believe that they could ever form a self-reproducing, membrane-encased, living cell. There is no evidence that there are any stable states between assumed naturalistic formation of proteins and the formation of the first living cells. No scientist has ever advanced a testable procedure whereby this fantastic jump in complexity could have occurred--even if the universe were completely filled with proteins. 17) DNA can only be produced with the help of certain enzymes. But these enzymes can only be produced at the direction of DNA. Since each requires the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must simultaneously explain the origin of the other. No evidence exists for any such naturalistic explanation. 18) The simplest form of life consists of 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probability that just one molecule could form by the chance arrangement of the proper amino acids is far less than 1 in 10^527. The magnitude of the number 10^527 can begin to be appreciated by realizing that the visible universe is about 10^28 inches in diameter. The question is: 3. How did the first one-celled animals ever evolve against all of that? Suppose that God or some other creator created the first one-celled animals, or that we simply split up abiogenesis and evolution into separate topics, and allow evolutionists to defend evolutionism, and criminals to defend abiogenesis (as punishment for their crimes), as a number of the t.o. howler monkeys insist upon; can we get to humans, given the one-celled animals? Millions of steps appear to be required to get from a one-celled animal to a human, and yet we know that even one of the smaller steps, such as between two different humanoid ancestors, involves odds which begin to sound like those in question 1. Again from the internet: >There is 1,000's if not million's of nucleotides that must be >directed to line up in a specific sequence. There is enormous >alignments as well as additions to the genetic code from >Gigantopithecus to Australopithecus for example. If there was a >1% diffrence in the genetic bases of man and ape, that comes out >to about 30,000,000 bases. With such enormous numbers of bases >involved, mathematics become very relevent. Why? Becuse there is >well accepted laws in mathematics that say if you want to talk >about such feats, don't use "chance", "time","mutations" or any >other defined event that must act in some random way to bring it >about. The question is: 4. While one might believe that one such step against those kinds of odds had taken place in all the history of the world, how is anybody supposed to believe that millions of such steps did?? Aside from the problems involving genetics and probability, there are problems with what you might term programmatics. Consider the "proto-bird" (TM), a favorite amongst evolutionists, even as Porky Pig and Lambchop are favored by children. This poor little creature is supposed to have somehow survived a thousand generation process during which it had neither functional arms, nor functional wings, during which it had enough flight feathers to look weird and be laughed at, but not enough to fly, a light enough bone structure to be kicked around on beaches, but not light enough to fly, and was generally an outcast, pariah, ugly duckling, and effortlessly free meal for every predator which ever saw it for 1000+ generations before it ever succeeded and flew. An idea of how hard it would truly be for "proto-bird" (TM) to make it to flying-bird status can be gotten from the case of the escaped chicken. Consider that man raises chickens in gigantic abundance, and that on many farms, these are not even caged. Consider the numbers of such chickens which must have escaped in all of recorded history; look in the sky overhead: where are all of their wild-living descendants?? Why are there no wild chickens??? They've got wings, tails, and flight feathers, and the whold nine yards. In their domestic state, they can fly albeit badly; they are entirely similar to what you might expect of an evolutionist's proto-bird, in the final stage of evolving into a flight-worthy condition. According to evolutionist dogma, at least a few of these should very quickly finish evolving back into something like a normal bird, once having escaped, and then the progeny of those few should very quickly fill the skies. But there are no wild chickens. In real life, against real settings, real predators, real conditions, the wings and tails are fatal burdons, and the bad flying capabilities do not suffice to save them. Thus we see that "proto-bird" (TM) not only couldn't make it the entire journey which he is supposed to have, he couldn't even make it the last yard if we spotted him the thousand miles minus the yard. The question is: 5. If, as we see above, "proto-bird" can't make it the last yard with our spotting him the thousand miles minus one yard as noted, how are we supposed to believe that he made it the thousand miles without our spotting him anything? In similar vein, Bill Anderson notes: 20) Detailed studies of various animals have revealed certain physical equipment and capabilities that cannot be duplicated by the world's best designers using the most sophisticated technologies. A few examples include: the miniature and reliable sonar systems of the dolphins, porpoises, and whales; the frequency-modulated radar and discrimination system of the bat; the efficiency and aerodynamic capabilities of the hummingbird; the control systems, internal ballistics, and combustion chambers of the bombadier beetle, and the precise and redundant navigational systems of many birds and fish. The many components of these complex systems could not have evolved in stages without placing a selective disadvantage on the animal. The questions are: 6. How are we supposed to believe that all of these animals survived prolonged periods of profound disadvantage during the lengthy times required to develop such specialized capabilities which would be worthless very late in the process of development? and 7. How is natural selection supposed to thus select on the basis of a hoped-for functionality, rather than simply do a random walk around some starting point for such a potential? Again, from Bill Anderson: 2) Mendel's laws of genetics explain almost all of the physical variations that are observed within life categories such as the dog family. A logical consequence of these laws and their modern day refinements is that there are limits to such variation. Breeding experiments have also confirmed that these boundaries exist. 5) Mutations are the only proposed mechanism by which genetic material becomes available for evolution. However all (perhaps all) observable mutations are harmful; many are lethal. 6) No know mutation has ever produced a form of life having both greater complexity and greater viability than its ancestors. 7) Over seventy years of fruit-fly experiments, equivalent to 2700 consecutive human generations, give no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates. The question is: 8. How is a process which is invariably destructive in common experience supposed to drive evolution? Aside from being unable to develop new kinds of animals, we observe that breeding cannot produce antediluvian sizes amongst present animals. For instance, the Argentinian teratorn, a type of eagle, had a 25' wingspan, and weighed around 170 - 250 lbs. Nonetheless, we know that Central Asians have been breeding hunting eagles for size and strength for 2000 years, and cannot get them past 25 lbs; at that point, they start having too many problems taking off and landing. 9. Why is that? Similarly, enormous sizes were part and parcel of the game plan for a number of animals which are supposed to have dominated the Earth for hundreds of millions of years. 10. If 70,000+ lb sizes were such a winning ticket back then, why has nothing ever RE-EVOLVED into such sizes, given the tens of millions of years which are supposed to have passed between then and now. Given evolution, you have to assume that human culture and language evolved with man as man was evolving; you have to figure that man was speech-capable hundreds of thousands of years ago. Thus, since the Indo-European and Semitic groups show no racial differences and cannot have separated from eachother more than a few thousand years ago, thier languages should be very strongly related, nearly as much so as the individual languages of the Indo-European groups are to eachother. 11. How do you explain the fact that they are not? 12. How do you explain the fact that Indo-European languages appear to have been simplified grammatically since the first records we have of them; that they appear to DEVOLVE rather than evolve? I've been looking at the official U.S. Government photographs of that funny region on Mars called Cydonia, and you can get those images from: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/PhotoGallery-Mars.html. They show a gigantic five-sided pyramid, and a number of other pyramids arranged in some sort of a complex and one more complicated building with a triangular enclosed space surrounded by two straight walls and a curved wall, and then there's this pedestal base with a humanoid face on it, about a mile and a half long nd 1500' high. That face is not really one of us, but either a neanderthal or something like that or some kind of a monkey, and the odds against monkeys or anything like that developing separately on Mars is clearly astronomical. Now, I've watched monkeys a lot and they're not really terribly smart or anything, at least by human standards, and the questions are: 13. How did those monkeys or Neanderthals or whatever they were get to Mars? 14. If monkeys were organized enough to do that in the past, how did they get to be like they are now? 15. Why do we not find any evidence of a past simian or neanderthal culture sophisticated enough to get to Mars, or any of the infrastructure which such a feat would entail? 16. If we're supposed to be descended from monkeys, how did they beat us to something like that?