From: (Ted Holden)
Subject: Re: Questions Frequetly Avoided By the bandar-log
Date: 19 Jan 1996 09:35:10 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 342

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.
      >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

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
      >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

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

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?


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:  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

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?