Is it possible for the theory of evolution to be false?

Question

I read is two different books (one of which supported evolution) and one website that the chances of a single cell developing, even if they used every single chemical on earth, was 1 in 10 with 172 zeros after it, even if the chemical reactions happened 15,000,000 trillion times faster than they do in real life. That means in the whole lifetime of the earth, there is 1 in 10^172 chance of a cell forming from chemicals in the earth, which is what the Theory of Evolution suggests.

Does that mean there is a high chance that the theory of evolution is false?

Answer 1

Nope sorry not possible

Answer 2

John, let's consider a different statistics example. Consider the ancestors you have had. Whether you believe in an origin out of Africa ~200,000 years ago, or straight out of Eden ~6000 years ago, you're still dealing with many generations. Your parents had to have s*x at the correct moment to allow the one sperm that could result in you, to fertilize the one released egg that could result in you. Your mother's parents had to do the same, as did your father's parents, and so on, back up the line, as far as you want to take it. No ancestor could've died young, no diseases could've struck the family, nothing.

The odds of your existence, statistically speaking, are incredibly small. Does this prove that you do not exist?

Something being statistically unlikely, does not mean a d**n thing if it has already happened.

Answer 3

yes.

i believe in creationism.

Answer 4

Cells don't develop just by shoving atoms together at random. Moreover, we have absolutely no idea of the number of possible single cells that would work, but it will also need lots and lots of zeros. So the argument, much used by creationists, is doubly bogus.

Evolution is not a theory just like the existence of atoms is not a theory.  Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution, just like nothing in chemistry make sense without atoms.  You could play funny games with chemistry also, by working out the odds (for example) against elements having the exact molar masses that they do, but so what?

Answer 5

"1 in 10^172 chance of a cell forming from chemicals in the earth, which is what the Theory of Evolution suggests,"  as already pointed out, evolution does not suggest this at all. Evolution does, however beg the question of how life began. So what does our research concerning the origin of life tell us? It tells us that we don't know how it happened. So you can generate all the statistics you want in an attempt to prove how it did not happen - those numbers may or may not be true - at best all you can do is prove something was very unlikely in one particular way. So it probably happened another way - a way you haven't considered. Have you ever heard of pre-cellular life, or the RNA world? How about cyclic di-GMP? How about the pre-RNA world - PNA, TNA, GNA. PAH or iron-sulfur worlds?

http://opa.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id...

http://www.ucsc.edu/news_events/press_re...

http://www.buffalo.edu/news/fast-execute...

You need to work up some new probabilities.

Answer 6

Here is a site explaining in detail why the book with the 10^172 probability against abiogenesis is wrong:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob...

A quick summary of what's on that page:

"Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations

1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences."

Like another poster said, they are trying to make up something absurd and tell you 'this is what evolution says, isn't evolution silly?'  Don't fall for it.

And no, that's not what the theory of evolution suggests.  Here is a summary of what science really thinks about the origin of life - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob...

But to answer your question, yes, it's theoretically possible that the theory of evolution is false.  It would not be science if there wasn't the possibility of falsification.  But at this point, with the MASSIVE amounts of evidence supporting common descent through evolution, and the actual process of evolution being an observed fact (we know evolution happens as we've seen it with our own eyes in modern times, look up 'Italian Wall Lizard' for one example) it's EXTREMELY unlikely that we will ever find something fundamentally wrong with the theory of evolution which requires us to abandon it altogether.  It's very possible that we may need to modify the theory in the future to fit new evidence, but the basic premise - that all life has evolved from a common ancestor via genetic variation and natural selection - is likely to always be with us.  It's the most well supported theory in all of science, more so than gravity.

Bub:

"You seen any lizard men or frog men or horse men or ????? Evolution is for the illiterate educated I know better than yous."

Excuse me?  'Illiterate educated'?  Isn't that an oxymoron?

By the way, if you think evolution says there should be 'lizard men' or any of those others, then you don't know anything about evolution.  You have believed those lies that the anti-evolution people come up with, and you're in no position to make an informed decision about evolution.

In fact, if we found a half lizard-half man, it would pretty much disprove the theory of evolution.

Answer 7

You seen any lizard men or frog men or horse men or ?????  Evolution is for the illiterate educated I know better than yous.

Answer 8

I doubt it. Remember, no matter how small the number, it is not a 0% chance. Anything above 0 means it's possible

Answer 9

>"Does that mean there is a high chance that the theory of evolution is false?"

No.  It means that there's a high probability that that anti-evolution web site is full of c**p.

First, evolution is *OBVIOUSLY* not the same thing as a bunch of chemicals combining randomly in chemical reactions.  

The theory of evolution is about how life slowly *changes* from earlier forms of life.   Evolution is NOT about how life *began*.

Second, where on earth did they get these numbers.  Why 172 zeros?  Why not 173 zeros or 215 zeros or a "gazillion" zeros?

>"That means in the whole lifetime of the earth, there is 1 in 10^172 chance of a cell forming from chemicals in the earth, which is what the Theory of Evolution suggests."

No it is NOT what the theory of evolution suggests.  That isn't even in the ballpark of what the theory of evolution suggests.   That is some bizarre, nonsensical misrepresentation of what the theory of evolution suggests.  

These anti-evolution web sites use the tactic of *REDEFINING* what the theory of evolution says into some utterly absurd, ridiculous version ... and then refuting that absurd, ridiculous version by saying "see how absurd and ridiculous the theory of evolution is"?

Don't fall for it!

It will only make you look as utterly foolish as these web sites.

----- Edit ------

>"They got 10^172 from the complexity of even the simplest cell. And yes, the Theory of Evolution does support that version of the origin of life: <link>"

Thanks for the link ... but I don't see 10^172 anywhere on that page.   Another page perhaps?

Also, even though the logic on that page (and all others in that site) is utterly bizarre ... they do not seem to be making the claim, as you are, that the Theory of Evolution says that cells came about by random recombination of molecules.  It at least acknowledges that scientists are looking in the arena of "chemical evolution" ... a form of pre-life based on replicating molecules.    This page claims that these self-replicating molecules are impossible (they are wrong), but they are NOT saying (as you seem to think) that complete cells arose from raw chemicals.

Answer 10

Well, not exactly.

The chance of a complete, working cell happening in a chemical soup is indeed extremely remote. But there is one thing missing in this: evolution itself. Whenever a more robust chemical is formed, then it stays put. The first life form was not a complete cell, but just a bunch of proteins that just had the flair for allowing more of the same chemicals to form and be accumulated.

It is fallacious to assume that the first living organism was as complex as the ones existing today, even the simplest of the simple contemporary bacteria. As soon as that extra simple primitive bacteria gave way to an "improved model", the earlier ones were just wiped out.

The theory of evolution may be false, but so far, there is nothing that rules it out, and the argument brought by that book is not applicable as such to do so.

It is possible that it is false, but right now, the bulk of evidence is that it is true; and the burden to prove otherwise rest with those wanting to disprove it. And I do not feel they have a prayer.

Answer 11

> Is it possible for the theory of evolution to be false?

Yes.  But evolution is the best explanation for biogeography, molecular cladistics, the fossil record, etc.

Until a better explanation comes along, then you should consider evolution as fact.

> 1 in 10^172 chance of a cell forming from chemicals in the earth

Total snow job.  Chemical reactions aren't random.

Also, since we know that cells DID form from chemicals on the Earth, the odds of it happening are 100%.  LOL.