What is the validity of this statement about evolution?

Question

I was watching a Dr. on a religous channel( i am weighing the theory of both sides) and he stated that the odds of the protiens coming together in the exact way needed to make a cell function properly was virtually impossible-like 1 chance in 10 to the 5 millionth power.

Answer 1

I have heard similar statistics in the past.  I'm neither a scientist or a mathmetician, so I have no idea how valid such statements are.

If you're interested in evolution vs. intelligent design, you should watch Ben Stein's Expelled.  It's one of the few programs I've seen that gives a good arguement for the intelligent design side of the debate.

There's lots of stuff out there that is decent and pro-evolution.  Loads on the discovery and science channels.

Answer 2

Dr. Dino aka Kent Hovind is in prison for tax fraud

He is a dumbass who spews nonsense that some people are stupid enough to listen to.

I would choose a more credible source for evolution, I dunno maybe a BIOLOGIST

I will give you a Christian one so you can see that Christians can accept evolution to.  Google or youtube "Kenneth Miller"

Answer 3

You can't watch creationists argue on this. They are too biased. But so are atheists like Dawkins. I recommend watching the video -Ken Miller on Intelligent Design- on youtube. He is a christian evolutionist.  

Answer 4

I get that argument all the time. "So many billions and billions of thing's had to happen just right according to Evolution?"

No, that's not the right way to look at it. Billions and billions of things DID happen and we are the result of that. If some had happened differently, the universe might well be very different and we might not be here to ask about it- but the fact that things did happen that way and we are here doesn't mean that there was any "plan" to produce us.

You can't talk about probabilities a posteriori. If I pick one number out of 10 million, the probability that I would get, say, 123730 would be 0.00000001. But it would make no sense to pick a number and then say "look, I got 123730. That couldn't have happened by chance!"

Answer 5

Just because someone had a doctorate doesn't mean they are an expert in calculating such probabilities.

Answer 6

The proteins didn't initially come together in the complex way needed to make a cell function.  They initially came together in much simpler ways, forming simple combinations which in turn joined to form simple amino acids.  Cells were still millions of years down the road.

Answer 7

Why were you watching a religious cgannhel if you're looking for answers on evolution??  Of course you bet biased information, what do you expect?

You need to think on a grander scale.  Of course the odds are slim, yet over billions of years it all came together.  If you really want to understand evolution and not just listen to creationist apologetics, then start reading scientific data on it.

Answer 8

Any gambler will tell you that if there is ANY chance , any odds at all , and unlimited time , then that thing will eventually happen . Somebody wins lotto .

Also what is a cell functioning "properly" ? The way our cells are is just the particular way they evolved . There might have been other possibilities .

Answer 9

Well I'm christian so I support creationism of course. He is right, the two cannot co-exist since they teach opposite things. Evolutionism teaches we formed from "proteins" coming together and becoming more and more complex over the years til it developed into intelligent creatures. I'm curious though how all these same proteins formed different creatures? What made them form differently? There is something bigger behind it either way. And where exactly did these proteins come from? They didn't just pop out of thin air. If they came from the forming planetary system, why then haven't we found proteins on the moon or mars? After all they both came from the same material that made earth. Doesn't make sense to me. What the bible says on how the universe was created matches up with the big bang theory so I accept that one.

God said he created mad from dirt. Well whats in dirt? Minerals right. Iron, zinc, carbon, etc.. What are me made of? Iron, zinc, carbon,etc. Makes more sense to me, and there is no confusion on how it was done and who did it. Its more than just proteins. They still have to figure out where the minerals came into the picture, and minerals are not made of proteins but atoms. So where did our atomic structures come from then? Not proteins. Obviously proteins don't answer the question. And how does an atomic structure change its form usualy? Intense heat or cold. Means according to science there were only two times in history any evolution of atomic structure could have taken place, once when there was an aestroid (heat), and the ice age (cold). None of those two scenerios would lead to what we are today.

So im to conclude that if evolution isnt possible by a scientific means, that leaves creationsim. And if we are here by creationism then there must be a God.

Answer 10

That man is saying things he does not know. We cannot say what the chances are of proteins coming together in one way or another. We don't know, and neither does he. This is probably something he heard from someone else, because it's a lie, really.

I would say it is lying when you say something as if it were a fact, and you cannot really say you know it is true.

I get tired of this sort of behavior, and I see so-called religious leaders trying to pull this sort of thing all the time. It's just wrong to lie like that.

What irks me is that these folks are not interested in telling the truth at all. They have already decided what the truth is, and they then try to spin half-baked speculation and made up nonsense to try to make things work out the way they want them to work out. The truth doesn't interest them. This offends me as much as anything else they do. They mean well, and they often probably are only repeating lies someone else gave them, but they still are telling clear, obvious untruths.

Answer 11

whats the chances of you being born exactly the way you are if you think about it not good one of your ancestors could have died or your genes could be different with all the possible combination there are  

Answer 12

Evolution is the biggest lie ever believed.

If you study all the evidence there are far more facts in favor of creation.

Read some of Ken Hamms work sometime.

He's a scientist that isn't afraid to research both sides.

Answer 13

The odds seem the same for a once aquatic species to simultaniuously gain limbs and a respitory system in the same generation....

Answer 14

still this chance is higher than the chance of a mysterious entity creating humans the way they are now and the way everything is

the chance of that is         1 to infinity there is an infinite amount of things that so called god could have made us

he could have made us hamsters he could have made us breath fire he could have put our brains in our feet

Answer 15

If there was only one experiment happening on earth prior to life arising, it might never have happened.  Fortunately, the dice were rolling in millions upon millions of mud puddles all over the planet.  This significantly improved the odds.

Answer 16

1.  Stop watching religious channels, especially TBN

2.  Mathematically yes, the odds are very remote.  So is winning the lottery and every day someone wins.

Answer 17

Actually we don't know the exact odds but they also state the converse that however improbable the occurrence maybe it is still possible and will happen after enough time passes .

Answer 18

There are estimated a Billion Billion planets in the universe. If  the chances were only one in a billion, that leaves one billion planets in the universe with life on them.

Answer 19

An experiment was done, where the believed atmosphere composition of the earth all those millions of years ago was recreated, and then an electrical current was put through it.  Suddenly amino acids started to get created.  Lightning was the catalyst that started it all.  Those amino acids through chemical processes were assimilating other chemicals into themselves.  its not that hard of a stretch.  If we can program a computer to learn, why is it so hard to think that over millions of years, amino acids would eventually turn into proteins and eventually turn into single cell organisms that eventually started to work together to form multi-cell organisms?

Answer 20

Well it has no validity because it doesn't even address evolution.  He is (whether he knows it or not) referring to abiogenisis.

Answer 21

Evil-lution ?,evolution?, the history behind evolution was meant to be fiction not fact, worshipping false gods makes more sense, but either way higher power transformed the charles Dwain's 10 year homework in to nothing but a load of hog wash, through all of history people worshipped false god  and that made More sense then charles Dwain's home work,people call it fact, however i believe that there is a higher power at work, so i believe there is god, god of abraham.

Answer 22

Total c**p.  

First he is making a HUGE assumption that it has to only be one way.  Proteins most likely could make life millions of ways.

Second, he is calculating random odds, not odds with enzymes present.  

Third, he is assuming that the first life was very complex.  It wasn't.  They can already mix chemicals in the lab and make life.  It's been done at Penn State and Berkeley, so it is CLEARLY possible.

Answer 23

Another way of looking at the impossibility of evolution is in DNA development.

1.  Amino acids selected (must have correct orientation--(right and left handedness)

2. Life specific amino acids sorted, with incorrect ones rejected.

3. Correct amino acids bonded into short chains.

4. Hundreds of short chains bonded to specified length.

5. Chains with "sensible"  order/instructions selected (e.g., no random "noise")

   As you can see the sequence of DNA development is not simple. And it's not random. The estimated probability of all of these steps randomly occurring for the simplest living cell is-----1 in 10 to  100,000,000,000. That would be like winning 1.4 million  consecutive lotteries.

  In order to embrace evolution you would have to believe the following points--

1. Nothing produces everything.

2. Non-life produces life.

3. Randomness produces fine tuning.

4. Chaos produces information.

5. Unconsciousness produces consciousness.

6. Non-reason produces reason.

  Based on this, I was forced to conclude that Darwinism would require a blind leap of faith that I was not willing to make. The central pillars of evolutionary theory quickly rotted away when exposed to scrutiny.

  A person cannot believe in evolution and creation. You either choose one or the other and to say that they go together is tantamount to calling God a liar.

Answer 24

Yes the odds are high, I still find it hard to believe. There are millions of different species of insects, thousands of species of mammals.

So how many freak accidents has to happen.

It takes more faith to believe in evolution then it takes to believe in creation, So Creation it is.

Answer 25

Complete and utter nonsense.  There is no way to specifically calculate the odds of the first life form on this planet that started the whole shabang, simply because no one knows what that first life form was--outside of a simple cell.

On the other hand...the chances that the exact combination did occur is 1 because, well, we all exist.

Answer 26

First off, creationism isn't a scientific theory.

Secondly, this irreducible complexity argument that has come into fashion amongst creationists lately is laughable and absurd to anybody with an elementary understanding of evolution by natural selection.

Answer 27

I am not sure what the odds are but think of this. First amino acids come together in a chain. We now have a protein and science says the first life. In order to replicate this protein we need DNA. DNA -> RNA-> protein is the way life works. Not protein->DNA. Now some viruses can do RNA->DNA. But no organism I know of can go from protein to DNA. So once we have this chain of amino acids we have no way to replicate them. So life stalls and nothing happens and there is no life on Earth. While this is not technically part of evolution without this evolution could not occur. Thus the whole theory falls apart.

Answer 28

It might be as low of odds as he said. It might not. I am not sure about the odds. I do know though that there are quintillion's of stars out there. So if the odds were 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 then it is entirely possible that it has happened. Maybe more than once.

By the way he was confused when he said that he was speaking of evolution. When in fact he was speaking of abiogenesis.

Answer 29

Even if the chance was 1 chance in 10 to the 5 millionth power, there was still a chance. It has to happen at some point. It was roughly by the same amount that a comet that could wipe out most of the life on the planet would crash into the Earth, yet is has happened. Just ask the dinosaurs.

Answer 30

Wrong.  Life exists, so the probability is 1 chance in 1.

What criteria did this doctor use to determine probability?  Which factors did he account for, which didn't he account for, and how did he determine how these factors would be weighted?  Doesn't it seem to you that this kind of odds-making is incredibly vulnerable to bias?  Perhaps life, although uncommon in the universe because it is so often hostile to life, is quite common where the conditions for supporting life exist.  Maybe the processes that lead to life are natural and probable where conditions permit.  We really don't know enough about the origin of life, or life outside of our planet to determine its "probability," but I'd say our existence suggests that it's more than reasonably probable that life can occur without divine intervention.

Besides, what is the probability that the most complex being in existence could come into existence without a creator?

Answer 31

Yeah - you already got the answer.

The odds given is for the protiens to form at one time. The probability comes down by a massive amount when you consider that component (smaller) parts could have formed and then intermingled. In fact, the odds of abiogenesis in the circumstances of the early earth is about 1:1.