The esteemed late Carl Sagan and other prominent scientists have estimated the chance of man evolving at roughly 1 chance in 10 2,000,000,000.34 This is a figure with two billion zeros after it and would require about 2,000 books to write out. This number is so infinitely small it is not even conceivable. So, for arguments sake, lets take an infinitely more favorable view toward the chance that evolution might occur.
What if the chances are only 1 in 101000 the figure that a prestigious symposium of evolutionary scientists used computers to arrive at? This figure involved only a mechanism necessary to abiogenesis and not the evolution of actual primitive life. Regardless, this figure is also infinitely above Boréls single law of chance(1 chance in 1050)beyond which, put simply, events never occur
Emile Borél, Probabilities and Life (New York: Dover, 1962), Chs. 1 and 3; Boréls cosmic limit of 10200 changes nothing
In "Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution" Marcel P. Schutzenberger of the University of Paris, France, calculated the probability of evolution based on mutation and natural selection. Like many other noted scientists, he concluded that it was "not conceivable" because the probability of a chance process accomplishing this is zero:
there is no chance (<10-1000) to see this mechanism appear spontaneously and, if it did, even less for it to remain . Thus, to conclude, we believe there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian Theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology
Marcel P. Schutzenberger, "Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution" in Moorehead and Kaplan, eds., 75; cf., Bird, I, 79-80; for reasons why natural selection would not modify randomness and decrease these probabilities, see Bird, I, 158-165.
Evolutionary scientists have called just 1 chance in 1015 "a virtual impossibility."39 So, how can they believe in something that has less than 1 chance in 101000? After all, how small is one chance in 101000? Its incredibly small1 chance in 1012 is only one chance in a trillion
Please note that in exponential notation, every time we add a single number in the exponent, we multiply the number itself by a factor of ten. Thus, one chance in 10172 is ten times larger than one chance in 10171. One chance in 10177 is one million times larger than one chance in 10171. And one chance in 10183 is one trillion times larger than one chance in 10171. So where do you think we end up with odds like one chance in 10 100,000,000,000? In fact, the dimensions of the entire known universe can be packed full by 1050 planetsbut the odds of probability theory indicate that not on even a single planet would evolution ever occur
Frank B. Salisbury, "Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene," Nature, Vol. 24, October 25, 1969, pp. 342-343 and James Coppedge, Director Center for Probability Research and Biology, North Ridge, California, personal conversation; cf., Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible?, passim.
Yea, I know I'm lazy for all the paste and copy
What if the chances are only 1 in 101000 the figure that a prestigious symposium of evolutionary scientists used computers to arrive at? This figure involved only a mechanism necessary to abiogenesis and not the evolution of actual primitive life. Regardless, this figure is also infinitely above Boréls single law of chance(1 chance in 1050)beyond which, put simply, events never occur
Emile Borél, Probabilities and Life (New York: Dover, 1962), Chs. 1 and 3; Boréls cosmic limit of 10200 changes nothing
In "Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution" Marcel P. Schutzenberger of the University of Paris, France, calculated the probability of evolution based on mutation and natural selection. Like many other noted scientists, he concluded that it was "not conceivable" because the probability of a chance process accomplishing this is zero:
there is no chance (<10-1000) to see this mechanism appear spontaneously and, if it did, even less for it to remain . Thus, to conclude, we believe there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian Theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology
Marcel P. Schutzenberger, "Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution" in Moorehead and Kaplan, eds., 75; cf., Bird, I, 79-80; for reasons why natural selection would not modify randomness and decrease these probabilities, see Bird, I, 158-165.
Evolutionary scientists have called just 1 chance in 1015 "a virtual impossibility."39 So, how can they believe in something that has less than 1 chance in 101000? After all, how small is one chance in 101000? Its incredibly small1 chance in 1012 is only one chance in a trillion
Please note that in exponential notation, every time we add a single number in the exponent, we multiply the number itself by a factor of ten. Thus, one chance in 10172 is ten times larger than one chance in 10171. One chance in 10177 is one million times larger than one chance in 10171. And one chance in 10183 is one trillion times larger than one chance in 10171. So where do you think we end up with odds like one chance in 10 100,000,000,000? In fact, the dimensions of the entire known universe can be packed full by 1050 planetsbut the odds of probability theory indicate that not on even a single planet would evolution ever occur
Frank B. Salisbury, "Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene," Nature, Vol. 24, October 25, 1969, pp. 342-343 and James Coppedge, Director Center for Probability Research and Biology, North Ridge, California, personal conversation; cf., Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible?, passim.
Yea, I know I'm lazy for all the paste and copy
