The works of Dr. Marcel P. Schutzenberger, "Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution", and MIT professor Murray Eden’s "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory", both found in
Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Philadelphia, Wistar Institute Press, 1967) give us a magnificent clue…The odds of 400 left-handed amino acids linking up by chance is less than (0.5)380, and, since the simplest cell would need over 120 proteins, the combined probability would be less than (0.5)380x120 = 1.08x10-13,727. This is an impossibly small probability, and we have not yet accounted for the specific sequences of amino acids needed, which would reduce the probability far more.
Now suppose that, once every nanosecond for 15 billion years, one billion attempts were being made in every cubic millimeter of seawater on a trillion trillion earthlike planets throughout the universe, to create these 120 proteins. Would there be time enough to obtain this at least once?
Just do the math: There are about 1027 nanoseconds in 15 billion years. Earth's oceans have a volume of approximately 1.3x109 cubic kilometers, or 1.3x1027 cubic millimeters. For a trillion trillion similar planets, this would be 1.3x1051 cubic millimeters of ocean water. If a billion attempts were made every nanosecond in each cubic millimeter of these oceans for 15 billion years, the total number of attempts would be about 6.15x1086. The probability of getting just one set of the needed proteins in all these attempts would be (6.15x1086)(1.08x10-13,727) =
6.64x10-13,641, which hardly makes a dent in the original vanishingly tiny probability of forming the needed proteins.
Let's upsize each of our assumptions to a googol or so:
1) instead of 15 billion (1.5x1010) years, make it 1.5x10100 years.
2) instead of a trillion trillion (1012x1012=1024) earthlike planets, make it 10100 earthlike planets.
3) instead of a billion (109) attempts every nanosecond (10-9 seconds) make it 10100 attempts
every 10-100 seconds.
4) instead of a single universe, suppose this were occurring in 10100 universes.
Have we now overcome the nearly impossible odds of forming the necessary proteins? All we need to do is to update the exponent on the power of 10. In other words, multiply our original estimate by:
10(100-10) = 1090 to account for the increased number of years
10(100-24) = 1076 to account for the increased number of planets
10(100-9) = 1091 to account for the increased number of attempts per nanosecond
10(100-9) = 1091 to account for the increased sample rate (formerly nanoseconds)
10100 to account for the increased number of universes
This increases our original number of attempts from 6.15x1086 to 6.15x10534, and the probability of ever getting the needed proteins increases to a grand total of
6.64x10-13,193. This is still vanishingly small, and to obtain such "favorable" odds, we had to make some ridiculously generous assumptions.
We can see by the subsequent probabilities that there is not enough time on more than a billion planets in more than 15 billion years to accomplish the formation of life by chance.
So far, all we have is 120 chains of 400 left-handed amino acids. We don't yet have proteins—these amino acids need to be carefully sequenced in order to produce the specific proteins needed by a "simple" living cell. It would not suffice to have 120 proteins all of the same kind, since different kinds of proteins fulfill different functions in the metabolism of a cell. We need 120 specific proteins, which means each of these proteins needs to have a specific sequence of amino acids. The odds of randomly getting 120 proteins having just the right sequences is again so extremely unlikely as to be altogether impossible.
Okay, so for the sake of argument, suppose the impossible happened, and the correct 120 proteins somehow formed at the same time and all managed to come together in the same cell-sized droplet of organic soup. We still would not have life. We would also need …
- DNA—a molecule in the shape of a "double-helix" consisting of an extremely long sequence of base-pairs that encode the instructions needed to create a living cell.
- The correct instructions encoded in the DNA. These instructions would need to contain volumes upon volumes of specialized information, describing how to build all the macro-molecular parts of the cell, how to sequence all the proteins, and how to assemble these parts properly (in relation to one another) to form a living cell.
- RNA and other specialized molecules that
1) correctly decode the instructions in the DNA, and
2) follow these instructions to build a new cell.
In essence, this is similar to a complex computerized factory made of a variety of extremely complex biological materials.
This decoding machinery would need to come into existence
at the very same time and place as the DNA, and, to top it off, the instructions for building this decoding machinery would also need to be encoded in the DNA, so that it would be inherited by the offspring.
All these separate INTER-DEEPENDENT specifically
functional parts and pieces—the 400 different kinds of proteins, the DNA with its pre-coded instructions, the RNA with its ability to decode and follow the instructions in the DNA, along with numerous other features—
cannot just be dumped together.
They must be carefully assembled and interconnected in order to obtain a living cell—even the simplest living cell possible.
Truly, the odds of life just developing by random molecular interactions over the life of the universe (or of a googol of universes, for that matter), may be considered totally impossible. This fact has been acknowledged by evolutionists. Either that or the Universe has to be hundreds of trillions of years old.
Marcel P. Schutzenberger said “...
there is no chance (< 10-1000)
to see this mechanism [mutation-selection] 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.”
Murray Eden in his work agreed with this analysis, saying “…
It is our contention that if 'random' is given serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical,
and biological."
They only say this NOT because they are creationists or ID theorists (who are not all creationists) but because so many DO BELIEVE that life arose from non-living matter via chemical coincidence over time.
So how many Evolutionists, Biologists (creationist or not) and Mathematicians must one site? How much evidence will it take for you to see?
Yes the processes follow laws and principles (information) which I am glad so many of your camp now finally admit but that has always been
our point, but the difference is what each believes this means....and I would like to point out that evolutionists have touted and tried to reason abiogenesis for over a century (to no avail), and if the former is true then the latter simply cannot be true...either the processes FOLLOW the laws and principles (biogenesis) or they make them as they develop (abiogenesis)...if the plan was already in place this information has to have a source.
