The odds of a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five specific (functionally related) genes is the product of their separate probabilities. Morris, 63. In other words, the probability is 1 in 108 X 108 X 108 X 108 X 108, or 1 in 1040. If one hundred trillion (1014) bacteria were produced every second for five billion years (1017 seconds), the resulting population (1031) would be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what was needed!
You might want to link to the stuff you copy and paste. Y’know, so we can see it in its full context.
Your superscripting of exponents has been lost in the copy and paste…
I assume you copied-and-pasted that from somewhere. Can we have the link to the original?
I don’t know what creationist propoganda you’re copy-pasting, but the numbers aren’t coming out right.
And even if the numbers had come across right, the argument might matter if every time a bacteria came into existence it generated its genetic code completely randomly. Which is sort of like saying that helocopters might eat cheese if helicopters were mice.
http://www.carm.org/evolution/evodds.htm appears to be the original, for anyone who wants to see. (“From The Myth of Natural Origins; How Science Points to Divine Creation. Ashby Camp, Ktisis Publishing, Tempe, Arizona, 1994, pp. 53-57, used by permission.”)
You might want to take a look at this:
evoltuionists claim wwe bagan from nothing
We are told that back in the beginning, there was nothing; absolutely nothing anywhere in the entire universe.
Then the nothing exploded! That is how evolutionists say everything began. When all this emptiness exploded, it traveled outward and condensed into hydrogen and helium. A total vacuum, they tell us, had become something! Additional explosions are said to have later invented all the 92 natural elements.
There wasn’t a universe, either. No time, nor space.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
That was for b_wad, not QED
This is flat wrong. The evolutionists who happen to believe in the big bang (and probably abiogenesis too) do not say that there was a time when there was nothing, followed by a big bang. The big bang came before everything else.
Um, what does evolution have to do with the beginning of the universe? Or the beginning of life on Earth, for that matter?
What do you make of this, b_wad? (4.5 minute video):
Are the similarities in these illustrations purely coincidental?:
Actually, most mutations are neutral since most mutations occur in non-coding parts of the DNA, which accounts for most of the genetic material in our chromosomes. It is estimated that about 80 - 90% of human DNA is non-coding. This number varies among other organism, and there may be some that have more coding than non-coding DNA.
As for the OP: If “something” had to create what we see around us, what created that something? How did God, Allah, aliens come into existence?
Now now, don’t dilute the discussion. The argument he presented is crappy whether or not his other arguments are crappy.
Hell, for that matter, even if the world sprang into existence by God’s hand just last week, what’s preventing evolution from happening during the last week? Do you suppose, b_wad, that God is micromanaging reproductive success by hand to prevent any changing of genotypical and/or phenotypical frequencies? That even though, for example, certain genes make one much less likely to die from certain diseases, God has ways of compensating to prevent those genes from becoming prevalent among the population?
Because that seems ridiculous and contrived for no reason. Even if life started in the Garden of Eden or whatever you believe, even if man came readymade instead of from a common ancestor with apes, there would still be evolution afterwards, barring some particular force working against it. It’s simply the mathematics of heredity and reproductive success.
Well, that was one of his arguments and it’s part of the discussion. I’d like to see how b_wad will answer his own question.
I am unaware of any big bang theories that postulate a total vacuum prior to the big bang. Please supply a cite for this claim.
Hm, yes, now I see where you’re coming from. I think I was confused by the fact that he’s making arguments against evolution and then claiming to have thereby proven abiogenesis.
I would ask where he was coming from too, but it couldn’t contradict his argument, since his argument has little or nothing to do with his conclusion!
Considering the back and knee problems I’ve had over the years, I wish they would start calling it Unintelligent Design.