Basic HTML Version
Does natural selection make unlikely collections of molecules possible? Natural selec–
tion- like a sieve-can only ' produce' as output organisms that already exist as input.
protein consist ing of a chain of 100
acids, we have
20
X
20
X · · · X
20
=
20
1
OO
100 times
possibilities. But 20
100
is approxi–
mately equal to 10
130 ,
that is, 1
followed by 130 zeros.
ls it reasonable to believe that
such a protein could have been
formed by chance during the his–
tory of the universe?
Scientists have stated that there
may be as many as 10
22
stars in the
observable universe. Let 's be gener–
ous and say 1,000 times as many
( 10
25 )
stars just to be on the safe
side. l nstead of allowing just one
planet like earth for each star, we'll
give each star 1O such planets for a
total of 10
26
"earths" in the uní–
verse.
Let's also give each "earth"
oceans the same size as our carth's
oceans- about 10
46
molecules.
Again , we'll be generous and fill
the occans with a "soup" of amino
acids rather than sea water. So we
have 10
26
X
10
46
=
10
72
ami no
acids fl oating around.
In order to give the evolutionists
a sport ing chance, we'll Jet all of
these acids link up into chains 100
aci ds lony every second . Since
100
=
1O , th is would g ive us
10
72
+
10
2
=
1O
70
chains per sec–
ond.
A year has less than 10
8
seconds,
but we' ll round it off and say we
have 10
70
chains per second
X
10
8
seconds per year for a total of 10
78
chai ns per year.
Now all we need is an upper
bound on the age of the universe.
Yarious estimates have been given,
but a safe
u~per
bound is about 1O
billion ( 10
1
)
years. Therefore, we
wou ld have 10
78 X
10
10
=
10
88
chains formed in all our "oceans of
am i no acid soup" o n a 11 ou r
"earths" around all the
stars, for all
the years the universe has existed!
But we have already seen that
there are about 10
130
possibilities.
Therefore, the probability of form–
ing by chance the given protein
consisting of 100 ami no acids in
10
88
t ries is le ss t han l0
88
j
10
130
=
1/10
42
.
How probable is this? The odds
against such an event are beyond
astronomical! Even though we have
been exceedingly generous, the
odds that one small protein could
have evolved are infinitesimally
small .
The odds against an average-size
protein of 500 amino acids evolving
are, of course, even more enor–
mous. An evolutionist (or maybe
even a sincere skeptic) can always
claim {preposterous as it seems)
that it could have happened.
Reasoning based on probability
alone cannot lead to a conclusion
that a protein could not form at
random. But it does show the
fantastic odds against it happen–
ing!
Answering the Evolutlonls t
Here are sorne of the evolutionists'
counterarguments- and the an–
swers:
1} You can't prove anything by
probability. Sorne people say you
can't prove the world exists; you
can't prove cyanide is poison unless
you try it, etc. What kind of proof
do you want? Do you want proof
that things fall down, not up? From
" back-aJley" dice games to highly
sophisticated research laboratories,
the laws of probability have proveo
themselves to be j ust as dependable
as the law of gravity.
In fact, the laws of probability
are intrinsic to the gathering of vir–
tually all quantitative scientific
information. A true scientist does
not jump to conclusions based on a
few bits and pieces of evidence. In
science, no conclusions should be
drawn-no facts established as
facts- without a rigorous test of
the hypotheses by means of the
laws of probability!
2) Not all chains of amino acids
are equally likely to be formed. The
ones needed for living organisms
are more likely than the others.
This is pure speculation. There is
no evidence that such is the case.
The idea is based on an analogy
with other rar e and completely
unrelated chemical reactions (se–
lective autocatalysis). Even if sorne
chains could be proved to be more
probable, this would not prove evo–
lution. Quite the contrary, it would
prove the existence of a law, which
in turn demands a Lawgiver.
3)
Even though the probability is
immeasura bly smaU, it still is not
zero. Therefore, it could bave hap–
pened. Do you want to believe in
such an improbable event? ls such
a belief rational ? Would you send
your child to school on a school bus
that had l chance in 1,000,000,
000,000,000,000,0004000,000,000,
000,000,000,000 ( 1O
2 )
of arriving
safely?
4)
Nevertheless, tbe presence of
ourselves on Earth today is evi–
dence that a sequence of similar
events of almost zero probability
did take place over
3
billion years
ago. This incredible statement by
Si r Bernard Lovell , from the
book
In the Centre of lmmensi–
ties,
is even more incredible as it
was made immediately a fter the
following admission: " The proba–
bili ty of s uch a chance occu r–
rence leadi ng to formation of one
of the smallest protein molecules
is unimaginably small. Within
the boundary conditions of time
and space which we are consider–
ing it is effectively zero." This
type of reasoning, which has also
been used by other evolutionists,
is t he most indefensible. I t is
what logicians cal! "circular rea–
soning." The evolution-
ist
assumes