Message 1 of 2 (844480)
11-30-2018 7:06 PM
Some were unsatisfied with the presentation of the evolutionary tree of the previous artist
This is an Aboriginal Australian artists impression of evolution
DNA molecule. Coded information
The human body has about 37.2 trillion cells each of which contains a DNA molecule. DNA has a series of 4 chemicals (amino acids) which are precisely arranged to spell out a code or instructions for building the crucial parts of cells (proteins) that allow all life to exist.
ToE says that evolution occurs through natural selection acting on random genetic mutation of DNA. This calls for several failed mutations to occur before one is advantageous enough to persist.
The question is how common or rare are advantageous functional sequences among the possible combinations of the DNA code? The answer is 1x10^77. That’s a 10 with 77 zeros. Those odds are so big that even billions of years could not produce that many outcomes.
But those are the odds to build just one new advantageous protein. Many more need to be created, trillions more. To create a new animal the proteins basically have to be arranged into structures within cells, different types of cells need to be arranged to form tissues, different tissues need to be arranged to form organs, then orangs and tissues need to be arranged to form systems and those systems need to be arranged to form a living creature. In other words DNA mutation alone cannot account for the evolution of new forms of life. This only adds to the huge improbability of ToE.
I listened to another scientist who claimed this calculation was incorrect. His calculations were that the odds were 1x10^33. Its still a probability so huge you have a better chance of winning lotto I think.
An illustration showing the complexity of building new life beyond the molecular level.
An analogy given by scientist Stephen Meyer
Say for example I designed a new type of bridge, never been done before. The breakthrough is a new material I have invented. This will make the bridge stronger and cheaper to build. I go and propose this new design to my boss. He asks me how certain I am it will work. And I respond by telling him the chances of it working are 1x10^77. Should we still build it on the off chance it will work? Off course not. We go and do countless tests on this new material under various conditions and circumstances. We try to falsify the materials claims by testing it to breaking point, analyzing the data and making improved changes to this material until we are 100% certain that its properties are consistent with the requirements.
That's an example of applied science and the high standards of evidence involved, for those who were confused
Reference to this study by scientist Doug Axe who calculated the probability of 1x10^77