Creation: May Math Lessons
A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.
Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by taking over the homemaker duties here. His primary topic, the Biblical Truth of Creation vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications in our modern culture.
For believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical and defensible fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the authoritative Biblical account — or fallible secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.
A Short Math Lesson
First let’s talk about earth.
Darwinists claim that according to Cosmic Evolution, the age of the earth is approximately 4.2 to 5.6 billion years. I am willing to compromise by several hundred million years so let’s assume 5 billion years just to have a whole number.
There are 60 seconds per minute, 60 minutes per hour, 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. That is 31,536 x 10^-3 or 31,536,000 seconds per single year.
Therefore, there are 157,680,000,000,000,000 seconds, or only 15,768 x 10^-13 seconds, in 5 billion years. Got it so far? Okay. Good. Bear with me. It isn’t all boring math.
Let’s talk about the entire universe.
Darwinists claim that the age of the universe is approximately 14.6 to 16.2 billion years. Again, I am willing to compromise by several hundred million years so let’s assume 15 billion years
There are 60 seconds per minute, 60 minutes per hour, 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. That is 31,536 x 10^-3 or 31,536,000 seconds per single year.
Therefore, there are 473,040,000,000,000 seconds or only 47,304 x 10^10 seconds in 15 billion years.
The modern understanding of molecular biology allows scientists to calculate the PROBABILITY of dirt and rocks deciding to form a living organism. Since the modern evolutionary synthesis, the foundation of neo-Darwinism is based on RANDOM mutations and this kind of randomness can quantified, qualified, and thus calculated mathematically with a very high degree of precision. These calculations are an important predictor of the validity of Darwinist evolutionary theory.
Side Note: Probability was not an issue up through 1965, when evolutionary scientists could still claim an infinite amount of time and matter was available because Darwinists believed that the universe was eternal.
But it is a critical issue today, now that even rabidly ardent evolutionists estimate the Earth is at most only 4.6 to 5.2 billion years old, which allows substantially less time for slow, gradual evolutionary processes over time to produce our planet and the life we observe.
Mathematical Impossibility
Nineteenth century mathematician, Émile Borel, estimated that one has reached mathematical impossibility when one achieves odds of 1 chance in 10^-50 expressed as 1/10^-50.
Modern mathematician, William Dembski, has calculated a lower limit of 1/10^-150, based on the number of elementary particles in the universe and the supposed age of the universe.
Let’s go with the much smaller and more modern lower limit of 1/10^-150 for purposes of this post.
Simplest Living Cell
The smallest theoretical self-reproducing cell is made up of 239 proteins. At least 124 different and very specific types of proteins are needed for this imaginary cell to become a living thing.
It should be noted that the simplest known non-imaginary self-reproducing organism is the H39 strain of PPLO (mycoplasma) containing 625 proteins with an average of 400 amino acids in a highly complex and very specific sequence in each and every protein. Even this life form is not a great example, since without the existence of other more complex living things upon which the mycoplasma depends parastically or symbiotically, it would cease to live.
Still, let’s use the theoretical cell for the purpose of this post.
The Probability
The probability of the occurrence of the smallest theoretical life form is only 1/10^-119,879. The years required for the smallest theoretical life form to “evolve” via a very generous neo-Darwinist evolutionary model would be 10^-119,841 years, or 10^-119,831 times the assumed age of the earth.
The probability of the smallest theoretical cell of only 239 proteins “evolving” without the needed 124 different types of proteins to make up a living cell, i.e., the chance of evolving this “helpless group of non-living molecules” in less than 500 billion years is 1/10^-119,701. Otherwise, it would take an additional 485 billion years than the assumed age of the entire universe.
Dr. David J. Rodabough, Associate Professor of Mathematics at the University of Missouri, estimated the more realistic probability that life would spontaneously generate (even on 10^-23 planets) as only 1/10^-2,999,940.
Cytochrome C is a small protein found throughout the biological realm and thus, assuming the neo-Darwinian model is true, had to have appeared early in Darwin’s evolutionary process.
Information theorist Hubert Yockey calculated a probability of 1/10^-75 to generate Cytochrome C spontaneously from an amino acid-rich environment.
To put this into perspective: a 1/10^-75 chance is less likely than winning the 9 state Powerball lottery nine weeks in a row, buying only one ticket per week only 9 times.
Naturally, life is composed of many more-complex molecules than Cytochrome C. Murray Eden, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, calculated a probability of 1/10^-313 to spontaneously bring polypeptide sequences together into functional proteins
Upon discovering the odds against so-called abiogenesis, life spontaneously springing into being, Darwinist and astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle PhD proclaimed “It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet or on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.”
Scientists Walter L. Bradley and Charles Thaxton, co-authors of The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, point out that the probability of assembling amino acid building blocks into a functional protein is approximately 1/(4.9 X 10^-191).
Even allowing some 14 concessions to help it along, which would not actually be present during Darwinian evolution, they estimate the probability of evolving a single protein molecule over a mere 5 billion years at 1/10^-161.
“Such improbabilities have led essentially all scientists who work in the field to reject random, accidental assembly or fortuitous good luck as an explanation for how life began.”
Physicist Harold Morowitz calculated that if a large batch of bacteria in a sealed container is heated so that every chemical bond is broken, then cooled slowly to allow the atoms to form new bonds and come to equilibrium, there is a probability of 1/10^-100,000,000,000 that a living bacterium will be present at the end of that time.
So, to Sum Up
Mathematical Impossibility:
10^-50 is 10 followed by 50 zeros
10^-150 is 10 followed by 150 zeros
Alleged Age of Earth and the Universe:
10^-13 is 10 followed by 13 zeros
10^-10 is 10 followed by 10 zeros
There are only 15,768 x 10^-13 seconds in 5 billion years
There are only 47,304 x 10^-10 seconds in 15 billion years
Probability of Life Spontaneously Forming via Undrected Processes, Randomness, and Chance in That Time:
10^-100,000,000,000 is the number 10 followed by one hundred trillion zeros.
The Truth
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
Arthur Schopenhauer (22 February 1788 – 21 September 1860)
Paradigm (Greek parádeigma): When a certain theory or a system of hypotheses, or a worldview pervades entire fields of research or an entire scientific era, it is known as a paradigm.
“[The accepted paradigm then] dictates the scope for specific research and delineates the presuppositions used for explaining individual phenomena. If a system of hypotheses has been derived from presuppositions dictated by a worldview, it usually cannot be reconciled with the available facts. Typical examples are geocentricity (refuted by Copernicus), and phlogiston chemistry (disproved by Lavoisier in 1774).”
Dr. Werner Gitt PhD, In the Beginning Was Information
The current paradigm in biology is the Darwinian evolutionary model. Since Darwinism is based on a philosophy, a world view, the truth claims of the Darwinian paradigm cannot be reconciled with the available facts. Therefore, the model of evolution first proposed by Darwin and transformed over the last several decades into Neo-Darwinism…is in crisis.
Darwinian evolution lacks precision. It is muddy, full of gaps, founded on utterly impossible assumptions, and not founded in logic. “Well, if we ignore the known laws of the universe and ignore the fact that the odds of this taking place are utterly impossible…”
As for precision, Darwinists cannot even define what a species is. When it turned out that macro-evolution has never been observed, the theory equivocated macro-evolution with speciation which has been observed since well before Darwin. The fact is that evolution of the type claimed by Darwin and still assumed by modern Darwinists has never (and apparently cannot be) observed. It is not supported by any evidence.
The truth is that the foundational tenets of Darwinism can be easily disassembled in less than 10 minutes of speech or on less than 3 pages of double spaced paper. Think about this for a second. I routinely refute the grand claims of the Darwinist theory in a few paragraphs on a blog devoted to homemaking.
Knowledgeable scientists know Darwinism is a theory in crisis. Based on their worldview, they either operate as if there is no crisis, or they operate based on design and engineering principles and let the chips fall where they may.
The issue is that we are squarely in the middle of a paradigm shift. The idea of Intelligent Design was first ridiculed and now is being violently opposed. It is my sincere hope that my children will grow up in a post-paradigm world.
I commit to you that I will publish every single comment that meets this blog’s commenting criteria. You may want to review that criteria before adding your opinion here.
God Bless you and yours.
Gregg
Resources:
Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism
Hmmm, my comment on the blind darwinist post also relates to this. The idea of evolution and abiogenesis does not include the idea that particular proteins are goals. The idea is that selection is involved in which proteins ultimately became established in early cells.
.
You may still argue that abiogenesis is not possible, but the idea that each protein in a cell must have resulted from a probability of all amino acid combinations being tested does not fit with how abiogenesis is thought to have happened.
.
(As I’ve said before, abiogenesis is still a hypothesis without a clear chain of events and you could legitimately call it muddy. But also it is not baseless hand-waving – there are actual chemical ideas being investigated. Since we can’t go back and see what was going on billions of years ago at the molecular level necssary to find out how life could have formed, and since the conditions on earth have changed greatly since then, there are necessarily gaps and lack of precision.)
….”As for precision, Darwinists cannot even define what a species is.”
.
I think you imply here that it should be simple to do this, but in fact it is complex because living organisms are a continuum with many variables and contributing genes.
.
Think about how to define an adult versus a child. You know a child when you see one, you know an adult, but what about the teenage years? Do you go by age, size, puberty, judgment? Different states have set different legal ages for drinking, voting, driving, marriage, and in other countries yet other ages might be chosen. But for non legal purposes, you could say that some young teens might show a greater maturity and judgment than others in their twenties. Some might show more emotional matutrity but less inteelectual ability and vice versa. Darwing an exact line through all these factors is not actually possible. Lawmakers have done what they thought was appropriate, but for any given individual the line might not be at the most appropriate place.
That’s the way it is for defining species. Some species are visibly differnt but if brought together can reproduce. Others are almost the same but could not reproduce. There are other examples I could list but running out of time.
(And I know you must be busy.)
Your math is off.
15 billion years = 4.7335389 × 10^17 seconds
=1.31487192 × 10^14 hours
= 5.47863298 × 10^12 days
= 7.82661855 × 1011 weeks
= 180 000 000 000 months
= 1 500 000 000 decades
= 150 000 000 centuries
Its easy to calculate the probabilities associated with proteins . Essentially, a protein is a string of amino acids, usually 500-2000 amino acids long. The whole of life depends on proteins. Everything else, save the genes, is a mere passive bystanders in a biological dance of life. When we observe the cell, we are in essence observing proteins. Proteins control movement (motor proteins), the control structure (structural proteins), they control concentration (transmembrane proteins), they control ion gradients (pump proteins), and most importantly, they control every single chemical reaction in the body (enzymes). Proteins don’t just control the body, they are the body. All proteins fold up tightly into one highly preferred conformation. There is no limit to the number of tasks they do in the cell. Proteins can be subdivided into two large classes, the globular proteins fold up into irregular ball-like shapes and fibrous proteins. Nearly all globular proteins are allosteric, which means they can adopt two slightly different conformations, this means they have two binding sites, one of which is for a regulatory molecule, and the other is for the substrate. Allosteric control is very complex. Suffice it to say for now that it works on either negative or positive feedback (ie the regulatory molecule increases the protein’s affinity for the substrate, and the other way around, or the opposite, the regulatory molecule decreases protein affinity for the substrate, which of course, would be reciprocal. In this way, regulatory molecules can turn the protein on or off, and in negative control, there is a tug of war between the regulatory ligand and substrate which are reciprocally affected by each others concentration in the cell.
A protein is a specific type of biological polymer made up a specific family of chemical subunits called amino acids. There are 20 biological amino acids, and they are distinguished by the fact that they all have a central alpha carbon, which is attached to an amine group (-NH2), a Carboxyl group (-COOH), a hydrogen, and a side chain. It is the side chain that gives each amino acid its properties, and each of the 20 has a different side chain. Proteins can be anything in length. Usually it is 50-2000 amino acids long, and the longest ones can 7000 amino acids long. The interaction between the side chains (which is determined by charge, since three are basic, four are acidic, nine are nonpolar and five are polar but uncharged) determines the shape of the protein. For instance, the nonpolar side chains are all hydrophobic (water hating) which means the protein will fold up in a manner where the nonpolar side chains are facing inwards and not exposed to water (this is the most energetically favorable conformation). This is just one of many different subtle interplays between amino acids that determine a proteins shape. However, nearly all proteins fold spontaneously in a solution, indicating that all the information necessary to fold it is stored in the amino acids.
Proteins have only one or a second highly similar conformation, that is how they work.
Now, for the number of possible combinations of amino acid, such calculations are easy to make. With just two amino acids joined in a row, we have 20^2, or 400 possibilites. With three we have 20^3 or 8000 possibilities, with ten, we have 10240000000000 possibilities, with the average protein having several hundred amino acids up to a thousand, we have vastly more conformations than there have been seconds or atoms in the universe.
However, the Hoyle Fallacy occurs here, in making our calculations in the possibility of stable biological proteins arising, because the calculations, as was pointed out by the TalkOrigins archive:
· You calculate the probability of the formation of a “modern” protein, or even a complete bacterium with all “modern” proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.
· You assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.
· You calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.
· You misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.
· You seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.
Now, proteins do not form in this way. There is an evolutionary advantage to stable conformations forming, and stable conformations, in turn, are the ones which give rise to biological functions. There is an obvious reason for this. In my notes on the matter, I wrote:
All Proteins Bind to Other Molecules
· Properties of proteins depend on their interactions with other molecules
Eg. Antibodies attach to viruses to mark them for destruction, the enzyme hexokinase binds glucose and ATP to catalyze the reaction between them
Actin molecules bind to each other to produce actin filaments etc
All proteins stick or bind to other molecules
Sometimes tight binding, sometimes weak and short lived
Binding is always highly specific. Each protein can usually only bind to one type of molecule out of the thousands it encounters
The substance bound to a protein, be it an ion, a macromolecule, a small molecule etc is referred to as the ligand of that protein
Region of the protein associating with the ligand is known as the binding site
Usually a cavity in the protein surface caused by a particular chain of amino acids
These can belong to different portions of the polypeptide chain brought together when the protein folds
Separate regions of the protein surface generally provide binding sites for different ligands.
The Details of a Protein’s Conformation Determine It’s Chemistry
· Proteins chemical capability comes in part because neighboring chemical groups on the protein’ surface often interact in ways which enhance the reactivity of amino acid side chains
· Two categories of this: Neighboring parts of the chain may interact in a way that restricts water molecules access to the ligand binding site.
· Because water molecules tend to form hydrogen bonds, they can compete with the ligands for sites often the protein surface
· Therefore, the tightness of the protein-ligand bonding is greatly increased if water molecules are excluded
· Water molecules exist in large hydrogen bonded networks, and inside the folds of a protein a ligand can be kept dry because it is energetically unfavorable for water molecules to break from this network
· Clustering of neighboring polar amino acid side chains together can alter reactivity. If the way the protein folds forces many negative side chains together that would otherwise not associate due to their mutual repulsion, the affinity of this new pocket for a positive ion is greatly increased
· Sometimes, when normally unreactive groups like CH2OH interact with each other because the side chains on which they are on form Hydrogen bonds with each other they can become reactive, allowing them to enter reactions making/breaking covalent bonds
· Therefore the surface of each protein has a unique chemical reactivity that depends on which side chains are exposed and their exact orientation relative to each other.
Sequence Comparisons Between Protein Family Members Highly Crucial Ligand Binding Sights
Many domains in proteins can be grouped into families showing clear evidence of evolution from a common ancestor
Genome sequence reveal a large number of proteins with one or more common domains
3D structures of members of same domain family remarkably similar
Even when the amino acids identity match falls to 25% the backbone atoms in two members of the same domain family have the same fold within 0.2nm
These allow a method called “evolutionary tracing” to determine which sites in the protein domain which are most crucial to the function of said domain
For this, the most conserved amino acids stretches are mapped onto structural model of the known structure of one family member
The SH2 domain is a module that functions in protein-protein interactions. It binds the protein containing it to a second protein containing a phosphorylated tyrosine side chain in a specific amino acid context
The amino acids on this binding site have been slowest to change in the evolutionary history of SH2
We must understand all of this. Biology is highly modular. It is all about the assembly of large structures from smaller ones. Polypeptides are modularly assembled from amino acids hence determining its structure hence its chemistry and binding. Proteins are modularly assembled from polypeptides, and supramolecular structures from polypeptides, therefore, the evolution of proteins will be forced in the direction of stable amino acid conformations not random possibilities associated with amino acids. This becomes evident when we consider proteomic supramolecular structures:
Protein Molecules Ofter Serve as Subunits for the Assembly of Large Structures
· Noncovalent bonding allows proteins to generate supramolecular structures like construction of giant enzyme complexes, ribosomes, proteasomes, protein filaments, and viruses
· These are not made by one giant single covalent molecule, instead by noncolvalent assembly of many giant subunits
· Advantages of this building technique: Large structure built from a few repeating subunits requires little genetic information
· Both assembly and disassembly are easily controlled and reversible
· Errors in structural synthesis are easily avoided as proofreading mechanisms can operating during the course of the assembly
· Some protein subunits assemble into flat sheets, on which the subunits are arranged in a hexagonal pattern
· Slight changes in the subunit geometry can turn the sheet into a tube, or with slightly more changes, into a hollow sphere
· Protein tubes and spheres which bind to RNA form the coats of viruses
· Formation of these closed structures provides additional stability because it increases the number of covalent bonds
· This principle is illustrate by the protein coat or capsid of may viruses
· Capsids are often made of hundreds of identical protein subunits enclosing and protecting the viral nucleic acid code
· The proteins of capsid must have particularly adaptable structure
· Not only must it have multiple contact points to make a stable sphere but also must be able to change to let the nucleic acid out to initiate viral replication in a cell
· This is shown here by the construction of a capsid from monomer protein subunits, which connect into dimers, then trimers, then into the intact sphere with the addition of more free dimers
“…with the average protein having several hundred amino acids up to a thousand, we have vastly more conformations than there have been seconds or atoms in the universe.”
.
Correct.
.
“…as was pointed out by the TalkOrigins archive: You calculate the probability of the formation of a “modern” protein, or even a complete bacterium with all “modern” proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.”
.
I love the church of Darwin — I mean, TalkDarwinism — I mean, TalkOrigins. The entire text you quoted is meant to distract the reader from the fact that their objection isn’t even valid. It is simply shifting the argument and logically fallacious. I will demonstrate.
.
Suppose that I come upon a box in the middle of a field made from wood and nails and I get the insane notion that this box arose through completely random undirected natural processes. I declare (despite a complete lack of evidence) that the box’s distant ancestor assembled itself from naturally occurring structures that were similar to nails and perfectly planed, sanded, varnished boards a long, long, long time ago — possibly billions of years.
.
Suppose I explained how over billions of years, natural selection and random mutation refined the nails and the wood into the box we see today.
.
Suppose you then demonstrated that the probability of such a thing occurring was exceedingly low — in fact well beyond the threshold of mathematical impossibility.
.
Suppose my answer to you was that you were framing your math based on “modern” boxes, not the mythical, magical, imaginary boxes of the past which cannot be conceived of in any mathematical model, which there is absolutely no evidence ever existed, and which you must simply accept on faith.
.
How, precisely, do you then build your probability equation now, smart guy?
.
The accusation on the part of the Darwinists of TalkOrigins is that of a weak analogy. In fact, it isn’t a weak analogy to use operational science. Rather it is an analogy of necessity since (in most cases) we have only actual proteins and living things to study — not those that Darwinists can imagine.
.
However, a notional “simplest possible living thing” was plugged in consisting of less than 200 proteins. Guess what? Still not enough time in the universe.
.
Of course, even my “box” above example is equally spurious. Obviously, incredibly complex, highly specific structures such as boxes made from boards and nails are designed by designers. It is only ridiculously simple structures like eyes, organs, giraffes, and bloggers that arise by means of completely random undirected natural processes over exceedingly long periods of time.
.
Thank you for your comment.
.
God Bless,
Gregg