Problems With Evolution – Part 2

There are many aspects of the Theory of Evolution which deserve some critical examination. Problems with Evolution – Part 2 is an ongoing analysis of the information being purported about the ‘proof’ of evolution. It’s not necessarily the facts people cite as ‘proof’ which are under scrutiny, but the way those facts have (and will) be interpreted – or misinterpreted – by those who know them.

Investigation of this kind is actually just one more way we can apply the Scriptures in everyday situations, making them practical in every area of life. The principle we’ll use is the one that instructs us to test things (and people) for truthfulness (1 Thess 5:21). We should also consider this passage;

1 Tim 6:20-21
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

To start with, let’s agree on a few basic Rules of Study. Real science is detailed and exacting, and so we need to be just as detailed and exacting if we want our findings to be legitimate. We will label them Rule #1, Rule #2, Rule #3 and Rule #4 to make cross-referencing easier later in the discussion;

Rule #1.    Understanding the basics of evolution (as with any scientific theory) is critical. The conclusions we arrive at from elementary data are then built upon to form even more conclusions. If the basics don’t make sense, or if they violate scientific principles, then any theories derived from that faulty understanding will be unrealistic, and certainly untenable.

Rule #2.    When discussing scientific/physical principles it’s important to understand that there are theories as opposed to laws.

a.    Scientific/physical theories are malleable and change with new information, just like all the changes we have seen when it comes to supposed anthropological ‘evidence’ and the theory of human evolution.
b.    Scientific/physical laws are set and do not change. Any new information which contradicts a law cannot, in reality, change a law as a scientific/physical law by its nature is unchanging. That evidence is used to formulate changes in how our understanding of a certain law should be reviewed.
c.    There are laws which have been used to also form theories. An example of this is the Law of Gravity and the Theory of Gravity, mentioned in the hyperlink above.

Rule #3.    You cannot violate scientific laws/principles just to prove your hypothesis/theory. The response of “We just haven’t discovered [the information needed to justify your point] yet” is a lame excuse. It indicates intellectual/rational laziness, and proclaims to others that you simply believe what you want, versus what is realistic and/or believable. That attitude is overtly anti-science.

Rule #4.    You must strictly use the evidence on hand and not allow for assumptions, which would skew your research and ultimately invalidate your results. An example of this is to prevent someone from assuming that circumstances were present which provided for the results/theory being investigated.

Now that we have a proper framework, we can take a little time to examine the facts in a logical, realistic and practical way. It helps to keep emotion and personal bias out of the picture as we consider the evidence presented (both for and against evolution) for the sake of the evidence itself.

In the last installment we provided a general guideline for what someone would have to believe in order for them to accept evolution as a scientific fact. The next several installments will delve deeper into these aspects, looking at the what, why, where and when of the several component beliefs of evolutionary theory. As mentioned above, we’ll start with the basics – beginning with probability.

Probability is a mathematical discipline all to itself. It is used in many scientific applications, and leads us to understand how realistic an expected outcome can be. In this way we can use probability to let us know how likely the claims of evolution are to being realistically expected as a an outcome.

One of the basic assumptions of evolution is that certain chemicals/elements were present in the ‘early earth’ environment. Since nobody was present during such an ‘early earth’ environment, there is no credible knowledge about the environment. SCIENTISTS DON’T KNOW FOR SURE, and there is disagreement among ‘experts’ about this subject. Believers in evolution claim these substances must have been present and scattered around the globe, gradually forming into more complex chains of molecules. These molecules then must have joined together to form the basic building blocks of all cellular life (called amino acids). While a gross violation of Rule #4, we’ll give it to them.

Amino acids are required for building – and maintaining – living cells. You can’t have a living cell without amino acids, and they must be in the right combination and in the right sequence, which then form proteins. While there are many forms of acids found in nature, the requirement we’re discussing is for 4 specific acids. These acids are adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine (A, C, G and T).

In addition, all amino acids (except for glycine, which only comes one way) come in two similar – yet different – forms. These two forms of amino acids are called enantiomers of each other (D-form and L-form for identification purposes), and can be considered as mirror images of each other. Think about your right and left hands. While structured the same way, they are enantiomers of each other and so are functionally different. Your right hand is not your left, and vice versa. Amino acids are the same way. It’s also interesting to note that virtually all living cells (with a very few exceptions) contain only L-form amino acids (more about this important distinction in a minute).

Essentially all living cells must contain these amino acids and proteins, in the correct combination, using strictly L-form enantiomers and in the correct sequence, in order for a cell to be functional. Deviation from the required organization of these 4 specific acids means the cell will not work. So then, what is the probability (likelihood) that ‘early earth’ would produce these very specific amino acids by purely natural means?

We can use a simple mechanism for establishing probability in this situation; flipping a coin. A regular coin has two sides (heads and tails). When you flip the coin the exact same way each time, the probability of getting heads is ½ (one chance out of two possible outcomes). Assuming you have all the requisite molecules in a ‘primordial soup’ the successful combination of any of these molecules forming an amino acid is ½ (it either will, or won’t, form). Although this is a very simple way to state the process (because amino acids themselves are made up of an amino group and a carboxyl group and are joined by a single carbon atom, and not just the elements themselves), it will be good enough to use for this illustration.

We have to assign that the successful combining of molecules is ½, because they either will or won’t form. Given that premise, we can equate successful amino acid formation with flipping a coin to ‘heads’ because when we flip it, the coin either will or won’t come up as ‘heads.’

The chance (probability) of flipping a coin is ½, but that is just for the successful formation of one individual amino acid. We have to assume that the formation was successful the first time, and that the acid formed was L-form. So what would it take for all the required L-form proteins of one of the simplest of replicating organisms to spontaneously form? Let’s do the math, shall we?

For time’s sake let say the smallest number of proteins required to form a simple self-replicating organism 124, with 400 amino acids needed for each protein. That number is very small, and far less than the average number of proteins in a simple mycoplasma (about 625) or a much more complex bacteria (1500-2000), but we’ll give this one to the evolutionists as well.

This means that an amino acid forms (a ½ chance), then another forms right next to it (another ½ chance), concurrently  yet another amino acid formed right next to the other two (again, a ½ chance), with all 400 amino acids becoming available at the same time and in the correct form (L-form), and then they need to join together in forming the protein. Even if we were to allow a fair proportion for glycine (which only comes in L-form) we would still need to have approximately 380 successful formations to make a single protein. That works out as;

½ x ½ x ½ x ½ …380 times in sequence, with each and every amino acid formed correctly the very first time – without exception – every single time. When we calculate that number it totals (1/2) 380 = (1/10)114. This is what’s required for only ONE protein, but what about the other 379? It would then look like this;

[(1/10)114]124 or (1/10)14,136. That is 10 with 14,136 zeroes behind it!

That number is greater than all the combined number of proteins since the beginning of the supposed Big Bang until now, which is only (10)52!

Let’s summarize;

•    A simple replicating system could potentially have 124 proteins (but the reality is many more are required). Evolutionists have to violate Rules #1, #3 and #4 to assume a best-case scenario.
•    A single protein for such a system would have about 400 amino acids each.
•    Each required amino acid would have to form correctly the first time, every time. Any deviance would only make the probability much smaller. This is a violation of Rules #3 and #4.
•    The number of attempts to form such a protein are huge, much less the likelihood of all the proteins forming successfully the first time, every time, again violating Rules #1, #3 and #4.

Now if this process weren’t unrealistic enough, there is a further complication. We’ll get into that little snag on our next foray.

This is Part Two of a multi-part series. Keep an eye out for the next installment!

Image retrieved from:  http://www.webquest.hawaii.edu/kahihi/mathdictionary/P/probability.php