The chances of even a simple protein molecule forming at random from the very begining 1 in 10 to the 113th power. Any event that has one chance in just 10 to the 50th power is regarded by mathematicians as never happening. That 10 to the 113th power is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe.
Hernandez Lemus of the Mexican International University in Mexico gives a 1 in 9 trillion odds of a chromosome evolving on it's own.
No fewer than 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cells activity. The chances of obtaining all of these at random is 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power...."An outrageously small probability" -Fred Hoyle
WSIOYNW... an event may be improbable it's not necessarily impossible.
For instance it may be against the odds (probability) to roll a pair of dice to land on 12 five times in a series of rolls...but it's not impossible.
Just as indefinite can include forever or an unspecified amount of time.
(just an analogy) thus the need to specify.
Your own justification can be used against you. You are right in the second quote shown above. Not in the first.
I"m concerned with only what the facts show. As an outside observer of the inner workings of the scientific circle I'm observing contradiction and contention in the evolutionary theory and acceptance. This information I've posted...which there is more of...relates how scientist from the begining looked upon this theory with the utmost incredulousness.
Scientists and people in general look upon any radical change in reasoning with "incredulousness." You're siding with the same people who argued against those who said the world was round. In science, visible contradiction and diverse views are welcome, in order to bring a more rounded perspective to the whole idea. But, as with any human collective, a oligarchy usually forms by those with the most influence. But most of the time they are unaware of their strict bias. Sometimes its for good reason, for if they looked at every tiny possibility, nothing would ever get done to the point that it could be used for practicality.
After reading several of Pattens books I've noticed this thread toward evolution has had alterior motives. Without going into every thing he said it appears he was right about the organization that emerged and embraced Darwin's theories. As the decades progress the initial objections appeared to have been stifled down.
These probability factors remain to this day as pubished proof of non comformity in scientific circles and that which has expanded into classroom settings to influence the next generation. These odds , probabilities, haven't been faced by the scientific community. The facts illistrated by these and many more gentlemen, fly in the face of reason. Downward trends do not become upward trends, progress is not made by walking backwards. If these probabilities were offered in the class room...probabilities that scientist evo and anti-evo aggreed upon from the begining would society have embraced this theory at all?
What "probability factors". We are still discovering what exactly constitutes a downward or upward trend. They are based on things that we don't know, so who are you to determine the exact nature of it? The only reason evolution is taught in a science class is because it has a relatively long history of being researched
scientifically. That is, as scientifically as any other science practiced by man. The only difference is the complexity of this particular subject. For one, almost all of the possible physical evidence (fossils) has been destroyed or is unretrievable (through geological process). So the only other trail we can follow is a jumbled maze of clues embedded in our very genes.
What I see when researching the past of evolution shows a strong thread of disbelief and lack of creditable probability and creditable process. Over time these gentleman fell out of favor, or die or became outnumbered. Classrooms were being taught to think outside the biblical box. Nothing wrong with that, however the direction taken was wrong. A clear intent to prove the bible a sort of fairytale. And intresting and yet unscientific scientific objective A new generation appeared to take over. Anti-biblical, anti-historical and anti-reason became prevailing in biolgical science studies. They claimed this was to do away with accepting bible facts as scientific facts. (again) nothing wrong with this. Yet gentleman like Newton and Kepler, catastrophist, didn't seemed hindered by their biblical views even if they were. They didn't go into the how. They accpeted certain things as foregone conclusions but...they were...they need emperical data. The move to emperical research solely was supposed to be revolutionary in science...instead it became a religous battering ram. A blunt object fashioned to get rid of God with the most insane odds attached to it, with a theory of spontaneous generation that had already been disporved by Pastuer.
I agree that there was a strong movement in science fueled by anti-theism. But its largely worn off, and anti-theism today is, for the most part, an immature retaliation. Or at least I'd like to think so.
Thing is, we can't go from one extreme to another, as most revelatory periods do. We can't go from using science mainly to disprove god straight to tearing down science so it can co-exist with theology. There has to be a middle ground. At this point, all I see from creationism and ID is the opposite of the spectrum from atheistic/materialistic/scientific thinking. But the nature of science makes it the most objective way of thinking, and if we were to take the scientific method more literally, then we wouldn't have to seperate science from atheism and materialism. Science should have nothing to do with any ideology. If this were so, then perhaps we could actually find out the true nature of evolution. But not until that is so.
In the end untill these gentleman's statements are addressed and countered soundly and the odds soundly revised it is stock I can never by into. The world around us is based on probability. We make decisions on it everyday...we take risk on the odds. I have a problem seperating evolution from those other tangible odds and numbers that envolve life away as a seperate consideration.
No, untill the forces of evolution are defined and the theory it's self emerges from an obsucre indefinite confluence of chance, it remains quite impossible and as I've shown, not on my word but on the word of scientist.
Personally, I am able to seperate most scientists and science writers bias one way or another such that I can gleam some facts from what they are saying. That, coupled with what I have observed first hand forces me (I do not believe, I am forced to believe) that evolution is true. As for the details, I cannot say.
