Evolution, how can it possibley be true?

Question

I am a born-again Christian and I have a question that must have been asked a billion times but I am yet to find an answer that even gets close to convincing me. What makes evolution seem remotely possible to you?
Sir Fred Hoyle a mathematician and astronomer calculated that the probability of one simple enzyme forming by chance is 10 to the power of 20 (one with twenty zeros behind it), to 1. Hence for one cell to form, about 2000 enzymes are needed, which makes the probability of the first self replicating cell forming by random movement of atoms as 10 to the power of 40000 to 1. One bitter critic of Hoyle begrudgingly says that that this figure is 'probably not overly exaggerated'.

It has been said that this is as likely as a cyclone going through a junkyard and producing a fully functional jumbo jet.

Where as a non-christian scientist (rather than an actual Christian who would say there is a 100% chance of God existing) calculated there was a 67% percent chance God did exist. The percentage starts from the assumption that God has a 50/50 chance of existing, and then factors in the evidence both for and against the notion of a higher being.

Answer 1

Ask about evolution in the science section.

I would advise that before you do though you separate evolution from the beginning of life.



Evolution is a fact, it is why you are here in the form you are.

It is happening on a daily basis and if you had half a brain and were able to read then you would realise this.

Answer 2

"Evolution, how can it possibley be true?"



Well if you really wanted to know you'd probably be asking in the science section and reading up on biology.





"What makes evolution seem remotely possible to you? "



The fact that we've seen it happen and have mountains of evidence verifying it's been happening in the past



"Sir Fred Hoyle a mathematician and astronomer calculated that the probability of one simple enzyme forming by chance is 10 to the power of 20 (one with twenty zeros behind it), to 1. Hence for one cell to form, about 2000 enzymes are needed, which makes the probability of the first self replicating cell forming by random movement of atoms as 10 to the power of 40000 to 1. One bitter critic of Hoyle begrudgingly says that that this figure is 'probably not overly exaggerated'. "



A statistic he effectively pulled out his ****. Further he failed to take into account how common such reactions were in primordial earth and how many billions of them were happening every second. He also failed to take into account that the first life likely formed was MANY MANY MANY times simpler then the simplest life we have now



AND MOST IMPORTANTLY: EVOLUTION DOESN'T DEAL WITH HOW LIFE AROSE. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW LIFE DID OR DID NOT START, EVOLUTION DEALS WITH WHAT HAPPENS AFTER LIFE HAS BEGUN.



"It has been said that this is as likely as a cyclone going through a junkyard and producing a fully functional jumbo jet. "



Its also been said that the sky is bright green with brown polka dots, I'm sure. This fails to take into account EVERYTHING that has ANYTHING to do with evolution, including natural selecting and reproduction.



"Where as a non-christian scientist (rather than an actual Christian who would say there is a 100% chance of God existing) calculated there was a 67% percent chance God did exist. The percentage starts from the assumption that God has a 50/50 chance of existing, and then factors in the evidence both for and against the notion of a higher being."



I would sincerely like for you to link or otherwise cite this.



Also, the premise that its a 50/50 chance to start with is flawed...but I'm not going to get into that as I'd like to see a link to this anyways.

Answer 3

Because enzymes, which are proteins, don't form by chance. They form by specific chemical reactions. By the way, Hoyle was also wrong about the expansion of the universe.



In any case, in living systems, proteins are formed by the action of mRNA and tRNA reading out and converting the code in a DNA molecule. That coding is the result of selection in the evolutionary process.



If you cannot understand how probability actually enters into it, from the starting point, if there are a very large number of possible outcomes resulting from a process, say 100 trillion, that means the possibility of any particular outcome is 1 in 100 trillion. It does not mean there will be no outcome.



You cannot take an after-the-fact result and say that the result was impossible because of the odds. Just as you cannot say that Big Jim Conners could not have won that poker game last night because the hand he was supposed to have won with had a 1 in 250,000,000 chance of being dealt.



The same is true concerning particular proteins, genes, or what have you. There are a virtually infinite number of possible proteins, for example, some of which would be considerably better at performing a particular function than the one performing that function today, but which never came up in the poker game of life. All that is actually required is that a particular protein that did come up is able to adequately do the job it needs to do, even if it is not able to do the job as well as another protein could have, but which never came up in the shuffle. In the same way, you might not be dealt a straight flush in a poker game, but you could still win with a pair of eights if your opponent was dealt only a pair of threes.



As for the odds of life beginning, all that is required is a self-replicating molecule. Once we have that, the first primitive cell is not that far away biologically speaking.



This site shows what can happen.



http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides



Here is a quote from that site:



"[T]hough researchers have been able to show how RNA’s component molecules, called ribonucleotides, could assemble into RNA, their many attempts to synthesize these ribonucleotides have failed. No matter how they combined the ingredients — a sugar, a phosphate, and one of four different nitrogenous molecules, or nucleobases — ribonucleotides just wouldn’t form."



But now the ribonucleotides have been spontaneously formed in the lab--it was just a matter of finding the correct precursor chemicals. And this is a quote from the scientist involved.



“Ribonucleotides are simply an expression of the fundamental principles of organic chemistry,” said Sutherland. “They’re doing it unwittingly. The instructions for them to do it are inherent in the structure of the precursor materials. And if they can self-assemble so easily, perhaps they shouldn’t be viewed as complicated.”



Given what can take place in a lab, what can take place in the whole earth and over millions of years is not hard to conceive. Here are some sites that present some of the latest findings.



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021204080856.htm

http://www.gla.ac.uk/projects/originoflife/html/2001/pdf_files/Martin_&_Russell.pdf

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1693098&blobtype=pdf



And where do you get your basis for determining the odds that a god exists?



Added:

And even if it could be proven that evolution did not occur, that does not mean that Yahwah, the primitive, abhorrent, psycho, tribal god that the ancient Israelites believed in, exists, any more than Zeus, Odin, Thor, or the god of any other ancient, superstitious people exists.

Answer 4

That mathematician is probably right. The odds of life evolving on a planet ARE extremely low. In fact the odds of any planet even having the proper "ingredients" for life are that much lower. However. What you are not taking into account is how ENORMOUS the universe is. Current estimates say that there are over 100 Billion stars in OUR galaxy, the Milky Way and that there are hundreds of billions of galaxy's in the universe. Yet we have NEVER been contacted by or made contact with any species from another planet. This means that we are extremely special here on earth. It means that we might actually be ALONE in our galaxy if not the entire universe. However, it does not mean that there is a God. It simply means that WE ARE that one in a 10,000 Billion chance.



Also, should we assume that there is a 50/50 chance of unicorns existing? The honest aproach would be to say, no one has ever seen or heard god and therefore god is not real unless we can find some evidence that would make us think otherwise.

Answer 5

So, you prefer to "listen to" very old and long-ago proven fallacious arguments, rather than actually look at evidence, huh?



First, evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with simple enzymes forming (that would be the subject of abiogenesis, which is separate from evolution). Second, the "jumbo jet" argument was put forth about a fully living, functioning human being appearing in one step from "nothing" (not about enzymes) -- something which no scientific theory has ever claimed happened.



Third, any christian (scientists or otherwise) who says there's a "100% chance" of god existing is a liar. And the starting assumption (50/50 chance of a god existing) is entirely false as well. Finally, there is no evidence of any kind that any "god" DOES exist, so the chances of one existing is 0.



Look, this is really simple: Evolution (that living organisms change over time) is an observed fact.

The theory of evolution by natural selection explains one of the main ways the observed fact operates, through descent with modification, natural selection of beneficial traits, and accumulating those naturally selected traits over time. All of those are shown by mountains of evidence to be correct. If you can show they're not correct (and no, fallacious and silly arguments with no evidence behind them is NOT showing them incorrect), then by all means do so -- you'll win a Nobel prize. If you can't (and you can't), then you have nothing worthwhile to say.



Peace.

Answer 6

>>Sir Fred Hoyle a mathematician and astronomer calculated that the probability of one simple enzyme forming by chance is 10 to the power of 20 (one with twenty zeros behind it), to 1. Hence for one cell to form, about 2000 enzymes are needed, which makes the probability of the first self replicating cell forming by random movement of atoms as 10 to the power of 40000 to 1. One bitter critic of Hoyle begrudgingly says that that this figure is 'probably not overly exaggerated'.<<



Umm, evolution is descent with modification.

Answer 7

If you go for enzymes -- protein-based catalysts -- you will find the odds of any particular one forming by chance to be very low. The catch is that there are lots of combinations that work as enzymes. The numerator is highly underestimated.



There are other catalysts made from biomolecules. A simple RNA catalyst is comprised a total of five bases, three types. The odds of it forming are 3^5 (243). Adding in the odds of its four-base long RNA substrate (composed of the same three bases) forming at the same time, and you are looking at 3^9 (19,683). The denominator is highly overestimated.



It would better be described at the odds of a tornado going through a junkyard and a tire landing on the roof of a car.

Answer 8

First I would have to see exactly how Sir Hoyle calculated that probability. You conveniently left that part out. Second, even if his calculation was correct regarding the probability of one enzyme, it is incorrect to then extrapolate that to determine the probability for a cell to form - since these processes are very different.



At any rate, science starts from the position that all of the answers are not known, and then investigates what is found. Creation starts from the position that the ultimate answer is known, and then investigates from that standpoint. One is simply a more honest place to start than the other.

Answer 9

That 67% figure is utterly meaningless because it assumes that the 50/50 chance is even accurate.



As for Hoyle, he said that life began in space instead of on earth. Do creationists really want to use him in their arguments? As for his calculation, the counterargument goes something like this:



These people, including Fred, have committed one or more of the following errors.



1. They 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.

2. They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

3. They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

4. They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

5. They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

Answer 10

See, the problem is that you are confusing (as many do) the beginnings of life with evolution. They are not the same. While there are theories about how life arose in the first place these are nothing to do with evolution really. Darwin himself only briefly touched on the origins of life in a letter of 1871.



Evolution is just about how life *developed* from simplicity to the complexity and diversity we see today. And when you consider the scientific community there is essentially universal agreement that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming. There is no controversy (despite what the "creationist" lobby would have you believe) in the scientific world about evolution.



As for how life started, well, we're still working on that. (Not me personally you understand!) But the Miller-Urey experiment is a good start IMHO.



That help?

.

Answer 11

First off, there is nothing in the theory of evolution that says that God cannot exist. The controversy comes from Fundamentalists who take the bible literally word for word (The world was created in 6 days and is only a few thousand years old), who take offense to the theory of evolution, and the scientific evidence that the world is MUCH MUCH older than that.



Secondly, simply because it is rare for an enzyme to form does not mean that evolution doesn't take place. Again, the universe is believed to be nearly 14 Billion years old, and the space in which it exists is extremely vast.



Evidence for evolution was discovered and presented originally by Charles Darwin, who was not a scientist involved with any theories on space or the universe. Since his studies of animals and birds on the island of Madagascar, various scientists and paleo-archaeologists have found further evidence supporting the theory of evolution.



Today, the human species is Homo Sapiens Sapiens. But you can follow the development of our species backwards in time through our early human ancestors. And if you look at the skeletal remains (or even copies of these skeletal remains), it's hard to deny that humans are a result of evolution.



Evolution happens when specific traits are more hardy within a specific environment, so that those born with favorable traits are more likely to survive and pass on their genes, and those with less favorable traits are less likely to survive and breed. This is a VERY basic explanation of evolution, granted, but it should help you understand.



I'd recommend checking out a museum with an exhibit documenting early human origins so you can see for yourself the journey of human evolution from early Australopithecus Afarensis to Homo Habilis and through to Homo Sapiens.

Answer 12

It can be true by the fact you are here right now.

The fact you are here proves that enzyme catalyst happened.

How long do you think it would have been sitting here.

In the Earth's Lifeline we have only been here for a very short time.

Don't jump to the conclusion that Earth was made for us.



I'm 17. I know evolution exists because I was given the opportunity to learn about it.

My right to learn wasn't taken away by people thinking it was to anti - god.

Seriously do a little proper research than yahoo answers.





And 'Star' It was made that way through Natural Selection.

Like all other animals functions have been designed.

You know the sort of quicker version of evolution.

No wait you probably don't...

Answer 13

All of your sources are good, for the simplistic mind and if you don't want to actually add to your knowledge but want to repeat utter garbage. When Hoyle said that he probably thought it was true, but in 1956 Miller created amino acids from primordial gases in the space of a couple of weeks setting up the conditions of the primordial earth. People by the dozens have duplicated his experiments and added to them. Simple random chance in a static environment makes Hoyles comment plausible. But we do not live in a static environment, it is highly dynamic. Fundies also quote the 2nd law of thermodynamics making evolution impossible. But again that only applies to a closed and static environment. The cyclone thing is for 12 year olds who have no knowledge about which they speak. Give yourself a little more credit than that. Fundies have always said life cannot come from non life, but that has been proven wrong for more than 50 years. Fundies also talk about an infinite universe, but Bell scientists discovered the edges of the universe in the 1960's. Quit repeating garbage spewed out by people who only want to recruit idiots who refuse to think for themselves or who cannot think for themselves. Fundies keep saying everyone from Darwin on says we came from monkeys. Darwin never said that but people who want to discredit him say that he did. No one with functional braincells says we came from monkeys but i suspect that it might be your next question.

Answer 14

Hang on.

If you genuinely put weight on such arguments and analogies, who knows what else you might be believing,

on totally inadequate and spurious grounds?



Your naivety is showing, and your lack of well-rounded critical thought.



Hoyle is well-out of date.

Not least in thinking enzymes are required for self-replication, or that "life" started with a cell.

(and it wasn't an issue of evolution in the first-place)

The other arguments get worse from there.



A tiny amount of thought and research would have shown that.

Answer 15

Hoyle was clearly wrong, the probability of one simple enzyme forming here is 100% - it happened. What is the probability of a god appearing spontaneously?

Answer 16

Tell me first of all why god created the mosquito and filled it with poison so that it could inject it into the human body and make us die or why he created the winter season and the snow that accompanies it without creating a single heating system. Put your thinking faculties to task like we have done and you will come to know that evolution is a proven scientific fact.

Answer 17

Fred Hoyle is wrong, they've already created RNA strings from simply heating and cooling chemicals.



http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

Answer 18

Because very uncommon things happen more often in a long period of time than impossible things in a short amount of time.

Answer 19

The body of your question makes no reference to evolution. I think you're confused as to what evolution actually is.

Answer 20

It is proven,we are evolving all the time.

Answer 21

"What makes evolution seem remotely possible to you?"

Several very basic college-level biology classes.

Answer 22

Amen! :)

And how perfectly the whole human body is made up (blood flow, heart, brain functions), it's just too amazing to be made randomly!

Answer 23

It's not true