Chances of Evolution

Evolution preaches that *nothing* except random chance in connection with survival of the fittest produced immense complexity of life that is common knowledge today. Since survival of the fittest does nothing but remove changes that had been created by chance, it is chance and chance alone that is supposed to create the changes in the first place.

A recent argument for evolution is that in a priordial sea there were millions of simultaneous chemical interactions. The fact that these interactions were simultaneous--and because there were millions of them--overcomes the seemingly impossible odds of producing even the simplest of enzymes and proteins. Here are two responses:

**1**. Arguments of this nature are based entirely upon presumptions. For instance, evolutionists may argue that a + b = 6. But to arrive at 6 one evolutionist may assume that a = 1 and b = 5 or another may assume that a = 2 and b = 4. Well, if either one is a given, then certainly, a + b = 6. But the argument is not in the fact that two numbers equal 6, the argument is what those numbers actually are. The argument is in the presumptions. The argument is in what a and b actually are. And no one knows what a and b are.

**2**. But most importantly, the theory of evolution is not based upon millions of simultaneous interactions in seas that may have produced elemental proteins. It is based upon natural selection, which is a linear theory of accidental, incremental, generation by generation changes due to chance beneficial mutations and environmental stresses. This website assumes that foundational chemicals exist (although not from primordial seas). It does not address how they were formed. It addresses how they were combined to construct the inconceivable complexity of what is now common scientific knowledge.

What are the odds that all of the connections of the brain (and this is a look at the connections only and not the nerve cells themselves) occurred by chance? There is a mathematical formula that calculates the odds of different arrangements.

With just a deck of cards, the chances of random arrangement of 52 cards is astronomical. Three of the 52 cards can be arranged in only 6 different ways. So, for 3 cards, the chances are one in 6 that any one arrangement would occur by accident.

When a 4th card is added,* there are 4 new arrangements for each one of all of the other arrangements*. So, to find the number of arrangements, multiply the new number of cards by the number of previous arrangements.

To get the new number of arrangements for each new card, multiply the total number of cards by the number of prior arrangements. This is a commonly known mathematical formula.

For four cards, the formula is 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 = 24. Try it! You can arrange only 4 cards in 24 separate ways.

If there were 5 cards, then the chances of a particular arrangement by chance are 1 in 120 (1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5).

We suggest that you click here to see how this works, otherwise you find it difficult to believe what follows. Because when you get to the 20th card, there are more different combinations of cards than there are seconds in two billion years.

If there were 6 cards then the chances are 1 in 720 (1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 6), because there are now 6 new arrangements for each of the prior arrangements.

If there were 7 cards, then the chances are 1 in 5040 (1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 6 x 7). If 8 cards, then one in 40300.

With 9 there are 362,880, with 10 there are 3,628,800, with 11 there are 39,916,800, with 12 there are 479,001,600, with 13 there are 6,227,020,800, with 14 there are 87,178,291,200, with 15 there are 1,307,674,368,000, with 16 there are 20,922,789,888,000, with 17 there are 355,687,428,096,000, with 18 there are 6,402,373,705,728,000, with 19 there are 121,645,100,408,832,000, and with 20 there are 2,432,902,008,176,640,000 random combinations.

There are only 1,051,200,000,000,000 seconds in two billion years. So, with the random combinations of just 20 cards, one has already surpassed the number of seconds in two billion years by more than two thousand times. That is, the number of random combinations of just 20 cards is more than two thousand times the number of seconds in two billion years.

**NEUROLOGICAL CONNECTIONS IN THE BRAIN OF A HUMAN**

When one considers that there are 1,000,000,000,000,000 cards in the "deck" of neurological connections in a human brain, it is easy to see that it is simply impossible for them to have formed by means of random accidents, no matter what natural forces may have been present.

Suppose these neurological connections evolved perfectly, with no mistakes whatever. Suppose they were simply "produced" in an assembly line with no evolution necessary. How long would it take to evolve a brain? If they were all "produced" on a regular basis with no mistakes, no survival of the fittest and without the need of generations that slowly bettered themselves, if they were simply produced perfectly formed and perfectly installed, how long would it take? If they had only 2 billion years to do it, then at the rate of one every ten seconds at the end of 2 billion years, they would be 18 billion years behind schedule.

There are 1,051,200,000,000,000 seconds in two billion years and there are 1,000,000,000,000,000 neurological connections - this would require a rate of evolution of approximately one fully perfected connection per second for two billion years. And is hardly even the beginning, because at the same time one would have to evolve a non-physical digital (?) code that describes not only millions upon millions of separate colors, but also every sensation, emotion and thought of man.

The chances of both the accidental creation of the neurons and the arrangement of them are even greater, because the connections and the circuitry must be coincident. They must happen at the same time for *every* connection and the timing and firing of each neuron must be honed to a perfection down to the nanosecond. The creation of this circuitry involves the creation of exactly the correct electrical current mechanism, creation of the appropriate code used to communicate with other cells, the appropriate size and placement of the neuron (some neurons stretch from the head the toes), the appropriate insulation of the neurological channels, the proper timing mechanisms and unnumbered other characteristics that are properly arranged and organized down to the molecular level and below.

**DNA**

An occurrence that has more than one chance in 10^{50}, it has a statistically zero chance of actually occurring.

"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10^{50} has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence."

I.L. Cohen, *Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities* (New York: NW Research Publications, Inc., 1984), p. 205 (as quoted in Vance Ferrell, *The Evolution Handbook* (Evolution Facts, Inc., Altamont TN, 2001) p. 260

In order to circumvent the problem of statistical zero, evolutionists often argue that "Given enough time, anything can happen." This is not a rational argument. It proves nothing. It is a reference to practically infinite periods of time that lie beyond statistical zero.

"A further aspect I should like to discuss is what I call the practice of avoiding the conclusion that the probability of a self-producing state is zero ... When for practical purposes the condition of infinite time and matter has to be invoked, the concept of probability is annulled. By such logic we can prove *anything* ... "

P.T. Mora, *The Folly of Probability*, as quoted in *Origins* 13(2):98-104 (1986) Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Lind University, 1986. Emphasis supplied.

In fact the chances of the chance formation of just DNA - much less all of the applications of DNA - are so remote, they are far beyond statistical zero.

"This means that 10^{89190} DNA molecules, on average, must form to provide the one chance of forming the specific DNA sequence necessary to code 124 proteins. 10^{89190} DNAs would weigh 10^{89147} more than the earth ... A quantity of DNA this colossal could never have been formed.

R.L. Wysong, The Creation Evolution Controversy, (Inquiry Press, Midland MI, 1976) p.115, as quoted in *The Evolution Handbook* (Evolution Facts, Inc., Altamont TN, 2001) p. 261.

But evolutionists argue that there are a multitude of factors that effect and direct changes in species, and the world is a dynamic and changing environment with innumerable forces that cannot be predicted.

This argument is impotent to contest the statistical facts. Because no matter what grandiose theories are proposed, ultimately the sequence of the DNA molecule had to have been worked out and installed by chance and elements until the proper sequence was produced. And there are 10^{89190} random possibilities to be addressed before deriving the formulae for only 125 proteins. And there are at least 20,000 proteins and enzymes written into the DNA molecule.

And that is only the *formula *for the proteins. Evolution must still conjure up a sufficient number of fortunate mutations to create the machinery to *locate* the appropriate protein, copy it and reproduce it. Just locating the appropriate protein is impossibly difficult for anything but supernatural intelligence. The actual length of the DNA strand is

**CARDS**

It is common knowledge that there are approximately 3,000,000,000 neucleotides in human DNA. These neucleotides have been compared to letters in a 24 letter alphabet. If each playing card contained a letter and 3,000,000,000 playing cards were stacked on top of each other, they would comprise a deck of cards that is approximately 910 miles long. [assuming a deck of cards is an inch high, 3,000,000,000 inches / 52 cards = 57,692,307 inches of cards / 12 = 4,807,692 feet of cards / 5280 = 910 miles of cards].

Evolutionists want you to believe that this deck was shuffled by the forces of nature and dying animals so often that finally the letters of each card spelled out the correct chemical formula for 20,000 human proteins - including correctly placed separators that mark where the formula for one protein ends and the next one begins.

God or no God, that argument is ridiculous.

________________________

Billions and billions of accidents do not even come close to account for what is now common scientific knowledge. One can believe that this occurred by accident only if one has previously determined that *under no circumstances* would one admit the possibility of the existence of God.

But, of course, that is exactly what evolutionists do - they predetermine that under no circumstance will they ever admit the possibility of a Creator, even if there is no evidence for evolution at all.

"*Even if there were no actual evidence* in favor of the Darwinian theory ... we would still be justified in preferring it over rival theories [creationism]."

Richard Dawkins, *The Blind Watchmaker* (NY Norton, 1986), 287, emphasis in the original.

The basis for conclusions of this nature is obviously not observed facts. It is a predetermined theological conviction in the garb of science that will not be swayed with any observation whatever, not even if the chemical formula for 20,000 proteins were found to be inscribed into the arrangement of the atoms of a molecule ...

Evolution did not occur. There is a Creator.