The odds to determine whether life could come about by chance have actually been calculated. Proteins are complex molecules composed of amino acids and necessary for the chemical processes that occur in living organisms. Fred Hoyle, one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century, and his colleague Chandra Wickramasinghe calculated the odds that all of the functional proteins necessary for life might form in one place by random event. The calculation is 10(40000). Since there are only 10(80) subatomic particles in the entire visible universe, the physicists concluded that s this was “an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup!” (Evolution from Space, Fred Hoyle. JM Dent and Sons, London, 1981.)
Since the current theory of Neo-Darwinism pushes the spontaneous generation of life to the protein molecule an in depth examination of the facts is necessary to determine its probability. Consider the following illustration of a protein molecule give by Dr. Robert Gange (Origins and Destiny, Gange. World Books. Waco, Tx. 1986):
"Picture a train with a string of railroad cars each connected to the next. There are cattle cars, petroleum cars, coal cars, lumber cars, and so on. This gives us a rough idea of what a protein molecule looks like under an electron microscope—a string of railroad cars called amino acids.
If we picture two sets of tracks side by side with two kinds of trains composed of 574 cars in all we have a good picture of hemoglobin, a protein that carries oxygen through your body. Iron is located in hemoglobin in a special way that allows the molecule to carry oxygen more efficiently than anything else known. Were it not for hemoglobin, our heart would have to pump fifty thousand gallons of blood a day just to keep us alive (five times the pressure of the atmosphere).
Protein is made up of building blocks called amino acids. We can picture them as cars on our train. We need a total of 574 railroad cars, each car being an amino acid. There are 20 types of amino acids in our body. In our first car we can select from twenty different kinds of amino acids. In designing our second car, we must also select from twenty and so on. With twenty selections for each of our first two cars on our train we have 20 x 20 ways of choosing our first two cars. That means we can assemble our first 2 cars in 400 possible combinations. If we were to make a single train of only 2 cars we could choose from eight thousand combinations.
Hemoglobin contains two trains totaling 574 cars, each car selecting from 20 different kinds of amino acids. Isaac Asimov estimates that the number of possible combinations in hemoglobin is 135 followed by 165 zeroes. This is a number larger than all of the atoms estimated to be in the entire universe!!(The Genetic Code. Isaac Asimov. New American Library, NY.NY. 1962. pg. 92) Yet despite this only one combination is correct for carrying more oxygen efficiently in your body.
Trying to understand such odds staggers the imagination. The odds that natural selection could create the perfect combination of amino acids, to create useful protein molecules for the advancement of life, simply defy logic.
The idea that amino acids could even arise from pre-biotic soup to form the chemical basis for life came from the Miller-Ulney experiment. Science is now begginning to realize the conclusions for the evolutionary model are false.
The Fossil Record
If evolution were true the fossil record should be replete with numerous examples of extinct transitional species. Unfortunately for Darwinist’s, the fossil record is very disappointing to evolutionary expectations. It is widely assumed by the general population that the fossil record implies evolution. Most people are unaware that Darwin’s most formidable opponents are not clergymen, but fossil experts.
Each of the divisions of the biological world (kingdoms, phyla, classes, orders) conforms to a basic structural plan, with very few intermediate types. Where are the links between these intermediate groups? The absence of transitional intermediates is troubling to the theory of gradualistic evolution. Darwin himself admitted his theory implied that “the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and instinct species, must have been conceivably great” (Origin of Species, Penguin Library Edition, 1982.)
Darwin had great hopes for his theory because in 1859 only a small portion of the fossil record had been uncovered. The fossil record is one place where Darwin’s theory of naturalistic evolution could be put to the test. One might then suppose that geologists would be continually uncovering fossil evidence of transitional forms. Clearly such is not the case. Professor N. Heribert-Nillson of Lund University, Sweden, who had studied Evolution for over 40 years, remarked, “It is not even possible to make a caricature of evolution out of paleobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of transitional series cannot be explained by the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled” (“Was Darwin Wrong?” Francis Hitchings, Life Magazine, Vol. 5, No. 4, April 1982, pg 48-52).
Paleontologists now know the following to be true:
The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any area, a species does not arise gradually by steady transformations of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.” (Eldridge and Gould’s 1972 paper “Punctuated Equilibria, an Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism”)
Colin Patterson, senior Paleontologist, at the British Natural History Museum, is an expert on the fossil record. At a lecture he gave to his academic peers, he asked the following: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true? I tried the question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago and all I got there was silence for a very long time and eventually one person said, “I do know one thing – it ought not be taught in High School” (Darwin on Trial pg 9-10)
In short, if evolution means the gradual change of one kind of organism into another kind, the outstanding characteristic of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution. Gradualistic evolution has failed the test of time in the fossil record.
The Theory Of Evolution Has More holes than Swiss Cheese ! IMO
Mathematical Odds Of Evolution Happening At Random
