reply to post by stereologist
Emergence in time not probabale?
The problem with the theory of evolution is time. The scientific establishment has tried to make it appear that the theory of evolution has had 600
million years to 1 billion years, since the first complex animal. That is not enough time. Even 600 trillion trillion trillion trillion years is not
Could you win 3,000 "consecutive lotteries" in 660 million years, where the probability of each lottery was 10‑100? Such a belief would be
mathematical and scientific nonsense. It is virtually impossible you could win 3 "consecutive lotteries" in 660 million years.
But even the problem of winning 3,000 "consecutive lotteries" is just a small tip of the iceberg for the theory of evolution.
Winning 3,000 "consecutive lotteries" is just for human DNA. How about the DNA of millions of other unique species and the "consecutive
lotteries" each of them needed to have "won," which did not include any duplication of ancestor species.
You also have problems with the male and female issue. Both the male and female have to have DNA which aligns with each other in order to have
offspring. Thus, each must have the same impossible mutations in their germ cells, and the male and female must live in the same geographical area
and same time period. This alone generates insane probabilities.
And if you like math:
the gene complexes of human DNA are huge compared to the gene complexes of the "first living cell" or even the first complex animal which was an
ancestor species of humans (assuming evolution), plus human DNA would have to be far, far more complex. So we can ignore the "first living cell"
DNA or the DNA of the first complex ancestor of humans. Thus, for all practical purposes, we need to build 30,000 gene complexes from scratch, even
if we start with the first complex animal.
Assuming there are 3,000 unique species between the DNA of the first complex animal (which is an ancestor of humans), and human DNA, the average
"ancestor species" (i.e. a species which is on our evolutionary tree) would have 10 unique gene complexes (30,000 divided by 3,000).
In summary, we will make these assumptions in our next calculation:
1) The average "gene complex" of a complex species is 5,000 nucleotides.
2) The probability of a randomly generated sequence of 5,000 nucleotides being able to form a single, viable gene complex for a specific species:
3) Each unique species, of our ancestor species, has an average of 10 unique gene complexes.
With these generous assumptions, the probability of a new species "evolving" by random mutations of nucleotides (which is the only way that the
theory of evolution can work) is:
10(‑10x10) = 10‑100
This probability is for one new species using randomly generated and modified nucleotides from an existing species.
This probability applies to every one of the unique species which have lived, and do live, on this earth. In other words, for every complex species
which has ever lived on this earth (including extinct species), there is a probability of 10‑100 that this species was derived by random mutations
of nucleotides (actually this is an average).
And even this probability is very, very generous to the theory of evolution.