mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
Alexander Mebane on the probabilities of abiogenesis: Although this
"disproof by mathematical impossibility" might well be called the most
fundamental argument against Darwin's imagined " accidental creation"
of all new organisms, it has historically been the easiest one for
believers to laugh off, because the matter is so complex that, in
general, it is quite impossible to produce estimates of the
improbabilities involved that are more than "impression- istic". Much
quoted has been Fred Hoyle's striking simile for the prob- ability of
an accidental or spontaneous formation of the simplest known
life-form: "comparable to the probability that a tornado sweeping
through an airplane junkyard would happen to assemble a flyable Boeing
747" 39-but, of course, no coercive proof can be given that that
comparison is a realistic one. The French physicist Lecomte du Nouy,
in 1947, calculated an "astronomical" improbability for the accidental
assemblage of even a small protein-but, since he made the wholly
unrealistic assumption that its natural formation could occur only by
a "fortuitous concourse" of all its atoms, his result was (rightly)
ridiculed by chemists, and his point (wrongly) inferred to be unsound.
But, as it happens, a similar calculation has more recently been
carried out which, unlike du Nouy's, "leans over backwards" to be as
favorable as possible, though it leads to the same conclusion. Robert
Shapiro is a chemist who actively participated in the post-1952
experimental investigations of "origin of life by natural chemical
evolution", and in 1986 published a very significant book (Origins)
summarizing that work and the conclusions to be drawn from it.
Dismissing as unrealistic the idea that either DNA or RNA could ever
have spontaneously "evolved", because of the complexity of those
purine base + sugar + phosphoric acid structures,t he asks what could
have been the simplest possible "pre-living" chemical assemblage that
might have been able to generate the essential quality of life,
self-replication. Generously oversimplifying to the maximum degree
credible (or beyond), he proposes (p. 296) that the first "proto-life"
might conceivably have emerged from a set of as few as ten very small
"primitive enzymes", each one a mini-protein of only 25 links, and all
constructed from a set of only four amino acids, rather than the
twenty that Nature now employs. Assuming for the purpose the real
natural occurrence of a "primordial soup" that consisted exclusively
of those four amino acids (which is of course, a simply ridiculous
postulate), he proceeds to show that, under these absurdly favorable
conditions, the probability of "spontaneously", or accidentally,
forming the requisite set of molecules would be about 1 in 10^150. So,
if something like 10^150 random trials were available, the thing might
really have happened. But he had previously calculated (p. 126) that,
if one assumes that the Earth was covered by a 10-km-deep layer of
"soup", and that random trials went on at the rate of one billion per
second in every cubic micrometer (billionth of a cubic millimeter) of
that ocean for one billion years (the maximum time that really elapsed
before life appeared), only 1.5 x 10^62 separate tries could be made.
(I have checked this calculation, and found it correct.) This number
is so invisibly tiny compared to 10^150 (far tinier than a bacterium
compared to the whole Solar System!) that the spontaneous natural
formation of the ten mini-enzymes is thus demonstrated to be strictly
impossible. This amounts to a proof that, even when making the most
favorable assumptions conceivable, one is simply forbidden to take
seriously the proposition that "Life on Earth must have arisen
spontaneously, in some natural and unintentional way... In fact, the
whole Oparin'Haldane picture of a naturally-formed " primordial
organic soup", though it was taken very seriously for some thirty
years after the first promising.looking Urey.Miller experiment of
1952, must now be called an "exploded" belief. Not only do the early
rocks show no trace of its presence (it would necessarily have
generated enormous quantities of rather stable organic "tars"). but it
is now admitted by all that the prerequisite " Jovian" atmosphere
(methane,ammonia,hydrogen) would in reality have been blown away by
the Sun very early in Earth's formation: our real primordial
atmosphere consisted, like those of Venus and Mars, almost entirely of
carbon dioxide. There is no way to produce any sort of "organic soup"
from such an atmosphere. All other descriptions which have appeared
recently of the odds involved in having living forms arise via chance
processes read similarly: From a talk.origins article posted by Fred
Struss: I thought I would take a moment and add my mathmatical
thoughts to a discussion of the evolutiomary begainings of a cell. I
will use the science of mathmatics as the basis for my foundation that
the theory of evolution does not hold up to the scrunity of sciences
truest discipline. After all..add two apples with two apples and you
have four apples. Who could argue such a conclusion? Evolution begains
on the premis that molecules somehow haphazrdly encountered each other
and lead up to complex chains and finally a cell. Now that much of DNA
structure and it's functions are understood, we can apply probability
theorems to this fundamental theory of science. To begain
with..probability tells us that for 84 molecules to be in a proper
sequence within a DNA spiral is 2.08 x -51 10 . In mathmatics this
represents a zero probability for all practical purposes. I like to
point out this only reflects a random association of C,G,A,T molecules
in forming a sequence and not an entire cell. If we go on to apply
probability for an entire cell coming into existance from just chance
encounters, we also not only have to factor in C,T,A,G molecules but
also the combining of ribose, phosphate, hyfrogen, 20 amino acids and
more along with other essential elements such as mitochondria,
lysomes, ect that make up a self replicating simple cell. While at the
same time these molecules are some how forming chains while not being
destroyed by such harsh mixtures as helium, boron, sulphur....and so
forth during the early stages of the first cell development. Now, lets
take this further mathmatically. Somehow during the beganing, a force
had to present to force all sorts of molecules together till somehow
they formed a survival sequence in an unsterail enviroment AND to have
all the other essential molecules at hand ready to react at the very
moment this sequence was formed..this includes phosphate, ribose,
uracil, 20 amino acids..and on and on. What external force could had
made such arrangements for molecules to react and form a replicating
cell? And continue throwing molecules together until they were all in
a proper surviable sequence ???? AND have all the avaliable molecule
sequences at hand at the instant they were called for in forming a
more advance sequence leading persumably to a cell? Science says it
took million of years of haphazzard encounters for this to come about.
Lets see if this holds water.
------------------------------------------------------------------- 
It is estimated that the smallest possible self replicating species
would contain 124 separate protein chains. With each made of 400
aa-molecules. Probability of forming one protein chain of 400 links
114 (all L-type) from a mixture of 50/50 D- and L-forms is 1 in 10.
Probability for 124 seperate chains being created out of chance, each
containing 400 links of L-type molecules from a mixture of D- 14,136
and L- forms is 1 in 10 . Probability for 124 properly sequenced
protein chains being formed 64,480 by chance alone is 1 in 10 .
Probability for 124 protein chains to have been formed from L-type
78,616 molecules alone from a 50/50 mixture of D and L types 1 in 10
To produce these 124-x400 L type chains would require DNA with 148,800
nucleotides. This doesent even reflect the 124 x 6 codons for go/stop
punctuation. Probability of forming one DNA strand of 89,280 148,800
nucleotides is 1 in 10. Now....the probability for this one example of
DNA amd 124 chains 167,896 to have formed by chance alone
simultaneously is 1 in 10. WE HAVE NOT EVEN GOTTON TO A COMPLETE
PROBABILITY FOR A WHOLE CELL YET. AND WE HAVENT EVEN TOUCHED UPON THE
PROGRAMING FOR DNA TO CARRY ALL THIS OUT. And the nuclutides for a
human is like 3,000,000,000. Conclusion: Mathmatics do not support the
theory of evolution as it is currently concieved. Mathmatically there
is a zero probability for any kind of cell development by haphazzard
chance alone. This, of course, is why evolutionists wish to claim that
evolution and abiogenesis are two separate subjects, and that they do
not wish to answer questions about abiogenesis. Who would wish to
defend two untenable pieces of rubbish at the same time? This does,
however, leave them having to defend the following insane proposition:
That God or whoever created the first life forms used intelligent
processes (no element of chance involved) to do so, and that then
he/she/it got STUPID, and began to use stupid processes (chance
mutation, natural selection etc.) to proceed to successive steps.