Abiogenesis

What is aboigenesis? It is the formation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily used to refer to the chemical origin of life, such as from a 'primordial soup' or in the vicinity of hydrothermal vents, and most probably through a number of intermediate steps, such as non-living but self-replicating molecules (biopoiesis). The current models of abiogenesis are still being scientifically tested.

What I would like to do now is bring in an article I found. The guy is a lot brighter than I am and the guys he references are brighter than both of us. I guess you could say, What are the odds?

The book, Origins Creation Or Evolution has calculated the odds this way Let¹s consider some factors that are involved in probability. If you recall, we said that all proteins (remember enzymes are proteins) require left handed amino acids. Now, using this fact of life science, lets try using probability theory. (Calculations submitted by Dr. Monty Kester) (doing the calculations)

1. What is the probability of forming one left handed (L), 400-amino-acid protein, from a normal 50% mixture of right handed (D) and left handed (L) forms?
(A) The probability of each linking is 1/2
(B) If we deduct a fair share of glycine, say 20, then the probability would be 1/2 X 1/2 X ...380 times (400 - 20) = ...1/ 10^114 (incidentally, you must convert to logarithms)

2. What is the probability of 124 such proteins , the number needed for the simplest possible self-replicating system forming? 1/10^114 (probability of one protein forming) 1/10^114 X 1/10^114...124 times = 1/(10^114)^124 = 1/10^14,136

3. What is the probability of 124 all (L), 400-amino-acids protein forming, if there is a 99% surety that (L) will preferentially link to a (L)?
(A) The probability of each (L) left handed amino acid linking is ...99/100
(B) The probability of 380 (400-20 glycine) L - amino acids linking in succession is: .99 X .99 X .99 X ...380 times + >99^380 = 1/10^1.7
(C) The probability of 124 proteins forming is: 1/10^1.7 X 1/10^1.7 .....124 times = 1/(10^1.7)^124 = ...1/10^210 When we consider the facts related to these numbers we can easily see that the random chance of evolutonary theory will not likely be useful. Consider what those numbers mean in general comparisons:

(1) Age of universe (evolutionary assumption) in seconds = 10^18
(2) Diameter of the universe in nches = 10^28
(3) Diameter of the universe in A (angstroms) = 4 X 10^37
(4) Mass of milkey way in grams = 3 X 10^44
( 5) Number of atoms in the unuverse = 5 X 10^78 Physicists conclude that events whose probabilities are extremely small *never occur* ( 1 chance in 10^15).

Think about this: A scientist can sequence (put together) 124 proteins in a matter of hours, This shows the need for intelligence behind design.

ref 4 Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of 2000 different enzymes which are needed- and each one tailored made to do a particular chemical as 1in 10^40,000

ref 5 In the book It couldnt just happen you¹ll read that, A professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has estimated that all the protein molecules that have ever existed on earth is only 10 followed by 52 zeros. This means there is no real chance at all that even one protein with all left handed amino acids could ever have *just Happened* to come into existance. The book also notes, What is the probability of an amino acid chain 400 units long happening by chance? The answer is on chance in ten followed by 240 zeros!

So now that we have the math, what about what evolutionists have to say. I've taken quotes from several.

1. "The 'RNA world' hypothesis proposes that early life developed by making use of RNA molecules, rather than proteins, to catalyse the synthesis of important biological molecules. It is thought, however, that the nucleotides constituting RNA were scarce on early Earth - From Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, and Department of Biology, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts

2. From Salk Institute for Biological Studies, San Diego, CA 92186-5800, USA.
It is difficult if not impossible to synthesize long polymers of amino acids, nucleotides, etc., in homogeneous aqueous solution. We suggest that long polymers were synthesized on the surface of minerals in a prebiotic process analogous to solid-phase synthesis.

3. From the Department of Applied Biological Science, Faculty of Science and Technology, Science University of Tokyo, Noda 278, Japan.
The recent discovery of polymerase activity in a ribosomal RNA intervening sequence as well as other studies of RNA-replicating systems suggest that the first living molecules were RNAs called replicases.

4. A genetic annealing model for the universal ancestor of all extant life is presented.

Whats interesting that in all these statements the words hypothesis, thought, we suggest, are used. The last one is even more interesting for in that statement they use model. Now what is a model?

I think the best model we can look at is the models used to predict the weather. In book 5 of my series I look at it from the view point of global warming. In book 5 we are having problems with the earths climate. Listen as the this character in the book explains this model for weather and after you read this we'll look at what evolutionists would have you believe.

If we Look back at earth’s history we see there have been wild fluctuations in climate ... but over the last eight to ten thousand years the climate has been very stable almost to the point of being predictable, and many believe these ocean current systems are the cause.

Now first let me say with all due respect for Dr. La Baugh’s analyses, there are some who disagree with his theory. It sounds good and it even makes sense, but the models he used and the models of… Drs. Harvey and Jacobs who are two very renowned climatologists differ greatly.”
“How do you mean, differ greatly?”

Well, the behavior of the atmosphere is governed by physical laws which can be expressed as mathematical equations. These equations represent how atmospheric quantities such as temperature, wind speed, direction, humidity, and what ever else you want to use will change from their initial current values to what they might be given a certain data. If we can solve these equations, we will have a forecast. We can do this by sub-dividing the atmosphere into a 3-D grid of points and solving these equations at each point. However these models have three main sources of error:

The first is initialization. We have an imperfect description of what the atmosphere is doing right now due to the lack of data. When the model starts it has an incorrect picture of the initial state of the atmosphere so it will always generate a forecast that is imperfect.

The second is resolution. Models are run on 3-D grids that cover the entire globe. Each grid point represents a piece of atmosphere as large as 35 miles on a side. Anything smaller such as thunderstorms are not handled as well, and must be parameterized, or in laymen’s terms, we create a fudge factors that do a good job giving the right forecast most of the time. Obviously, the fudge factors aren't going to work for all situations.

And third is our basic understanding. Our basic understanding of the physics governing the atmosphere is not perfect, so the equations we're using aren't quite right.

If scientists can say this about something we know a whole lot about and is in the here and now, what are the basic understandings, the equations, the fudge factors, and the physics of a milion years ago going to be like? How accurate are their models?


With all that we know about the weather, and all the data we have, and as complex as the models are, we still have issues in forcating weather. We still make mistakes in forcasting because the data is constantly changing, and some of our data is not correct. How can a model be made for what happened a million years ago using information that is most likly flawed or generated in a laboratory experiment be considered correct?

Lets say just for a moment that what they say is correct, than the next question that needs to be asked is, where did theses substances come from. At some point if you go back in time something was created from nothing. Do you really believe that God took a pool of goo and said let there be life and a one cell animal crawled out to later become man? If that is the case than man is no better than the animals and that is what evolution is all about. One last thing, consider the following statement.

If you wish to question evolution, by all means do so. Debate is healthy. However a useful debate requires that you make a good-faith effort to study and understand the breadth of accumulated evidence. Finally, evolution theory (and science itself) is fundamentally neutral with respect to the existence of a creator. A supernatural force or being could well have created our universe based on a set of mathematical principles, predicting every outcome, including the emergence of humans. Evolutionary theory cannot speak to the truth of the existence of such a creator. It simply deals with how species emerge, adapt, survive or disappear when faced with a changing environment. • Rajesh C. Miranda is an associate professor in the department of neuroscience and experimental therapeutics at the Texas A&M University System Health Science Center.

Do you think this man represents main line evolution? Here is how one entitled his arguments - Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics,and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations. It is from his references I took the quotes. The bottom line, evolution can't come up with proof, all they have is supposition, theory, and mis-information. Their theories and math look good, but its built on a house of sand. Look at their arguments through the lens of scripture and real science and it falls apart like a house of cards.