Search This Blog

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Francis Crick explains why Darwinism is a bad bet. You want to bet your life on this?

There is a movement in science and it is happening around the world.  It is a movement of scientists of all kinds towards the idea of Intelligent Design and Creationism.   The primary reason that this is happening is because of the march of science towards learning more and more about the Universe and about living organisms.  Living organisms are obviously designed.  If there were not scientists who were metaphysically repulsed by the concept of God then this would be an accepted fact.   Really, there is simply no hope that life could have evolved from non-life for several very good reasons.  I have posted in detail how there are chemical barriers to the formation of the components of DNA.  The Miller-Urey experiment was actually a failure for Darwinism, because it demonstrated that only a small portion of life components could be produced under very strict circumstances that do not mimic anything happening in the real world and that these components are insufficient to construct any form of life.

Francis Crick, upon discovering the DNA string, realized that this discovery (normally attributed to Crick and Watson but they did not work alone) precluded a natural cause for life.  So metaphysically determined to deny the concept of God, he immediately hit upon the concept of Directed Panspermia, that life came from somewhere else since it could not happen here.  Here is a paper quoting Francis Crick via the folks who are planning to build a creation museum in Idaho,  The NorthWest Science Museum.

The Odds of an Amino Acid Sequence Happening by Chance

Francis Crick, an ardent evolutionist, won the Nobel Prize in 1962 along with several
others for their discovery of the molecular structure of DNA. He has written several books and
has made some startling discoveries about the origins of life.

He writes,

“If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare an
event would that be?

“This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about
two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything, rather less than the average
length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each
place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred
times. This is conveniently written 20^200 and is approximately equal to 10^260, that
is, a one followed by 260 zeros!”i

This number is so huge that it doesn’t have a name. When numbers reach a certain size
they are said to be 10 to the 100th power or 10^100. That is a 1 with 100 zeros behind it. It is very
hard for the human mind to comprehend such numbers. This author is going to demonstrate this
by writing out the numbers so they can be compared. This helps our understanding if we can see
it visually.

Francis Crick states that the odds would be 10^260 of an amino acid happening by chance.
That number would be written out as such:


Francis Crick goes on to state,

“This number is quite beyond our everyday comprehension. For
comparison, consider the number of fundamental particles (atoms, speaking
loosely) in the entire visible universe, not just in our own galaxy with its 10^11
stars, but in all the billions of galaxies, out to the limits of observable space. This
number, which is estimated to be 10^80, is quite paltry (or measly) by comparison
to 10^260. Moreover, we have only considered a polypeptide chain of a rather
modest length… The great majority of sequences can never have been
synthesized at all, at any time.”ii

What is he saying here? He states there are 10^80 atoms in the visible universe, and the
chance of one amino acid chain forming is 10^260, which is such a huge number it is beyond all
comprehension. Even the number10^80, which are all the atoms in the visible universe, is so huge
as to be not comprehended by our minds.

We have 50 to 100 trillion cells in our bodies, and many atoms to a cell, and there are
many different kinds of cells with different structures of proteins. There just simply is not
enough time for proteins to have “evolved”, let alone a single cell. Cells are the building blocks
of organisms, and, therefore, life. If there are no cells, there are no living organisms or life.

Let Us Compare Some Numbers

If the universe is 20 billion years old as (some of the)* the evolutionists’ say, then let us see how many
seconds there are in 20 billion years. First you multiply 60 seconds in one minute, times 60
minutes in one hour. That gives us 3,600 seconds in an hour times 24 hours in a day which gives
us 86,400 seconds in a day. 86,400 seconds in a day times 365.25 days in a year gives us
31,557,600 seconds in a year times 20 billion years. That gives us 631,152,000,000,000,000
seconds of time in 20 billion years.

If there were an evolutionary change every second there is not enough time for anything
to “evolve”. If evolution were still taking place, why is there not any new life forms arising every
day? It would take many billions of times 20 billion years for life to have evolved the way
evolutionists say it happened. There is only one answer. It had to have all been made by a great

This is how many changes there needed to be every second for just one
moderately sized polypeptide chain to be formed.

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000

This would be written as approximately 10^242. This is a huge number so far
beyond our comprehension we could never understand it.

When you put it all together and look at it objectively, you can see what a “joke”
evolution really is. There would have to be many changes take place every second for evolution
to have taken place. For one modestly sized polypeptide chain to happen by chance there would
have to be 10^260 changes taking place before you even have a modestly sized polypeptide chain.
We don’t see any changes happening today. This is some good evidence that it never happened.
We have never witnessed it taking place. It was tried in a laboratory, (i.e. the Stanley Miller
experiment) but it didn’t really work.

Let us compare the numbers and get a visual comparison so our minds can sort of grasp
what the Law of Probabilities is showing us.

The odds of an amino acid sequence being selected by chance are 10^260 which are written
out as such.


The estimated number of atoms in the universe is 10^80 which is written out as such.


The number of seconds in 20 billion years is very small compared to the odds of an amino acid


This is the number of changes there needed to be every second of 20 billion years for one
moderately sized amino acid chain to be formed.

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000

When you see the numbers written out and can look at them, you can see the magnitude of the
impossibleness of evolution happening at all as we are taught in schools and universities. To
“SEE” it written down so you can compare gives you a whole different perspective.

i Francis Crick, Life Itself; Its Origin and Nature, (New York, Simon and Schuster, 1981), 51-52.
ii Ibid.
* A common age publicized by Darwinists would be 11.75 to 14.5 billion years.  Radar.


Dilbert by this site.

After years of studying the subject of origins, I can tell you why a Darwinist will say, "We are working on that" or "There is some interesting work in this field being done" and then move on to another topic.  Because there is no way to hurdle the barriers to the raw materials needed for DNA to even form and remain extant in the wild.  Even before we consider the odds of them forming a DNA string and even before we consider the odds that such a string would actually have information contained within it to code for the millions upon millions of functions that it must get transmitted and the wide variety of choices for speciation contained in the genome and the meta-information and beyond that the cell and the cell wall protecting that cell so that the DNA/RNA process could operate.  But wait!   We need the cell to host the DNA/RNA operations but without DNA/RNA we have no way to build a cell!   And by what means do we power this operation?  We need the ATP Synthase motor to produce the raw cellular power and they require a cell to exist and DNA to code them. 

As previously mentioned, this incredible impossibility is just the statistical improbability of one very small string of amino acids, not enough to code for a living organism.   Not enough to code for one cell.  With no means to actually put the sequence into an order that would mean anything.  On top of that a human being has about ten microorganisms for each cell, so that the impossibility of one human being happening by chance is a far more unlikely event than the one pondered by Crick.  By the laws of statistics even one small one-celled creature could not happen.  So why do people believe it?  How can people believe in such a ridiculous impossibility?  It all comes back to worldviews again.  Do you really want to bet your eternal life on such a flimsy premise as Darwinism?  Seriously?

So my next posts will explore the Biblical model in terms of going through the classic "buts" that Theistic and Old Earth Creationists (OEC) will champion as opposed to my Young Earth Creationist (YEC) position.  This should be of interest to believers who want to see the various positions held by non-YEC believers and why they hold them and of course why I think they should not!

My workload is such that I will be making shorter posts again for awhile (Lista should appreciate that and in fact I think my wife would prefer that and I am trying to make more shorter posts) and will focus on some objections raised by those who make a minimal commitment to creationism but with corollaries included.  At some point within all of this I will do the Jon Woolf List of Questions and I want that one to be a good one so work and all the responsibilities we have with the weekend Summerfest limits my blogging time and therefore I will have to squeeze it in when I can grab the documentation and go for it!  There are disadvantages to getting involved in the community because sometimes you have to work to make things happen.  Fourth of July weekend means my wife and I are doing a lot of volunteering.  

So the Fourth is coming soon and I hope you American citizens appreciate your freedom to do things like blog and comment on blogs and own a gun and have property and vote and speak your mind.   The right to set off loud fireworks is definitely NOT APPRECIATED by my dogs, but they'll live through it.  My grandkids love fireworks more than the dogs hate them, so there you go. I will be thanking God for the fact that I was born an American and raised to be a thinker rather than a drone and that God reached out to me and brought me into His family.   Now me and my wife and all of my kids are all Christians and we are bringing in the grandkids, too.  It is communicable and, once you are a Christian there really is no "cure."    


Jon Woolf said...

Say, Radar, is that the same Francis Crick who wrote this:

"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To try to figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary arguments can usefully be used as _hints_ to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already very well understood.

"All this may make it very difficult for physicists to adapt to most biological research. Physicists are all too apt to look for the wrong sorts of generalizations, to concoct theoretical models that are too neat, too powerful, and too clean. Not surprisingly, these seldom fit well with the data. To produce a really good biological theory one must try to see through the clutter produced by evolution to the basic mechanisms lying beneath them, realizing that they are likely to be overlaid by other, secondary mechanisms. What seems to physicists to be a hopelessly complicated process may have been what nature found simplest, because nature could only build on what was already there."

-- from WHAT MAD PURSUIT, by Francis Crick, pp. 138-9.

Gee ... [scratching head]. Now where would someone get the idea that he doubts evolutionary theory? Is a puzzlement, yes, a puzzlement.

radar said...

Yes, the same Crick who proposed Directed Panspermia and left the field of genetics to study neuroscience. He was an opponent of Christianity but I do believe he left genetics in part because of the statistical implausibility and in part because he was intrigued by the concept of perhaps finding "the soul" within the confines of the brain.

I would say that the "Mad Pursuit" was dropped by Crick and only he knows why. He is a bit too dead to interview. But nevertheless his statements about the statistical likelihood of random and spontaneous generation of the DNA string remain true and remain words that he spoke. He would not be the first mind that carried such a dichotomy within it.

Jon Woolf said...

"But nevertheless his statements about the statistical likelihood of random and spontaneous generation of the DNA string remain true and remain words that he spoke."

So he didn't understand how life originated, and thought it came here from Elsewhere -- which didn't really solve the problem, but only relocated it. But after life appeared here on Earth, it developed via the evolutionary process. Crick knew that, even if you don't.

Anonymous said...

And yet another bogus "argument from incredulity" article, though it may sound persuasive to someone like Lista.

"Francis Crick states that the odds would be 10^260 of an amino acid happening by chance."

One of the crucial errors in the argument proposed by the author is right here in this sentence - they completely leave out any and all physical forces or process or anything.

Meanwhile back in the real world, despite all those enormous numbers the author of this article is oohing and aahing over, amino acids have been seen to form from organic compounds in a matter of weeks.

AmericanVet said...

Point one, amino acids are not shown to "form" in a matter of weeks, they are produced in laboratories.

Second, while Crick still "believed" in evolution, he never saw it happening and neither has anyone else. It is a faith based on no observation.

Anonymous said...

"Point one, amino acids are not shown to "form" in a matter of weeks, they are produced in laboratories."

And how are they "produced" exactly?

"Second, while Crick still "believed" in evolution, he never saw it happening and neither has anyone else."

Evolution can be observed as having occurred in the fossil record, which is the only place where we could expect to see it happening on a grand scale, given the timescales involved and our own pitiful human lifespans.

Evolution can be observed occurring on the level of not just microevolution but also speciation, still a significant aspect of evolution. There have been a number of experiments confirming this.

"It is a faith based on no observation."

Empty propaganda.

notetaker said...

That's the odds of a particular protein, not any protein. It's like the odds of a particular raindrop showing up on your head, but there are lots of raindrops.

Although I believe in design, I can also view evolution as a process, albeit not a random one. No effects without causes. However, I see no evidence for a young earth. Looks pretty ancient to me.