Complexity, Evolutionists Biggest Problem

by Sea Breeze 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Sea Breeze

  Recently, some scientists modeled one of the simplest known cells - that of a bacteria. It took an army of 128 computers running for 10 hours to process the data required in the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in this "simple cells'" life processes.

  Think about that for a moment - 128 computers running for 10 hours just to compute the data, not actually do it mind you; but just to model the known processes in one of the simplest known cells, which is many orders of magnitude simpler than a human cell. Wow!

  Article

  Known mutation rates would require trillions not billions of years to generate a "simple cell". And this does not not take into account the many known multi-generational mutations with intermediate states of mutations that would be needed for shared beneficial mutations across different genes.

  For example:

  The odds of a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five specific (functionally related) genes is the product of their separate probabilities. In other words, the probability is 1 in 10 to the 8 X 1 in 10 to the 8 X 1 in 10 to the 8 X 1 in 10 to the 8 X 1 in 10 to the 8 .......or 1 in 1040.
  
  In other words, if one hundred trillion (10 to the 14) bacteria were produced every second for five billion years (10 to the 17 seconds), the resulting population (10 to the 31) would be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what is needed!
  
  There literally isn't enough time in the universe to accomplish what Evolutionists propose.
• 

  mickbobcat

  From a scientific site ;
  

  Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving “desirable” (adaptive) features and eliminating “undesirable” (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.

  As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence “TOBEORNOTTOBE.” A million hypothetical monkeys, each typing out one phrase a second on a keyboard, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison, then at Glendale College, wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.
• 

  HowTheBibleWasCreated

  You cannot look at any life today over 4 billion years of evolution later and call it simple. The assumption that bacteria is simple is flawed. There is no so called simple life left on earth. This proves evolution.
• 

  Rocketman123

  Complexity, diversity and time might very well be creationists biggest problem.

  What mankind knows today about the universe is not what the ancients knew thousands of years ago, thats why they told stories like the Genesis account.
  
• 

  HowTheBibleWasCreated

  BTW if complexity means you need a Creator then by that same argument we have infinite regression.tge Creator must be more complex then the life he creates. So using the complexity argument we end up with an infinite amount of more complex creators
• 

  pistolpete

  Complexity, Evolutionists Biggest Problem.........There literally isn't enough time in the universe to accomplish what Evolutionists propose.

  You know SB, I'm probably the fly in the ointment on this site, I finally got my 2nd degree which is in Science, majored in Biology and took several classes in microbiology.

  Yet I'm not a full fledged proponent of evolution. I consider it a good probability because it explains all the suffering and blood mayhem in the world.

  I am at this moment more bent on intelligent design.

  But hold on a moment----I know what you're thinking

  I'm not saying I believe in an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Benevolent, "Being that" lives forever and ever.

  I'm saying that perhaps some "Mortal Being or Beings" with a higher level of intelligence than humans at the moment of creation of life on earth---------are responsible for the life on earth.

  Not because these Beings always existed, but because they lasted long enough to figure out how to arrange the DNA Sequences necessary for life.

  We as a human species are on our way to learn the same thing if we make it that far without exterminating ourselves.
  

  A lot of people in my generation actually hold this as a real possibility. We don't subscribe to the "Default Belief" of ONE GOD.

  We distinguish between GOD and CREATOR!
  

  We were born in a time when the Bible was accessible in many versions and free to read and investigate what it says without input from other humans.That's how we've come to the conclusion that the bible God is not what Christians say he is.
  

  Ever seen the movie Prometheus? Bet they didn't have these type of movies in the 50s. Because people weren't there yet.

  It wasn't until 1953, in Cambridge University scientists James D. Watson and Francis H.C. Crick announce that they have determined the double-helix structure of DNA, the molecule containing human genes.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHpJr7_5Mjg
• 

  Sea Breeze

  Mick,

  Just some random thoughts here:
  
  The program had to be designed by 1.) a man to 2.) pre-suppose a language, 3.) use phrases, not words or letters 4.) keep phrases that it already knew were "right" so that 5.) a computer could simulate a Shakespeare play (known goal). The play itself is an exceedingly small amount of information as compared to our smallest cell. This is far from a meaningful parallel to real evolution of the "blind watchmaker" type. It's essentially starting at the end of the supposed process, not the beginning.

  Furthermore, the raw material on which natural selection acts is random copying errors (mutations). If molecules-to-man style evolution were true, we should expect to find countless information-adding mutations. But we have not even found one indisputable example.
  
  The program that you alluded to above was not based on copying errors, but on the processes described above making it even less of a parallel example.

  Regardless, selection of any kind, computer or biological cannot explain the origin of complex, self-reproducing life forms—and evolutionists have no way to explain this beginning quantum leap in their story of life to get it off the ground..

  My OP explained how it took 128 computers 10 hours just to simulate the actions of the simplest known replicating life form. And, even then it is parasitic and unable to exist on its own.

  Earlier I posted the odds of getting random copying errors (mutations) in a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five specific (functionally related) genes as 1 to the 1040 power.

  For reference, it is estimated that there are between 10 to the 78th to 10 to the 82nd atoms in the known, observable universe.
  
  The evolution theory has run out of time.
  
  Where did the information come from? Aliens? That sounds like science fiction not science fact.
  
  
• 

  truth_b_known

  Please remember that evolution and abiogenesis are two separate things. Evolution has been observed. There is also evidence of abiogenesis.
• 

  Rocketman123

  There isn't any question that biological evolution isn't complex, but there is yet to be any evidence of a supernatural being who created what we see.

  Mankind has not yet to define what is a supernatural being outside random mythology hearsay.

  To uphold intellectual honesty we have to explore what we see through physical evidence and explore that evidence to its evolutionary changes.

  Nature is until now god the almighty creator.
  
• 

  Sea Breeze

  Nature is until now god the almighty creator.

  But, that's the issue here. There are no nature processes that can reasonably account for the complexity of life. The mother-nature god cannot possibly exist.

  This image below is an x-ray cross section of an actual human cell. It's beauty and complexity is stunning.