• Welcome to Talk Jesus

    A true bible based, Jesus centered online community. Join over 11,000 members today

    Register Log In

evolution, yeah right?

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Since random events within nature are supposed to be responsible for the spontaneous beginning of life and of all living things, let’s evaluate “randomness.” The tool used to evaluate randomness is the mathematical concept of probability.

The basic principle of probability is simple: If you have a coin with two sides, heads and tails, and toss it into the air, each side has a 50 percent chance of being on the top when the coin lands. This is the probability of a random event limited by two possible outcomes.

Now, imagine a pair of four-sided dice. The probability of any certain side landing in the bottom position when one of the pair is tossed is one in four, or 25 percent. Add the second of the pair, and there are 16 possible combinations (four times four). Add a third and there are 64 possible combinations (four times four times four). The probability of getting any certain combination in one toss of three dice would be 64 to one. The more possible combinations, the less the probability of any one specific result.
Evolution is hypothesized to occur when there is an alteration to the genetic material of a plant or animal, and the change produces offspring with a better chance to survive. In animals, the changes take place in the genome, the genetic material of the ***** or egg cells of a parent, and are passed on to the next generation.

In the human genome, there are four possible combinations of amino acids called nucleotides, but, instead of three dice, there are 3.2 billion nucleotides. The possible combinations would be four times four times four—repeatedly multiplying by four a total of 3.2 billion times.

The Human Genome Project, a joint international effort to unravel the structure of genetic material of humans, has determined that a genetic mutation of one billionth of a genome is always fatal. That means for a human, a random change of three nucleotides is fatal, thereby ending any further possibility of evolution for that individual’s offspring.

Evolutionists claim that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives to man, with a difference of about 48 million nucleotides. This means at least 48 million random events must have occurred in exactly the right order for the evolutionary gap between man and his hypothesized common ancestor with chimpanzee to have been spanned. Three changes in the genome during one generation would be FATAL and stop the process. Therefore this number of changes would require a minimum of 24 million generations to achieve, assuming two changes happened during each generation.

These changes must happen in exactly the proper order, and each step must produce either no noticeable change or provide the offspring with some sort of advantage. Any negative change would stop or prolong the process. Each change must occur in a gene that is passed on to an offspring, and the offspring must survive and must undergo some further sort of change and have offspring and so on for each of the 48 million genetic changes.
Next, since there are 3.2 billion nucleotides in the human genome, the probability of one particular nucleotide being altered is 3.2 billion to one. To determine the mathematical probability of the genetic changes necessary for the hypothesized “evolution” between chimps and people, it is necessary to multiply 3.2 billion times 48 million.

The probability against the evolution from a common ancestor with chimps to modern man, using these figures, is 153 quadrillion (153 followed by 15 zeros) to one.

The scope of 153 quadrillion is incomprehensible. To illustrate the size of this number: If one number is counted every second (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.), it would take over 200 million years longer than the estimated age of the Earth to reach 153 quadrillion.

Though this number seems mind-boggling, it is only the tip of the iceberg. This example assumes all changes to genetic material would be positive when, in reality, fewer than 1 percent of genetic changes are beneficial. This example assumes each offspring would be successful in producing more offspring and that each generation would have two genetic “improvements.” It does not include any of the factors like mortality of offspring, unsuccessful reproductive attempts, the order of changes and many more variables, each of which would increase the odds against evolution by millions of times.

If a change anywhere in the chain of events proves to be detrimental, the entire process comes to a halt. For example, if a saber-tooth tiger eats one of the young prehistoric genetically altered monkey-men before it becomes a parent, the process is interrupted—the entire chain of events leading to that child comes to an end.

This represents only the changes that must occur starting with the supposed common ancestor of men and chimps and ending with the first modern man. What about the number of changes necessary to get from the first single cell, which is hypothesized to have taken life in the primordial ooze, until it evolved into this hypothetical chimp-like pre-man?

Here’s a better question: How many multiple millions of times greater would be the probability AGAINST such “evolution”?

Amino Acids
Consider an interesting fact of science: the existence of “levo-amino acids.” Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins and are necessary for life. They normally exist in two mirror-image forms, referred to as dextro for right and levo for left. One amino acid in protein, for example, is thymine. In INORGANIC (non-living) material, whether found in nature or produced in the laboratory, it is found in equal amounts of dextro-thymine and levo-thymine. The only noticeable difference in the two is the way light is rotated, either to the left or the right, when passing through the amino acid molecules. The same is true of the other amino acids. All inorganic material contains equal amounts of dextro- and levo-type molecules.

In LIVING things, however—both plant and animal—every amino acid molecule found in proteins is of the levo variety only. Not one dextro-amino acid is to be found among them. A moderately sized protein may be made up of a chain of 400 levo-amino acids. For one molecule in such a chain to be levo is a one in two chance, for two in a row is a one in four chance and for three is a one in eight chance—if determined randomly. This is simple probability, as we discussed earlier.

For 400 in a row to be all of the levo type is a probability of 10 to one. If written out, this would be a one with 120 zeros after it. Said another way, the odds of such a random formation is a thousand billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion to one. But believing evolutionists will remark, “It could happen.”

Numbers this large don’t really have much meaning, as it is not possible to comprehend their size. So, let’s get some perspective. It is estimated that the known universe consists of a total of 1080 atoms. So the chance against one modest-sized protein having all levo molecules is 1040 times greater than the total number of atoms in the universe!

The figures we have been looking at are for one amino acid. A human genome is made up of about 3.2 billion pairs of these molecules, and there is not even one that is of the dextro type.

Such figures put evolution beyond the realm of improbability. Evolution is an impossibility.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sail2awe, you really know your science. I too love science and I don't believe that science and the bible are mutually exclusive but evolution is just bad science.
What I've come to learn is that science does not explain why but it does describe how.
Consider the question 'Why do birds fly?' If you want to know the answer you'll have to ask God because science can't even begin to explain it, what science can do is describe the mechanics of how birds fly.
Evolution certainly isn't the answer because even if some ground-bourne animal decides it could better protect itself, or fend for itself or whatever by flying it would still take generations (that is thousands or even tens of thousands of years) to evolve wings and by that time it would most certainly be too late. Man has dreamt of flying for centuries (perhaps even eons since he first gazed upon a flying bird) and we are no closer to doing it without mechanical means.
Now let's go one step further. Even if you want to entertain the ludicrous notion that man evolved from monkeys, evolution doesn't even begin to describe how we became self-aware. Fortunately the bible explains why:

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Gen 2:7 (KJV)

Science has even described how every atom that makes up our physical being can be found in the earth or 'the dust of the ground' (how the author of Genesis inferred that without divine inspiration is beyond me considering we've only known about germs for about a century) however it has yet to describe how we got the 'breath of life' and I am confident if it ever does that will be the day that science proves the existence of God. Until then I will take solace in another line in the bible:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Heb 11:1 (KJV)

keep up the good work and God bless you sail!

The Theory of Evolution does not concern itself in how life first began, it just states how descent with modification brought about the diversity of life as we know it.

I think it's extremely unwise to dismiss evolution as impossible, especially when the presented alternative; "Creationism" is an hypothesis that cannot be adequately validated, as it has it's origins in relgion, not in scientific observations. Evolution can be used accurately as a predictor, while creationism has failed to be anything more than an alternative for those who do not wish to accept evolution.

Many fields of evidence have firmly established Evolution as a scientific theory. It would require more than a deceptive numbers game to discredit.

Faith can always conquer reason if we let it... But I think a God that created us would much prefer that we study our world and draw conclusions based on rigorous study, rather than modling reality around a short passage from an old book.

EDIT: Evolution does not have a plan. To somehow conclude that animals would not have enough time to evolve an advantage (ie, wings) clearly shows an ignorance of the theory. There is no consience thought behind evolution. Mutations that are beneficial enough to allow for reproduction are passed down. Mutations that are not beneficial do no pass down this change if they do not survive to reproduce. The phrase "intermediate forms" is a misnomer, as every creature has to survive to reproduction. Every organism is "complete". Creatures do not sacrifice mobility in order to gain fly later on; evolution is not aware of the future. The process is slow, but there is nothing logically preventing this from having a cumulative effect.

A land animal doesn't "find" an advantage in swimming, and then decides that it's better to swim then walk on land. Instead, evironmental changes could make life on land less hospitable, and mutations that allow more interaction with water become dominant, as those of that species without the mutation reproduce less and less. If this specie's climate changes too fast they will not be able to adapt in time... there are many examples of dead ends. But if all goes well, eventually this creature could well be a purely water dweller.
Last edited:
Job;38;4 / Job;38;21

God questioned job where did you happen to be when I founded the earth?
Tell me if you have understanding!
Have you come to know because at that time you were being born, and in number your days are many?
GOD created us;this is obvious! He is so awesome, so wonderful and He loves us so much! And people still think that they evolved from animals, in other word, they created themselves.
We, the Christians, know this truth, but what can we do with the other poeple? I think the first step is to help them to descover God and to accept Him in their lifes and in their hearts. Scientist have always tried to find the truth, but one day they will have to admit that all the things are made and created by our Lord!

sail2awe, EXCELLENT!!!! Would love to respond more, but I'm on my way out the door to church. Keep up the good work, and we are truly grateful to have you on the site.

:shade: :thumbs_up
I would like to start this paragraph saying that I am a devoted believer in God's creation of man as he is. I would like to however to support the Idea of adaptive evolution a fact which sail2awe neglected. The indisputable mathematical evidence for creation can be viewed in the current ether time line theori leading to the big bang. The equation, a linear dissection of planetary movement and universe expansion can trace the universe's theoretical developent to a single point. That single point is unfortunately not the point of creation nor can it be the point of creation. In the point of creation time must be set to the begining, starting from zero. That zero nullifies the entire equation making creation a mathematic impossibility....but it still happened. There is more to that but that's not my point. My point is that what sail2awe neglected to mention is that evolving within a specific species in order to adapt to an environment is a scientific fact. A fact that we exploit in order to create vaccines and other medications. Every one of you has been sick at some point in your lives. You have two major ways to defeat that sickness. You have a Humoral and a cell mediated immune response. The humoral immune response is perpetuated by B-lymphocytes that target specific antigens. An antigen is something the body recognizes as a threat. The humoral immune response is based on the B-lymphocytes binding to the antigen. The cell then produces plasma cells that attack it by producing various antibodies and memory cells that remember the antigen type in order to effectively combat the antigen in the future. The cell mediated response has a similar function but attacks cells of the body that are allready infected. We cannot cure a virus. Our immune system can however destroy the cells infected with the virus and prevent the virus from taking over. A virus enters a cell and turns that cell into a virus factory. Our immune system stops production. The virus however, as sail2awe I'm sure will recognize, contains either a DNA or an RNA strand depending on the type. Mutations in DNA or RNA of the virus as it replicates in vivo create new strains of viruses that are able to compromise our immunity. A very active mutator is influenza. Bacteria do the same thing. They adapt in order to survive. We don't get nessecarily a new bacteria creating a new disease but a more resiliant form of the old one, one that is non responsive to antibiotics. These changes could be likened to different breeds of dogs. They are all dogs, but a siberian husky would die of heat exhaustion in the desert and a jackal would freeze to death in Siberia. God created us and everything in this world. He also knew the importance for adaption. He knew that things would change and that we would need to change with them to survive.
One other point. Sickle Cell anemia is an amino acid disorder of a beta protein chain of Hemoglobin moleclule. The majority of sickle cell anemia is found in Africans, Latin-americans and people from south east asia. Hemoglobin is the molecule in the blood responsible for binding and transporting oxygen. We breathe in, Hemoglobin binds the oxygen. Sickle cell anemia is a deadly gentic disorder. However one can be a carrier of the genetic disorder without having the disorder. Carriers of sickle cell anemia have a natural immunity to malria, a mosquito borne parasite common to Latin-america, afirca, and south east asia. The idea of natural selection here is that the carriers of sickle cell anemia survive the malaria while there is a 1 in 4 chance that they will have a child that has the disease. That child is generally cannot survive.
Staff Member
Chris, do you believe that sickness is the original result of sin?
No I do not. I believe that sickness is the result of a living organism feeding off a host, or the result of genetic or environmental factors. Do you mean that it is the result of original sin? That sickness would not exist if we had not been expelled from paradise? That is certain. I refuse to believe that illness is the original result of one's sin as person. Punishment is reserved for judgment. If you have ever seen a child with an eptopic heart you would understand.

"As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, 'Rabbi who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?' 'Neither this man nor his parents sinned,' said jesus, 'but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.'" John 9:1,2,3

It was by God's will that I chose medicine as a profession. I would not be where I am if God had not steered me here.
Staff Member
Right, I agree. But, to a certain extent it is true that *possibly* sickness was never intentionally in GOD's purpose - but after man's fall, GOD (as He is perfect) drew good out of bad. I may be wrong as I am not a bible scholar but still learning like everyone.

Perhaps its both, GOD's purpose and also man's sin. Remember, the world was perfect in every aspect before man's fall.
Science, no thanks i'll pass

:wink:I have the words of God , if it says, it I do not need an explanation, empirical evidence, or the Almighty Himself to come down stand in front of me to tell me He created it, destroyed it, required Him to die on a tree, sealed up the ark, will come again. Fideism is a beautiful thing.

Similar threads