Sun 9 Nov 97 15:39
Figures don't Lie but Creationists Figure - By Alec Grynspan
One of the Creationists' ploys has been to quote two Astrophysicists
as if they were experts in biochemistry.
Note that the 2 individuals in question (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe) have no
problem with evolution itself and considered Creationists insane. They
argue only that the ORIGIN of life, which is not part of evolutionary fact
or theory, requires either a much older universe for Panspermia or that
life needed a Creator to start.
More background: Years ago Hoyle and Wickramasinghe postulated a
steady-state universe and opposed the idea of the "big bang". As
part of their attack on "big bang", which was rapidly winning
ground over steady-state, they cooked up a "probability" for
life to originate on Earth that was essentially impossible.
To then cover the fact that life actually existed on Earth, they came up
with the question-begging hypothesis of Panspermia. The result was that
the origin of life was pushed further back. With the probability being so
low, it would have taken trillions upon trillions of years for life to
form using their concept.
BUT - with a steady-state universe, a trillion zeroes in the probability
equation would have had no effect on the end result, since the universe
would have been eternal.
Eventually, however, the steady onslaught of evidence for a "big
bang" and against a steady-state universe forced Hoyle and
Wickramasinghe to acquiesce.
So they were stuck with their bogus equations. What to do?
Well, if one postulated the existence of a creator, one eliminated the
problem of the equations! One further undermined the concept of a
non-created universe, giving them one more kick at the "big bang"
cat.
This "probability", combined with a distortion and misquotation of
Dawkins, has actually been used as a claim by some extremely dishonest
Creationists as the foundation of a scientific theory of Creation, even
though it is nothing of the sort for other reasons.
The flaw in the equations used by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe was that they
used anonymous/non-anonymous atoms and, later, genetic sequences, to
calculate the probability of a random assembly becoming a modern
uni-cellular organism. The same tactic by Behe was used, via the debunked
"irreducible complexity" approach, to derive a probability.
But this method of applying probability is utterly dishonest.
Let us take a simple example - table salt crystals.
Table salt is made up of sodium and chlorine atoms, so let's start with a
very small quantity (around 50 milligrams) of sodium and chlorine - around
10^20 atoms of each.
Let's place these elements in a small container and mix it up.
What is the probability of a sodium atom meeting a chlorine atom in
this container?
Answer: Virtually Unity.
What is the probability of a *SPECIFIC* sodium atom meeting a *SPECIFIC*
chlorine atom in this container?
Answer: Once the sodium atom meets any OTHER chlorine atom, it is out of
the picture. Similarly, once the chlorine atom meets any OTHER sodium atom,
then IT is out of the picture.
The probability of the specific atoms meeting each other?
The probability of every single specific sodium atom meeting a
specific chlorine atom?
Once we have 10^20 salt molecules, what is the probability of any
salt molecule linking to any other until we have a salt crystal?
Answer: Unity.
What are the chances of a SPECIFIC salt molecule meeting another
SPECIFIC salt molecule? 1 in 10^20.
Of all of them meeting like this? 1 in 10^40?
Of that batch of Sodium and Chlorine making that crystal?
This is how Hoyle and Wickramasinghe and Behe established their
probabilities - by using permutations and treating each component of the
cell as a totally unique entity with no other properties prior to final
assembly than staying where placed.
Yet a pyridine molecule(for example) is the same wherever it is! Plus the
properties of the variuos components REQUIRED that they have a constrained
number of possible combinations.
Further, all that we need is some form of self-replication molecule that
can absorb other molecules in order to replicate and mutate - already
verified to be able to form naturally (although many Creationists will
quote 40-year-old editorial opinions as "proof" that it can't
happen), plus the verified Dawkins effect to bring on evolution of the
final form of that cell.
Let's take another look at why this natural selection sequence, which
creationists edit out when pretending to quote Dawkins, improves the
probability to unity.
The Hoyle/Wickramasinghe/Behe approach keeps these alternates as
part of the probability equation and of equal weight.
Let us do a little back-of-the-envelope calculations.
Let us presuppose that there were 10^6 mutations that caused 10^6
evolutionary bifurcations - with each alternative being of equal
weight.
That means that, when that primitive barely-life nucleic acid first
started the sequence, the probability against the final result being a
specific cellular structure would have been
But, at any bifurcation, the probability that SOME path would be
taken is UNITY. Therefore the probability against life forming is:
In other words, the probability that modern life would form by
random mutation with natural selection is
Note that this does not take into account the bifurcations where one of the
paths is lethal (bad mutation). These would be dead ends and would reduce
the probability against the current life form developing. The end result,
however, cannot pass the limit of UNITY, so it can only affect the final
form of life and not the probability.
The argument of Hoyle/Wickramasinghe/Behe and probabilities is
therefore debunked!
"The Second Law Of Thermodynamics (All praise its glory) says that
evolution is impossible!"
This has been the rallying cry of Creationists for decades.
Yet it is one of the biggest lies in their arsenal of lies.
Before we go much further, let's take a look at the REAL second Law
of Thermodynamics:
In plain language:
Proven. Mathematically. Elegantly.
All THREE of the laws of thermodynamics can be shown to true via
mathematics and axiomatic assumptions.
Or can they?
Is there no constraint on these Laws?
Yes, there is. The following constraints must be true:
This elegance, combined with the penchant for extrapolation and
extension of simple concepts into the slippery world of analogy, has
resulted in the laws of thermodynamics to be expressed in "clever"
terms.
"The key, The Whole Key and nothing but the key. So help me Codd."
Cute, and easy to remember. But not quite the scientific statements
that they were based on.
In the same way, the laws of thermodynamics, which were a little
difficult for the beginners to understand, were rephrased into
simpler concepts, divergent from
These laws, rephrased so cleverly, were grabbed up and used to
extend the concepts within Metaphysics.
But Metaphysics is not science. It is philosophy. The elegance of
"You can't get out more than you put in" is a virtual cornerstone of
a large measure of philosophic thought.
But it isn't science.
Extending that further, we get "Things tend towards disorder", which
is actually based on the THIRD law of thermodynamics.
Somehow, this has been extended, thru judo arguments and voodoo
science, to "The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that entropy
keeps things fromm getting more complex. Therefore evolution isn't
real."
Yet this has absolutely no basis in science. The Second Law, or the
third or the first deal only with HEAT! The rest of the
extrapolations are philosophical analogies!
Yet! Even though enough scientists have fallen into the same trap
and argued based on the same concept - that entropy and
bio-complexity are related - the same scientists have won that
argument!
Because the argument that increasing complexity is negative entropy,
bogus though it is, is countered by the fact that the TOTAL entropy
of the Earth/Sun pair is actually monstrously positive, courtesy of
the Sun!
Thus we have a case where the Creationist, using pseudo-science and
taking the laws governing heat flow and work out of context, LOSES
ON HIS OWN GROUND!
Once again, the Creationist loses. This time - twice over!
Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
The above can be proven with great mathematical elegance.
BUT!!!! Within an incredibly wide band, the Laws of thermodynamics
are the most elegantly simple things in physics!
A similar situation occured years ago, when relational databases
were first conceived, by Codd and a method of designing them that
was based on 3 basic rules (eventually 5) developed.
This became, as a mnemonic:
The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the
author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and
opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page.