7 years ago :: Jul 23, 2010  9:31AM #1  
Introduction This proof actually proves more, logically, than will be argued. The argument here employs simple logic and basic mathematics. It is expected that a 12year old should understand this without issue. The proof only contains one factual claim which is itself totally uncontroversial. Although the proof focuses on the origin of life, which is a prerequisite to any evolutionary claims, it can be applied in many other domains. Elementary Logic Nothing will be said about logic except that we all seek to conform to it. A charge of being illogical is considered quite a slur. So here it is the most fundamental logical principle, the Law of NonContradiction. A spade is a spade, but that which is not a spade is a nonspade. It seems clear what this means but it is important to eliminate all plausible misunderstanding of this statement. To that end here is further clarification: A fork is a nonspade and a tractor is a nonspade, but a spade alone is a spade. Note also that if a nonspade does not exist then the idea of a spade is meaningless. Consider the question: Do things exist that are not Cremsolt? The question is meaningless unless ‘Cremsolt’ is precisely defined. Mathematically the Law of Noncontradiction can be shown as: S ≠ !S Eq. 1 where S must be defined and !S is nonS. Elementary Probability To discuss the relevant probability theorem it is best to start with an example. When we flip a coin, what is the probability of getting Heads? The answer is uncontroversial – 0.50 or a 50% chance. For the purposes of this exercise, does it matter what picture is on either side of the coin? Surely not, so long as the sides are mutuallyexclusive, distinct and not the same. We cannot say Heads is Tails and vice versa and still have a meaningful probabilistic argument, thus by virtue of these sides being mutuallyexclusive they are in fact dichotomous. Consider a 6sided die; what is the probability of getting a 3? It would be one 1/6 or approximately 16.7% chance. We can calculate the probability of not getting 3 as follows: Pr(!3) = 1 – Pr(3) where : Pr(3) is the probability of throwing a 3 on a 6sided die. and: Pr(!3) is the probability of throwing a non3 on a 6sided die. From the fact that Pr(3) is 0.167 we can calculate: Pr(!3) = 1 – Pr(3) = 1 – 0.167 = 0.833 (or 83.3% chance) So the second mathematical formula to consider is the probability of mutuallyexclusive events, given as: Pr(S) = 1 – Pr(!S) Eq. 2 where S is an event Pr(S) the probability of that event occurring, and Pr(!S) the probability of the event not occurring. Naturalistic Origin of Life For naturalistic evolution to be true, a naturalist origin of life must also be true. You cannot have life evolving until life exists. Naturalism does not concede a supernatural creation lest it be forced to concede theistic evolution or more coherently the claim of Creationism. So the naturalistic origin of life must be maintained as grounds for any rational or logical argument. The question then arises, is naturalistic evolution possible or plausible. Note that this discussion does not concede possibility, for many laws of nature prohibit naturalistic evolution and render it impossible in naturalistic terms. Ignoring the physical laws for a moment (as naturalists are wont to do) the question of plausibility can also be dismissed due to the factual constraints of finite space (size of universe) and time (13.7 Ga age assertion). But all these arguments are uncritically rejected by naturalists and so gain no purchase, speculation is preferable to reality. What can be agreed is the approximate probability of the naturalistic origin of the first living organism. This was achieved by determining what the smallest living organism looked like, it terms of the size of its genome. The size of a genome is measured in terms of its basepairs (bp). The Human genome is 3.5 billion base pairs which includes nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. The smallest known genome belongs to a bacterium called Mycoplasma genitalium, a cousin of the species recently synthesised and sensationalised by Craig Venter’s team. This bacteria has a genome of approximately 300,000 base pairs. Thus we have a starting point from which to estimate the size of the smallest living (viable) organism. If then calculate the probability of the naturalistic (unguided) and spontaneous organisation of an organism of this size we find that the number is approximately 1 in 10^40,000. That is to say that the exact genome required for a single celled bacterium (the smallest we know) to spontaneously emerge from nonliving matter has a probability of 1 chance in 1 followed by 40,000 zeros. This figure is obtained by pure by mathematical means by Hubert Yockey and others. Thus from this we have a single and undisputed fact which may be applied to this argument, that is: Pr(A) = 1/(10^40,000) Eq. 3 where Pr(A) is the probability of the naturalistic origin of life
Logical Proof The mathematical proof for supernatural creation is thus as follows: 1. Let the nonnatural (supernatural) origin of life equal S. 2. From Eq. 1 let the naturalistic origin of life necessarily equal !S (nonsupernatural). 3. From Eq. 2 we see that we can know the probability of the supernatural origin of life Pr(S) if we know the naturalistic origin of life Pr(!S). 4. From Eq. 3 we find that we know the probability of the naturalistic origin of life: 1/(10^40,000). 5. We can thus calculate the probability of the supernatural origin of life from Eq. 2 as follows: Pr(S) = 1 – Pr(!S) = 1  1/(10^40,000) = 1  ~0 = 1 (certainty) 6. Thus the probability that life originated supernaturally is 1 (which is a certainty).
Objections This proof is logically sound so will probably be attacked on the point of fact, namely the minimum viable size of the genome of the first living organism. Even if that size was conceded to be half what it is actually empirically known to be, the result would still be the same. Another objection normally raised in the face of the overwhelming improbability of abiogenesis is that we have millions of years for this to happen, but that ignores the fact that supernatural creation exactly the same amount of time to cause the emergence life. In fact supernatural creation is not limited by time (which is a naturalistic phenomenon) and so has infinitely longer to create life.
Conclusion If the naturalistic origin of life is impossible then many of the equally or vastly more improbable steps from molecules to man are more impossible naturalistically. This leaves only supernatural Creation and a Creator God, there are no other logical options. But belief in a Creator God is not sufficient to restore sound understanding, feeling, morality and meaning to life. One must go beyond simply proofs and abstract facts to seek and develop a true and meaningful relationship with God in the way that He himself has prescribed, through the love and worship of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.


Quick Reply


7 years ago :: Jul 23, 2010  10:00AM #2  
My inclination is to examine the accumulating concrete evidence rather than play with any made up probabilities and irrelevant sleightofhand parlor tricks. 

Quick Reply


7 years ago :: Jul 23, 2010  10:01AM #3  
That is to say that the exact genome required for a single celled bacterium (the smallest we know) to spontaneously emerge from nonliving matter has a probability of 1 chance in 1 followed by 40,000 zeros. Great, now you only have to show that abiogenesis hypotheses believe it was formed that way. 

Quick Reply


7 years ago :: Jul 23, 2010  10:07AM #4  
The OP notwithstanding, there has been amazing progress on the science of abiogenesis. It is just a matter of time before this science puzzle is also cracked. Is anyone aware of work being done at Harard? genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/


Quick Reply


7 years ago :: Jul 23, 2010  10:09AM #5  
The problem with OOL debates is that they don't test their core assumptions. It is more parsimonious to nip the argument in the bud, as it were. This is simple mathematics, with clear definitions and free (as free as i can make it) of any implicit assumptions. I find myself frequently accused of sophistry and sleightofhand, but it's never been demonstrated 

Quick Reply


7 years ago :: Jul 23, 2010  10:14AM #6  
Do you mean to say that the first organism did not form randomly (undirected)? Or perhaps you are saying it did not require the genome and translation machinery in the cell cytoplasm to properly function as a living selfreplicating organism? 

Quick Reply


7 years ago :: Jul 23, 2010  10:17AM #7  
No, I mean you just have to demonstrate that abiogenesis hypotheses agree with how your model says the first life formed. 

Quick Reply


7 years ago :: Jul 23, 2010  10:18AM #8  
I think EarthScientist's point is that you assume the first life to be a single celled bacterium as we know it today. This differs considerably from what current abiogenisis research is focused on. Can you support your assumption? 

Quick Reply


7 years ago :: Jul 23, 2010  10:20AM #9  
So much for your devotion to logic. This is nothing but the usual slimy creationist insinuation that science is actively trying to deny the existence of God. It is constructed from the false assertion that a naturalistic evolutionary mechanism or a naturalistic abiogenesis somehow "rules out" the existence of a creator. I see no need to go any further with the likes of you; your pseudomathematical "probability" calculations deserve only to be ignored.
This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.


Quick Reply


7 years ago :: Jul 23, 2010  10:31AM #10  
Well, I'm not sure what they are 'focused on' or what they 'agree' has any relevance to the argument. The ~300,000 bp gap is an accepted fact. The 1/(10^40,000) is the mathematical consequence of that fact. The 'undirected' emergence is the central dogma of the naturalistic theory of abiogenesis. In fact there are smaller bacterium, however, they are obligate parasites and require other living things to reproduce. You could suggest that two such organisms coincidentally came into being spontaneously but then you would actually increase the size of the effective genome by adding overheads. 

Quick Reply
