[continued from previous message]   
      
   > microbiological geometry of amino acids and a search for the    
   > probability of creating a protein by mindless chance as specified by    
   > evolution. Hubert Yockey published a monograph on the microbiology,    
   > information theory, and mathematics necessary to accomplish that feat.   
   > Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of    
   > iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein common in plants and animals, is    
   > an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion. The    
   > magnitude of this impossibility may be appreciated by realizing that    
   > ten billion vigintillion is one followed by 75 zeros. Or to put it in    
   > evolutionary terms, if a random mutation is provided every second from   
   > the alleged birth of the universe, then to date that protein molecule    
   > would be only 43% of the way to completion. Yockey concluded, "The    
   > origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in    
   > probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is    
   > impossible in probability."   
   >    
   > To have a little fun on this, Mastropaolo says famed atheist and    
   > supporter of evolutionary theory Richard Dawkins agreed when he    
   > states, “Suppose we want to suggest, for instance, that life began    
   > when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery    
   > spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves    
   > the luxury of such an extravagant theory, provided that the odds    
   > against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100    
   > billion billion to one."  The 100 billion billion is 10^20. So    
   > Dawkins' own criterion for impossible in probability, one chance in    
   > more than 10^20, has been exceeded by 50 orders of magnitude for only    
   > one molecule of one small protein. Now that Professor Dawkins has    
   > joined the ranks of non-believers in evolution, politesse forbids    
   > inquiring whether he considers himself "ignorant, stupid, insane, or    
   > wicked."   
   >    
   > It gets even more mathematically impossible in the rest of the    
   > article, but I’ll let you read that on your own and only make one    
   > last cite. “Life was designed. It did not evolve. The certainty of    
   > these conclusions is 10^4,478,296 (1 followed by 4,478,296 zeros) to    
   > one.” These numbers are not refuted, they simply get ignored.   
   >    
   > There are so many tasks proteins do in the cell, it hard to fathom.     
   > It is the scope of what I am trying to get across, but they are so    
   > numerous it is mind boggling.  I haven't even touched on the fact that    
   > every cell contains the "information" necessary to perform its    
   > function, DNA, and the fact that the energy necessary to form the DNA    
   > was unavailable.  All of these different processes and actions have    
   > “chicken-or-egg problems evolutionists must confront.”  The    
   > precise size and shape of each folded protein is a perfect example    
   > with how it managed to form that way in the first place.  How did   
   > lifeless, brainless amino acids form a protein, folded in the perfect    
   > shape to do a specific task, at a specific location in the body, in    
   > enough quantity, at just the right time?   
   >    
   > I'll give three specific examples of this next I think you'll like,    
   > and they all reside within the cell.   
      
   You seem to be leaning heavily toward intelligent design. Where do you    
   speculate that the intelligent designer came from?   
      
   --    
   bill   
   Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)