Check users, creationist, Administrators
22,649
edits
m (→Related References: Spelling correction) |
|||
Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
Now since evolution needs the consistency of related mutations to work at all, what are the odds of getting three related mutations? That is one in a billion trillion, or 10<sup>21</sup>. Suddenly the ocean isn't big enough to hold enough bacteria to make that chance likely. You can quickly tell that at just three related mutations, evolution via mutations as its mechanism to produce ape to man changes is woefully inadequate. | Now since evolution needs the consistency of related mutations to work at all, what are the odds of getting three related mutations? That is one in a billion trillion, or 10<sup>21</sup>. Suddenly the ocean isn't big enough to hold enough bacteria to make that chance likely. You can quickly tell that at just three related mutations, evolution via mutations as its mechanism to produce ape to man changes is woefully inadequate. | ||
Also, quite contrary to evolution predicting that mutations, given enough time can indeed produce vastly more complex and radical genomic structures, recent research published in the ''Journal of Molecular Biology'' by Douglas Axe, a [[protein]] scientist, shows just how exceptionally rare the chance of getting certain working protein sequences can be. In other words, as Dr. Axe wrote regarding the probability it is, "less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion." [http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-bchapman_10edi.ART.State.Edition1.43d902d.html] | |||
== Related References == | == Related References == |