tbombz, I know you didn't write this -- you merely copy-pasted this "article" (and I use the term loosely) from somewhere. Now, I normally wouldn't bother responding to shit that someone found and then pasted, especially shit of unknown origin and without attribution, but, really, this piece of trash needs debunking. I also know that you lack the ability to understand the criticisms and the knowledge to even begin to address them, so don't stress too much having to find more shit to paste on here.The complexity of bacteria is not alone in arguing against their evolution.
Nobody serious argues against the evolution of bacteria. It's been observed in laboratory conditions, in real-time for crying out loud.
The very proteins that help make up bacteria, and other living things, show evolution to be hopelessly improbable. Why is that?
"Hopelessly improbable" is such a vague term -- I think it's somewhere between "impossibly remote" and "practically impossible." Which is to say, it's just as meaningless.
If a typical protein has 400 amino acids, the odds that all of them will be left-handed would be comparable to the odds against flipping a coin and getting heads 400 times in a row. There is less than one chance in one followed by over 100 zeros—a number many times as great as all the atoms in all the galaxies of the known universe!
Except that the analogy is flawed. I know statistics aren't you cup of tea and you'd be hopelessly lost if I started talking to you about permutations and combinations and all sorts of fancy math words, but I promise to try and keep it simple. Please try to follow:
Imagine having 400 billion coins. You split them into groups of 400. You now have a billion groups. You toss all of them up in the air.
Now what is the probability that you get 400 heads? What if you had 400 quintillion coins? 400 septillion coins?
Not to mention that the whole chirality argument
assumes that the two enantiomers of each protein were equally likely, because that's what was observed in the laboratory conditions.
Yet even if an impossible random protein of 400 left-handed amino acids were to coalesce spontaneously, it would have only the slightest chance of being formed of the proper left-handed amino acids—there are 20 kinds—and in the proper order.
First of all, it's not
impossible. Tossing a coin and getting 400 heads in a row (your analogy, flawed as it is) isn't impossible - but it is
improbable. But improbable and impossible are two very different things. It's
impossible to toss a coin and get a potato. It's
improbable to toss a coin and have it land on its edge. See the difference?
Now... what's this "slighest" chance you speak of? Can you quantify it in numbers?
The spontaneous generation of proteins by chance might be illustrated this way: Suppose you had a box containing equal amounts of letters and numbers on little squares of wood, identical to the touch. Now, blindfolded, you are told to choose 400 of these little squares. The odds against your choosing letters only and no numbers are high enough. But that is not all. The 400 blocks with letters that you have chosen must spell out a meaningful, grammatically correct paragraph when laid side by side in the order you chose them.
Yeah yeah... we've been over this before. Now imagine that you have a trillion boxes and a trillion blindfolded monkeys. The above procedure is performed, with the trillion monkeys picking letters from their respective boxes concurrently. Now what is the chance of someone pulling out the letters for "
recumbentibus"? What if the procedure is repeated, a billion times? A trillion times?
And, of course, this doesn't even account for the fact that certain configurations (or arrangements of letters, if you like) are more likely than others because of physical reasons.
Thus, life can exist only when several very complex systems come into existence at the same time and operate together in perfect harmony. None of the complex systems can ever lead to even primitive life without the other systems in place.
Not entirely accurate; a lot of the systems could have come into place one at a time. They didn't need to all happen when some mystical cuckoo clock went off. But even if that were the case, so what? The Universe is somewhere around 13.75
billion years old (give or take a few hundred millions). The age of the earth alone is around 4.5
billion years. That's quite a lot of time for things to come together, fail a few trillion times, and then to finally come together again in just the right configuration.
Evolutionists face this dilemma by simply asserting their “faith” in evolution.
No they don't, your assertion to that end notwithstanding.