“WE CONCLUDE – UNEXPECTEDLY – that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” – Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Illinois, Chicago, The American Naturalist, November 1992
“Darwin’s theory is no closer to resolution than ever.” – David Berlinski, author of The Devil’s Delusion
In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”
Followers of Darwin's Tautology are asked to explain:
How a polypeptide of 1,000 amino acid residues in length originally constructed itself using naturalistic means, given the fact that each successive residue was 1 out of 20 different amino acids used in human proteins. 1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20 to the 1,000th power = 1 in 10 to the 1301 power
"Impossible" is defined as 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power. Richard Dawkins himself defines impossible as 1 chance in 10 to the 40th power.
Nor does this insuperable number take in to account the folding of the polypeptide.
It doesn't even take in to account the chirality of amino acids, which can be D or L.
We are made of L, the Left-handed variety. 1 chance in 2 to the 1,000th power. But I digest.
There are at least 10,000 polypeptides in the human body so multiply that out as well.
10 to the 50th grains of sand would fill 15 spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto.
Pick one grain out of 15 solar system sized spheres on your first and only try. That is 1 in 10 to the 50. You don't get an infinite number of tries. That's not the definition of "one in 10 to the 50th".