(세기의 대석학)스티븐호킹박사의 외계인존재 증명

[윤범석]

 

스티븐 호킹 (Stephen William Hawking, Stephen Hawkin..)

물리학자

출생

1942년 1월 8일 (만 72세), 영국 | 말띠, 염소자리

학력

캠브리지 대학교 대학원 물리학 박사 졸업외 1건

 

스티븐호킹박사의 외계인존재 증명 우주관련

2014/02/01 16:36

http://blog.naver.com/zpdlgns/90189506687

전용뷰어 보기

Photo NASA

Stephen Hawking

Stephen Hawking was, for thirty years, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, and is one of the world’s foremost cosmologists. He regularly features in popular science television programmes, and his phenomenally successful book, A Brief History of Time, has over nine million copies in print.¹ His latest book The Grand Design declares that no creator was necessary (see detailed refutation).

In one of his most recent broadcasts, Stephen Hawking’s universe,² he unequivocally subscribes to the view that extraterrestrials are probably common place. Since our galaxy is just one of 100 billion, he argues, “the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational.” Indeed, he claims, “Stars Wars and Star Trek … may be closer to reality than we think … in our vast, ancient universe, almost any form that is physically possible is likely to exist or have existed somewhere.”

Hawking offers two explanations as to how life might have begun on Earth. The first is that this happened by accident—that random collisions of amino acids in a primordial soup, over millions of years, just happened to produce the right combination of molecules. This he describes as “the ultimate, lucky break that started the chain of life.” In making this statement, he demonstrates that he is unaware of the simple chemical fact that amino acids in a soup would not spontaneously link up; rather, any chains would break down—see Origin of life: the polymerization problem. Furthermore, there are other components of any primordial soup that would block chains from growing or destroy the amino acids. But this article is concerned mainly with his probability fallacies.

Although he accepts that the chance of life arising spontaneously is very small, he does not feel that this is a problem for this theory. “It’s like winning a lottery” he claims. “Although the odds are astronomical, most weeks, someone hits the jackpot.”

The second explanation he gives is panspermia—that life was seeded on earth by asteroids—a view shared by fellow atheist Francis Crick (see Designed by aliens? Discoverers of DNA’s structure attack Christianity). However, as we have pointed out many times before, all this does is transfer the problem of life’s origin to another time and place in the universe. See also Panspermia theory burned to a crisp: bacteria couldn’t survive on meteorite.

Given Hawking’s mathematical background, his treatment of the probability of life beginning in the way he suggests is astonishing. Moreover, his confusing the issue with a lottery beggars belief.

Given Hawking’s mathematical background, his treatment of the probability of life beginning in the way he suggests is astonishing. Moreover, his confusing the issue with a lottery beggars belief. In a typical lottery, with say a million participants, where each person buys just one ticket and the winning number is drawn from the numbers purchased, the probability of a particular participant winning is one in a million. However the probability that there will be a winner is one (a guaranteed certainty!). There is no certainty that life will arise from a pool of amino acids. Hawking is really just ‘cheating with chance’. Other lotteries are organised slightly differently, and it is possible that the winning number will not have been purchased. However, the fact that “most weeks, someone hits the jackpot” shows that there is still a high probability of someone winning.

For life to begin through the random shuffling of chemicals in a primordial soup, many exceedingly unlikely events must take place. Not just one, but many particular combinations of molecules must be formed. The probability of just one protein forming from amino acids is tiny. The probability of many forming is too small to be considered credible. Let’s have a look at a few simple calculations.

As everyone knows, the probability of tossing a coin and it landing ‘heads up’ is 1 in 2 (i.e. 0.5). The probability of two coins landing ‘heads up’ is 1 in 4 (i.e. 0.5² = 0.25). The probability of three coins landing ‘heads up’ is 1 in 8 (i.e. 0.5³ = 0.125). The probability of a hundred coins landing ‘heads up’ is 0.5¹⁰⁰, that is around 1 in 10³⁰. (10³⁰ is 1 followed by 30 zeroes.) A similar calculation might be made for amino acids forming proteins (the building blocks of life).

Diagram of chirality.

Amino acids (except the simplest, glycine) come in two forms—‘left-handed’ and ‘right-handed’. This is known as chirality (see diagram, right). For a number of amino acids to form a functional protein, they must all be like-handed (or homochiral). In actual fact, proteins in living organisms have all left-handed amino acids. For a short protein of only 100 amino acids, the probability of this occurring is the same as a hundred coins landing ‘heads up’, i.e. 1 in 10³⁰. (The homochirality problem is even more acute for RNA and DNA, which contain all right-handed sugars. One wrong-handed molecule can disrupt replication by terminating the growing chain.)

The minimum number of proteins required to assemble a working, self-replicating cell is estimated to be at least 387 (see How simple can life be?). Let us be particularly generous to evolution theory and say that only 300 are required. What is the probability of 300 amino acid chains arising with the characteristics outlined above? Again, the calculation is easy. It is 1 in 10^{(30 x 300)}, i.e. 1 in 10^9,000.

But what about Hawking’s point that our galaxy is just one of 100 billion? Given the many, many billions of planets that exist and the alleged 14 or 15 billion years that the universe has been around, surely it’s reasonable to believe that life evolved on at least a few of these planets?

Let us do some more basic calculations. 1 in 10^9,000 is the probability of tossing a set of 29,897 coins and all of them landing ‘heads up’ (because 0.5^29,897 = 10^–9,000, i.e. 1 in 10^9,000). Supposing every atom in the universe (of which there are an estimated 10⁸⁰) turned into a machine capable of tossing a set of 29,897 coins all at once, a billion times each second. How many sets of 29,897 coins could we toss in the alleged 15 billion years the universe has existed?

The answer is 10⁸⁰ x 15 x 10⁹ x 365 x 24 x 60 x 60 x 10⁹ = 5 x 10¹⁰⁶, say 10¹⁰⁷.

The chances of achieving something with a probability of 10^–9,000 when 10¹⁰⁷ attempts are made is 10^–9,000 x 10¹⁰⁷ = 10^–8,893, i.e. 1 in 1 followed by 8,893 zeroes. This is such an unimaginably small fraction that the idea of proteins forming by random collisions of amino acids to form a living, self-replicating cell may be seen to be utterly, utterly implausible.

Evolutionists themselves have admitted that ‘The activation of amino acids and the formation of peptides under primordial conditions is one of the great riddles of the origin of life.’

Moreover, this is just the beginning of the problems for these kinds of origin of life scenarios.³ For example, not only do the amino acids have to be like-handed, they must bond to each other in a particular way—that is, they must form ‘peptide bonds’. Even in a specially prepared protected environment (in a test tube), experiments indicate that there is only a 1 in 2 chance of this happening with each amino acid. Hence, the probability of 100 amino acids coming together by chance, all having the same handedness and all forming peptide bonds, is around 1 in 10⁶⁰.⁴ Chemists who make proteins actually block non-peptide reaction sites with “protecting groups”, then remove those after the reaction (and they exclude water and any alkali).⁵ The primordial soup didn’t have such helpful chemists around. Indeed, evolutionists themselves have admitted that “The activation of amino acids and the formation of peptides under primordial conditions is one of the great riddles of the origin of life.”⁶

Furthermore, there are any one of 20 types of amino acid that could assemble themselves in any of the 100 positions along the chain. Hence, there are 20¹⁰⁰ = 10¹³⁰ ways that the protein could form. Only a very small fraction of these would form the functional proteins needed to get the simplest biological cell going.⁷ Further to this, a self replicating cell would require other complex molecules such as RNA/DNA—and there are similar problems with handedness, as mentioned above, as well as with linking up at all, let alone in the right way, and obtaining the right sequence (see Evolutionist criticisms of the RNA World conjecture). No wonder the Nobel Prize-winner, Jacques Monod, argued that the probability of life emerging by random processes is so small that it might be considered to be “zero”.⁸

Hawking’s conviction that evolution is true appears to be more intuitive than scientific. “In such a massive place as the cosmos,” he opines, “we only have to look at ourselves for proof that extremely unlikely things can and do happen all the time.” In other words, whatever the difficulties in explaining evolution, the existence of humans is proof that it can happen. Talk about begging the question!⁹

Many evolutionists have now abandoned pure chance as an explanation for life’s origin. They tend to favour the idea that currently unobserved natural laws exist which caused functional proteins and RNA/DNA molecules to form. They believe that, if they continue their research, they will discover these laws.¹⁰ But this is a faith, as evolutionary information theorist Hubert Yockey admitted. Of course, belief in biblical creation is also a faith. However, unlike Hawking’s origin of life scenarios, Christianity is supported by real historical evidence.

 솔직히 저도 뭔말인지 모릅니다 ㅋㅋ UFO연구동호회에서 해석한 것에서 봤는데 원본 복붙입니다.

저작권침해라고 하시지 마시길 여기서는 모든 퍼가는 행위를 허용함

일부를 해석하면,

"숫자자체만 봐도 외계인에 대해 설명하는 것은 이성적이며 합당하다.우주에서 스타워즈나 스타트랙은 우리가 생각하는 것보다 실제로 벌어질 듯한 것들이다.막대한 우주안에 그러한 생명들은 어떠한 방식으로던지 곳곳에 존재할 것이다."

Although he accepts that the chance of life arising spontaneously is very small, he does not feel that this is a problem for this theory. “It’s like winning a lottery” he claims. “Although the odds are astronomical, most weeks, someone hits the jackpot.”

아주 희박한 확률에서 복권당첨자가 나오는 것처럼, 생명체 역시 우주 곳곳에서 나온다는 이야기. 

호킹은 두가지의 이론을 추천하였는데,

1.첫번째는 원시바다에서 생명에 필요한 분자들이 우연적으로 아주 운좋고 딱맞게 결합되었다는 원시수프이론(우연이라는 것은 과학이 아니라 주장하는 것인데, '우연'적이므로 우연이 일어날 확률이 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%라면, 이 숫자보다 우주에 존재하는 행성의 수가 더 많으므로 실연 가능함.지구가 기적의 별이라 하는 이유.)

2.생명이 우주의 소행성들(예-운석)에 의해 운반되었을 상황

이 두가지를 추천하였다고 함.

원본

http://creation.com/hawking-aliens-life-by-chance

UFO연구동호회 원본

http://cafe.naver.com/ufoseti/22405

[