Quote:
Originally Posted by Boanerges
In the last 30 years a number of prominent scientists have attempted to calculate the odds that a free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by the chance combining of pre-existent building blocks. Harold Morowitz calculated the odds as one chance in 10100,000,000,000. Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of only the proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as one chance in 1040,000.
...the odds calculated by Morowitz and Hoyle are staggering. The odds led Fred Hoyle to state that the probability of spontaneous generation 'is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a Boeing 747 from the contents therein.' Mathematicians tell us that any event with an improbability greater than one chance in 1050 is in the realm of metaphysics -- i.e. a miracle.1
|
Oh the old probability being too high. The whole problem with the analogy and the calculable odds is that it completely disregards chemistry.
It is like looking at the spiral shape of a hurricane. The odds that by chance clouds would go in that formation are astronomical. You can come up with hundreds of reasons why this could never happen. And yet, every year, there it is. But the odds of it going in that formation by chance are done right impossible. So how is this possible? The probably here is that the astronomical probability is based on chance, it completely disregards meteorology and cyclogenesis.
Likewise, your example disregards what we know of both chemistry and abiogenesis. It isn't some freak chance of particles randomly forming a simple cell. There are many processes to this that have been tested. It is proven that amino acids can be produced in certain environments. It was first shown in the Miller–Urey experiments, which proved it could happen but did not prove that it could happen in situations that may have appeared in the early earth. In the 70s and the 80s several experiments were done with elements more abundant on the early earth. Beyond that, now we also know several ways that it is possible for these amino acids to bond into replicating RNA. The question is really which one of these methods created the effective life forms that are the base of life today. And thats if it only comes from one source! If you consider the possibility of horizontal gene transfer.
Basically we cannot put these probabilities like the ones you mention because it doesn't seem to take all the chemistry that is involved with abiogenesis and seem to just think about it as just chance assembly which it isn't.
I still don't see how evolution is a religion. Many forms of Christianity have openly accepted evolution. In fact, there are more Christians who believe in evolution than there are Young Earth creationist and Genesis literalists.