We've all seen those impressive calculations by Fred Hoyle and heard Emile Borel's infinite monkeys argument. I was wondering just how valid those arguments were.
Based on what I've read, there are several problems with them, and I was wondering if any Creationists could explain why, in light of those problems, the arguments are still sound.
Here's the list of problems:
1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.
2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.
3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.
4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.
5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.
2007-10-19
03:45:49
·
13 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Religion & Spirituality