Questions for atheists?

Question

I have seen various people ask questions about atheism and evolution and it always causes people to say stupid crap and get off topic. I have a question that I honestly want answered. It is not a shot at atheists it is a question. Frederick Hoyle is a famous mathematician who said the chances for one cell to form with the correct amino acids is about 1 in 10 to the 40000th power. Now mathematicians consider any number beyond 1 in 10 to the 50th power a mathematical impossibility. Now given this information do evolutions disregard these astronomical odds when considering evolution? How do evolutionists deal with the numbers, not the science. probability is an amazing thing and I am just trying to get some input from some evolutionists.

From Wikipedia:

Published in his 1982/1984 books Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 1040,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that even a whole universe full of primordial soup wouldn’t have a chance. He claimed:

The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.

Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

Answer 1

I would like more proof, and I can answer your question properly but because I do so, let me add something....
How is this probability different than the lack of evidence bearing on religious beliefs (e.i. the bible) -- By comparison, I would believe something with 1 in 10 to the 50th power before I believe something that has NEVER been proven.
Does this not make logical sense?

For the RECORD, your information is coming from WIKIPEDIA -- This is a information database provided by regular people... and BIT of this information can be fictional and written to obscure TRUTH -- thus, your point is erroneous.

NEXT PLEASE? Any other SOURCE?

And where's your proof of the bible, still?

Answer 2

The probability of any event is the product
(multiplication) of all the events that lead up
to it.

There are an infinite number of events that lead
up to anything happening now.

The probability of most of those events is less than
one.

The product of an infinite number of probabilities
less than one is zero.

Therefore the probability of any event happening now
is zero.

Therefore you don't exist.

So shutup.

Just kidding.

First off, not all Atheists subscribe to Hoyle's numbers.

Secondly, it is extremely unlikely that that is the only
selection of amino acids that would produce similar
results. The probability of any single given combination
may be effectively nil, but the probability of a working
combination is not, and when you look at the size
and age of the universe, the probabilities start approaching
more probable than not.

For that matter, as elegant a method of generating
proteins and propagating patterns of cellular
management as amino acids are, there is nothing
to say that there aren't other solutions that wouldn't
work as well or better. Indeed, they may exist on
other planets elsewhere in the Universe. The logic
works the reverse way: If it didn't happen, we wouldn't
be talking about it - so the fact that we are talking about
it means that at least SOMETHING capable of doing
happened - that it was this particular combination
of amino acids that did it may or may not be more
probable than some other method.

Thirdly, by pushing the answer off onto God, you are
not answer the question - you're simply giving up.
"He did it. Go ask him."

Answer 3

Thats a good point - I have seen the calculation you reference and it is very interesting. It seems to take into account all known influences in the likelyhood of amino acids forming spontaneously, to eventually lead to life. I am not a biologist or a statistitian mind you, so there may be something I have missed.

I would suggest that there maybe some unknown influence which makes it more likely for amino acids to form spontaneously than the mathematical model predicts - because at the end of the day, that is all it is, a mathematical model.

Answer 4

Mr. Hoyle was also a science fiction writer, in the early 1900's. From what I understand of his research, there are many statements made by him that are debated by some of the greatest minds in Astrology.

With that being said, even with the odds that you state, given enough time (evolutionists claim billions of years to develop life as we know it), anything is feasible.

Given enough time on this planet, every one of us can win the lottery multiple times. That doesn't mean that it will happen that way however.

Be careful believing the "numbers", as you can massage numbers to state any truth that you seek. After three decades in sales, I can prove anything.

Answer 5

Those stats are really baseless. Yes, it is true. If you were to just throw amino acids together, the chance of them forming a modern cell in the configuration it is today is unimaginably remote. And the chance is far too remote for it to have happened.

However, cells weren't formed by throwing amino acids together randomly. First, amino acids don't just come together randomly. There are tendencies of some types of connections over others. Also, if one combination replicates, as has been shown to be possible, it uses up the resources of the other amino acids.

Once you have replicating chains, those chains also compete for resources and the ones most efficient at doing so will out populate those that are less efficient. So, they don't all get the same chance.

Also, they don't just come together to form a modern cell. There are very many iterations between the first few chains coming together and replicating to the modern cell. And while it is unimaginably unprobable for random amino acids to just suddenly form cells, it is very probable for a slightly more complex chain to outperform a slightly less efficient chain. And each step along the way from simple chain to complex modern cell is not that unprobable.

Answer 6

Impossible things happen every day. The odds are totally against any individual person surviving to the next day. Just think of all the different ways you can die and how little you can do to protect yourself. The odds against you living until tomorrow are much higher than 1 in 10 to the 50th power. And yet, people do it all the time.

Answer 7

Well buddy that is just one guy ? Science doesn't put thier voice in one person, but many like Carl Sagan, and Jane Goodall who discovered recently that apes actually spear for thier food, which was once only thought to be a human trait. With the Fossil records, and DNA evidence, science views evolution as a fact, no longer a theory. So the person you got your information from is wrong. Try some people that believe in Evolution, to study Evolution, before you knock it. That's like me listening to an Atheist about Christianity. Just doesn't work.

Answer 8

thats just one mathematician, and he probably left a large number of factors out

whenever you look into things like that when people try to prove stuff using probability, usually you can find a large number of things being left out; other possibilities, the large span of time that it could have taken place in, etc

plus there are sooo many factors it really would be hard not to miss some things, even for a smart guy like Hoyle.

Answer 9

how can you not believe in evolution?
We are prime examples of it.
In the Egyptian times men and women were up to 7, 8 even 9 feet tall with a shoe size of 12 or higher.. that's why we have 12 inches in a foot.
Now days.. people are shorter, fatter, with smaller shoe sizes.. not to mention our young women are getting periods at the age of nine even younger!
When in the fifties the average age was 14 and even 16 what do you think would have to us if this progress 20, 30 even 100 more years.. can you even imagine what we will look like?

Answer 10

I never heard this one before

Hoyle was a champion of Steady State and mocked the primordial atom by calling it Big Bang.

He also believed, as did all, that Pluto was a Planet.

That puts his credibility in a bind.

And I'm religious!

Sorry, but he has a lot of strikes against him!