Hoyle was also referring to the following...
quote by Hoyle:
"The big problem in biology isn't so much the rather crude fact that a
protein consists of a chain of amino acids linked together in a certain way,
but that the explicit ordering of the amino acids endows the chain with
remarkable properties... If amino acids were linked at random, there would
be a vast number of arrangements that would be useless to serving the
puposes of a living cell. When you consider that a typical enzyme has a
chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each
link, it's easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous,
more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest
telescopes. This is for one enzyme, and there are upwards of 2000 of them,
mainly serving very different purposes".
"Rather than accept the fantastically small probability of life having
arisen through the blind forces of nature, it seemed better to suppose that
the origin of life was a deliberate intellectual act".
Tom C.
From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net>
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net>
Subject: Re: Global warming was: The Nine-spotted
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:44:15 -0400
Astronomers do not seem to understand chance, do they. If the chance is a
billion to one, what is the change of it happening in the next iteration?
One in two, no matter what particular iteration it is in, it has as much
chance of happening the next time as it does of not happening. In other
words there is no necessity of it going through a billion iterations before
it happens. And there is no assurance that it will happen even once in that
particular billion iterations. Once again no intelligent design is
necessary.
--
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Tom C wrote:
> graywolf wrote:
>
>>
>> Hard to accept that you are not somehow special, isn't it. Personally
>> I believe random chance over >millions of years is the simplest answer.
>>
>
>
> Noted British Astonomer Fred Hoyle wrote (note I'm using this as an
> example of a noted and respected scientist, not that I agree with
> everything he says or that he's always correct... who is?)
>
> "if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without
> being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion,
> one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing
> measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design."
>
> Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of
> enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 10 *40,000 power.
> Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny
> by comparison (10 *80 power), he argued that even a whole universe full
> of primordial soup wouldnt 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." Hoyle also compared the chance
> of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of
> amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube
> simultaneously.
>
>
>
> Tom C.
>
>
>
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
