ex libres, I have read the site you linked to and it proves two things.
The author does not understand statistics.
and
The author does not understand modern abiogenesis theories, and thus spends most of his time attacking a straw man.
To take just a few points.
He says
quote:
To calculate the probability in such a case, the formula to use is the multiplication rule, the heart of probability theory.
This is key to probability theory, but only when a particular condition - that the events for which mulipilicative probability is being calculated are independent.
So, it works for coins: the probability of getting a head on one throw is 0.5, two heads on two throws in 0.25 and so on.
It doesn't work for dependent events so, if you throw selection into the loop, all bets are off.
Not all proteins attach at the same probability. Particular combinations are selected out.
All of these calculations are nonsense on stilts - in effect randomly multiplying together some large numbers and pretending it has meaning.
Another point, the calculations are nonsense as they assume that the abiogenesis result required is to produce, by random chance, a complete, highly evolved bacterial cell. This is a version of that farrago of nonesense the "hurricane in a junkyard" analogy. All abiogenesis requires is the production of a self-replicating molecule. At this point natural selection kicks in.
Further, the calculations assume a
particular destination, not just anyone that happens to works. As is well known from observation, protiens - even those involved in key metabolic functions such as ctyochrome c - can vary by 40% or more and still work quite happily. So, instead of lunging through probability space for a particular, unique solution, evolution can select from one of a large number of possible solutions.
Edite to correct spelling
[This message has been edited by MarkAustin, 01-21-2004]
™ Version 4.2