Fred Hoyle calculated the chance of spontaneously assembling 2000 proteins, of 200 amino acids each, at 1 in 10 to power of 40,000.
As Hoyle was a physicist and astronomer rather than a biochemist, his assertions on protein assembly could be called into question. He certainly didn't understand the combined working tenets of random mutation acted upon by non-random natural selection......otherwise he wouldn't have come up with your statement (which you don't source) nor his famous 'Hoyle's Fallacy (AKA 'Junkyard tornado' -
Link to Wiki article ) which only goes to illustrate that Hoyle hadn't got a handle on the ToE.
I've posted this before but never had a meaningful response by a creationist.
Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell (online lecture):
Page not found | UW Video
Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.
What this does is show how those massive odds against evolution that some folks calculate (or make up) are not an accurate model of what is really going on.
But then creationists don't seem to care if their models are accurate as long as they mirror the correct dogma.
(Aside: a creationist on another website was fond of telling us the odds against evolution were 1
720. He couldn't understand why we laughed at him.)
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2
