Evolution debunked

[Cup_o_Joe]

Sir Frederick Hoyle conducted an experiment with some students and a super computer and estimated that the probability that the proteins found in an ameba is 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000th power.

A probability of 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000th power is very small. To that consider this, the chance of snatching a perticular atom in the entire universe is 1 chance in 10 to the 80th power.

It’s enough to bury Darwin.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ve79HhcKKXs

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Sir Frederick Hoyle conducted an experiment with some students and a super computer and estimated that the probability that the proteins found in an ameba is 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000th power.

A probability of 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000th power is very small. To that consider this, the chance of snatching a perticular atom in the entire universe is 1 chance in 10 to the 80th power.

It’s enough to bury Darwin.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ve79HhcKKXs

Nicely done

 

[GaryTaylor]

I actually don’t find this surprizing. But you know what, its really as I mentioned on another thread. Those who dedicated there life to evolution are simply not going to be detered by this.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Er…I hate to say this, but you guys are committing a logical fallacy.

What you’re forgetting is that the odds of the proteins being arranged in any other way would be equally unlikely. Would the conclusion be the same if the proteins had been arranged any other way? Of course not.

Or, put another way, since it happened that way it’s the only way it could have happened.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Sir Frederick Hoyle conducted an experiment with some students and a super computer and estimated that the probability that the proteins found in an ameba is 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000th power.

A probability of 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000th power is very small. To that consider this, the chance of snatching a perticular atom in the entire universe is 1 chance in 10 to the 80th power.

It’s enough to bury Darwin.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ve79HhcKKXs

That probability is certainly sufficient to bury whatever model of abiogenesis that Hoyle simulated, but not Darwin. Darwinism doesn’t rely on any particular theory of abiogenesis, anyway.

 

[JohnDamian]

This does not debunk evolution per se.

This only pronounced that specific mode of abiogenesis to be improbably (not impossible).

 

[Shiranui117]

That vid completely ignores the fact that RNA could have come first, as stated more commonly. The RNA’s skill and primary objective, even today, is to gather the amino acids required for a particular polypeptide chain (AKA a protein). Moreover, ribosomes in and of themselves are nothing but a huge wad of RNA, and there are 2 other types of RNA that work in conjunction with the ribosome: mRNA and tRNA. It’s not quite a whirlwind putting together an airplane, but more like a couple of workers putting together an airplane.