The only interesting question is whether the same theory can
account for both the derivation of species and the origin of living systems.
On Fri, 6 Sep 1996, Jerry Clark wrote:
> David Beorn wrote:
>> > Well, I don't know that we can say with CERTAINTY that life evolved but
> > people certainly do SAY it. I've heard calculations that to just form
> > one protein (amino acid?? I think) by chance, one of the building
> > blocks of life is 10 to the 46th power - and that's not even life. So the
> > probability for life is significantly greater than that. And the time
> > involved is significantly greater than the longest estimates for the age
> > of the earth - so what conclusions should you draw from this??
>> Estimates like this keep cropping up in sci.math (and elsewehere)
> so let's knock them on the head once and for all: Nobody in their
> right mind is suggesting that proteins (made up of amino acids),
> eyeballs or any of the accoutrements of life did crop up
> _"by chance"_, so the probability estimate is irrelevant.
> Evolution is a highly plausible theory which explains their
> development. The fact that evolutionary theory 'involves'
> probability theory is often a cause of confusion, and people
> end up thinking that it is just the action of 'blind chance'.
> It isn't.
>> --Jeremy Clark