mihkel4397: Fred Hoyle's calculation of probability of abiogenesis

I hate to say it, but can't any idiot figure out that Hoyle's model is crock?Running sequential trials for complicated organic sequences is going to take a long time. Running simultaneous trials will not. Creationists have taken this logic and either fallaciously or ignorantly ignored that chemical reactions organic and inorganic occur every day, every minute, every second, everywhere in the trillions. Sure rolling 1 die to achieve a set of data 500 units long may take forever. Rolling a trillion will not.

sure Hoyle proved that sequential trials are impossible, but that does not make him right or his model accurate. Merely winning a prize for good math doesn't mean your model is realistic.The only difference between inorganic and organic is their source. And their chemistry of creation is quite important, hence why there are studies of inorganic and organic.The fundemental problem with the trials that have been done is that they were using small scale models (comparatively) that often didn't have the right mixture of conditions on earth. The Miller-Urey experiment actually got amino acids, but it was using conditions that didn't exist on the planet.

But weren't the proposed compositions of the early atmosphere that was used in the experiment criticized as not being accurate given new findings? That I recall was the serious flaw within the experiment and why it is not considered that credible in abiogenesis today.Also, just for my curosity, which of the amino acids did it not produce? I remember that it produced the majority of them.

while we're off the topic, aren't we forgetting that Sol is too small in virtually every aspect to go supernova?The only way that it could be done would be to remove a subsantial amount of mass from the star at once to cause instability. Anyone got a wormhole handy?