I thought you were finished here... -_-Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman
I don't see how telling me that I misunderstood it will change the situation, do you?
And again, I didn't mention monkeys.
As for your AiG quote. Why do they assume one letter per second? Doesn't that seem exteremely slow for a planet with billions of billions of billions of billions of billions of billions of atoms (this is an underestimate), each whizzing around at speeds on the order of several kilometers per second? I would say that there would be several billion collisions in each nanosecond, as an underestimate.
Morowitz is one of the leading thinkers on abiogenesis, no doubt this number quoted here is his thoughts on the chance of life arising by chance. He believes that abiogenesis would be guided by the laws of nature, i.e. not by chance.
Sir Fred fails to have any mention of natural selection, It would be similar to a tornado going through a junkyard and any piece which fell into the right place would stay there. You could see that given a fairly small amount of time, we could expect to get a boeing, especially if we have billions of billions of junkyards and tornados.
Both of the examples are dealing with random chance, and do not take natural selection into account, and then the article states that from these examples they deem natural selection to be unreasonable... Seems a little illogical to me.
As for the reaction with water being more favorable than the reaction liberating water: The formation of bonds requires energy, the release of bonds releases energy, This is BASIC chemistry. The release of energy is far more favorable.