One chance in 10^50 is an impossibility.

@NotEvolution1 Hoyle was never a Mathematician.. just the astronomer! He believed in steady-state model", and panspermia as the origin of life on Earth. Evolution comes after origin! Hoyle also wrote science fiction novels, short stories, and radio plays, co-created television serials. FICTION!

@NotEvolution1 The odds you're quoting aren't relevant. Nobody's saying a complete cell popped into existence. Maybe stop striking victory poses over fallen strawmen and actually learn about the topic you're so interested in?

@NotEvolution1 This dickhead doesn’t believe in dentistry. I can’t believe shit he talking about.

Chat with the most truthful AI on Earth. Try Grok free today.

@NotEvolution1 Why didn't the intelligent mind do a better job?

@NotEvolution1 So it should be no surprise that we're the only planet in our galaxy that appears to have life

@NotEvolution1 it says "intelligent design" here... which is a FAIRY TALE.... LOL...

@NotEvolution1 Notice how he is not a biologist. I’m sure he’s smart, but I wouldn’t take a biologists word as expert opinion in Astrophysics so we should not take an astrophysicist words on biology as expert payment

@NotEvolution1 This statistic was concludd in cooperation with mathematician and astronomer Chandra Wickramasinghe.

@NotEvolution1 No problem. Just add another 100 billion years. 😆

@NotEvolution1 The existence of his orthodontist is a clear impossibility

@NotEvolution1 Show your work. How was this probability calculated, especially when we don't know how the first cell arose.

@NotEvolution1 First: Any such calculation of odds is impossible Second: said calculations assume random chance is the primary driving factor, when it's not - it's *CHEMISTRY*.

@NotEvolution1 So is getting a theist to understand that these big numbers are not only errors but irrelevant

@NotEvolution1 And all this post shows is you don’t understand statistics.

@NotEvolution1 It’s clear from cherrypicked quotes like this that your aim is not knowledge and understanding but scoring cheap evangelical debates points.

@NotEvolution1 It's funny...Hoyle has a fallacy named for him: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkyard_…

@NotEvolution1 No. It's an improbability. There is a difference. But this is the Gambler's fallacy anyway. The odds you'd read 'xxgytd$%a' at this exact moment were astronomical a week ago. Yet here we are. Calculating odds in hindsight is nonsense.

@NotEvolution1 This short easy-to-understand video explains how long it would take for amino acids to form a single functional protein by themselves: youtu.be/W1_KEVaCyaA

@NotEvolution1 It's curious that out of all the tens of millions of people who see these anti-evolution posts, it is only bitter old white men that troll them. The statistical, scientific, repeatable conclusion; evolution is misogynistic and racist. As are its adherents.

@NotEvolution1 WOW! that argument convinces me! I now know that Zeus created the universe.

42 agents. 216 threads. One dashboard. Every agent gets its own prompt, tools, skills, and budget. Deploy specialized agents across your company. From the team at Airtable.

@NotEvolution1 Why should I trust an Astrophysicist in matters of biology?

@NotEvolution1 Literally it isn't. There is about an 8*10^67 chance that a pack of cards is going to finish the shuffle the way it does. And yet every time you shuffle you get your deck of cards in an order.

@NotEvolution1 Good thing it wasn't random and didn't have to be a 100% modern cell day 1. Lol

@NotEvolution1 Sorry. Had to………

@NotEvolution1 The chance of a brain-dead creationist understanding the various hypotheses on origin of life are 1 in 10^40,000,000

@NotEvolution1 Add infinite time, plus a lottery analogy where there’s a drawing every fraction of a moment, and voilà, the chances that a living cell emerges by random process goes from 1 in 10^50 to 100%. In fact, life continues to randomly pop up all around us now..

@NotEvolution1 Why are you making an Appeal To Authority to an astronomer? Can't you make any case of your own at all?

@NotEvolution1 Do you have proof for this? Why then is the "cell" not mentioned in the bible or any religious text. Surely an "intelligent mind" would (in practice) mention it? If it was an "impossibility" the number would be 0 in 10 to any "power"? There is a chance AND an impossibility DUH

@NotEvolution1 IMPOSSIBLE!!!

@NotEvolution1 Lets all just make up numbers to support our delusions.

@NotEvolution1 Look at those lovely British teeth ...

@NotEvolution1 No, it isn't. And I question the veracity of the number anyway.

@NotEvolution1 Show your math.

@NotEvolution1 I’m afraid this is just the Hoyle fallacy warmed up for people who think probability is a spell. I do not claim a modern living cell appeared fully formed in one step by "random processes", like a bacterium falling out of a cosmic raffle drum. That is the creationist cartoon. It is not biology, and it is not abiogenesis research. Abiogenesis is about chemistry under constraints: energy gradients, catalytic surfaces, membranes, replication, selection-like filtering, self-organisation, and incremental complexity. Evolution is then about heredity, variation and selection. Selection is not random. Chemistry is not random in the sense your meme requires. Atoms do not assemble life by pulling Scrabble tiles out of a bag. The trick here is obvious: calculate the odds of something nobody serious says happened, declare it impossible, then pretend you have refuted science. I can also "disprove" bridges by calculating the chance of one assembling instantly from a tornado in B&Q. So no, "1 in 10^40000" is not an argument against evolution or abiogenesis. It is just a very large number being used to conceal a very small understanding of the subject.

@NotEvolution1 Name a random process.

@NotEvolution1 Evolution isn't random though