Fred Hoyle's calculation of probability of macro-evolution

Tomm

Christian
Site Supporter
Jan 30, 2007
1,788
895
WS
✟278,556.00
Country
Brazil
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Many years ago, Fred Hoyle published his famous calculation of probability of macro-evolution as an analogy of a Boeing-747 assembled by tornado.

In recent years, I read from somewhere that Dawkins claimed to have "refuted" Hoyle's calculation. Personally I don't believe he could have done it. I am wondering what trick or sophistry was he using? How did he create the appearance that he did ?

Does anyone here has a clue ? Thanks.
 

Yonny Costopoulis

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2017
2,930
1,301
Crete
✟60,005.00
Country
Greece
Faith
Ukr. Grk. Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Many years ago, Fred Hoyle published his famous calculation of probability of macro-evolution as an analogy of a Boeing-747 assembled by tornado.

In recent years, I read from somewhere that Dawkins claimed to have "refuted" Hoyle's calculation. Personally I don't believe he could have done it. I am wondering what trick or sophistry was he using? How did he create the appearance that he did ?

Does anyone here has a clue ? Thanks.
Hoyle calculation must be mistaken. Need to know all probabilities of all single things. Scientist still not know that so how Hoyle calculate probability without all knowledge? Is impossible so calculation must be mistaken. Google search will find better answer. Begin here.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,500
Milwaukee
✟410,948.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Many years ago, Fred Hoyle published his famous calculation of probability of macro-evolution as an analogy of a Boeing-747 assembled by tornado.

In recent years, I read from somewhere that Dawkins claimed to have "refuted" Hoyle's calculation. Personally I don't believe he could have done it. I am wondering what trick or sophistry was he using? How did he create the appearance that he did ?

Does anyone here has a clue ? Thanks.


The process of evolution uses a correcting mechanism that
adapts the system to the environmental constraints. The
systems that are "less fit" are minimized and the systems
that are a better fit will multiply.
A tornado has no such systems in place.
If you test every possible organism under every possible
set of conditions, you might find that there are engineered
limits to how far a species can go and will not change any
further. This would be evidence of "Kinds" found in scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,442
2,800
Hartford, Connecticut
✟295,968.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Many years ago, Fred Hoyle published his famous calculation of probability of macro-evolution as an analogy of a Boeing-747 assembled by tornado.

In recent years, I read from somewhere that Dawkins claimed to have "refuted" Hoyle's calculation. Personally I don't believe he could have done it. I am wondering what trick or sophistry was he using? How did he create the appearance that he did ?

Does anyone here has a clue ? Thanks.

Fred Hoyles analogy was with respect to abiogenesis, not macro evolution.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Many years ago, Fred Hoyle published his famous calculation of probability of macro-evolution as an analogy of a Boeing-747 assembled by tornado.

In recent years, I read from somewhere that Dawkins claimed to have "refuted" Hoyle's calculation. Personally I don't believe he could have done it. I am wondering what trick or sophistry was he using? How did he create the appearance that he did ?

Does anyone here has a clue ? Thanks.

He did a famous probability argument evolutionists never really have an answer for:

Yet the odds against the accidental formation of a living organism are considerably worse than the odds against a blindfolded solution of the Rubik Cube—the latter being estimated by Hoyle to be about 50 billion trillion to 1. The trouble is that even a simple protozoan, or a bacterium, requires the prior formation of about 2,000 enzymes, themselves also complex proteins, which are critical to the successful formation of all the other 198,000 or so requisite proteins. The odds in favor of the accidental formation of all 2,000 by accident (never mind the other 198,000), without which no living organism could have come into existence, approaches a truly infinitesimal magnitude. The odds would be similar to those against 2,000 blindfolded persons working Rubik Cubes independently and just accidentally coming to perfect solutions simultaneously—according to Hoyle, roughly 10^40000 to 1. (Not According to Hoyle, ICR)
The situation is actually far less likely then he is calculating. The primordial earth was a reducing (hydrogen rich) atmosphere and very hot, the coolest spots would have been in excess of 200 degrees. In order for there to be life you can't just have random proteins making this impossible transition but DNA and RNA to make them replicating. The conditions would destroy any hint of RNA much less DNA before they had a chance to assemble.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Tomm

Christian
Site Supporter
Jan 30, 2007
1,788
895
WS
✟278,556.00
Country
Brazil
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
He did a famous probability argument evolutionists never really have an answer for:

Yet the odds against the accidental formation of a living organism are considerably worse than the odds against a blindfolded solution of the Rubik Cube—the latter being estimated by Hoyle to be about 50 billion trillion to 1. The trouble is that even a simple protozoan, or a bacterium, requires the prior formation of about 2,000 enzymes, themselves also complex proteins, which are critical to the successful formation of all the other 198,000 or so requisite proteins. The odds in favor of the accidental formation of all 2,000 by accident (never mind the other 198,000), without which no living organism could have come into existence, approaches a truly infinitesimal magnitude. The odds would be similar to those against 2,000 blindfolded persons working Rubik Cubes independently and just accidentally coming to perfect solutions simultaneously—according to Hoyle, roughly 10^40000 to 1. (Not According to Hoyle, ICR)
The situation is actually far less likely then he is calculating. The primordial earth was a reducing (hydrogen rich) atmosphere and very hot, the coolest spots would have been in excess of 200 degrees. In order for there to be life you can't just have random proteins making this impossible transition but DNA and RNA to make them replicating. The conditions would destroy any hint of RNA much less DNA before they had a chance to assemble.

I heard that R Dawkins has 'refuted' Hoyle's evolution analogy of hurricane building an aircraft.

Of course, I believe his was based on sophistry, or tricks, or logical flaws, or perhaps a combination of those.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I heard that R Dawkins has 'refuted' Hoyle's evolution analogy of hurricane building an aircraft.

Of course, I believe his was based on sophistry, or tricks, or logical flaws, or perhaps a combination of those.
I guess in the God Delusion he tried to apply Hoyle's airplane in a junkyard analogy to the existence of God. It's not the only time I've seen Darwinians desperately trying to dismiss the statistical impossibility of life emerging from the chaos of the primordial world. The most popular these days is called the 'RNA world', where the RNA comes together first and then manages and organizes proteins into life. When DNA is unzipped the first thing that happens is, single stranded RNA become molecular mechanisms that do the work in a cell. They can be very short but the problem is in order for them to actually do something you need a long code with high specificity.

“I, for one, have never subscribed to this view of the origin of life, and I am by no means alone. The RNA world hypothesis is driven almost entirely by the flow of data from very high technology combinatorial libraries, whose relationship to the prebiotic world is anything but worthy of “unanimous support”. There are several serious problems associated with it, and I view it as little more than a popular fantasy” (The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life, except for all the others, NCBI. Charles Carter, article peer review from Biology Direct)
Another popular one is mutations in the same place in two different species. They never stand up to close scrutiny and never answer demands of the burden of proof. To the creationist the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg is obvious. God created the chicken first because God created life, and life always comes from life. So the Darwinian's naturalistic assumptions force them to contrive and fabricate a mythical first cause for the egg. Even the Big Bang is said to have emerged from a 'cosmic egg'.

We know what came first, in the beginning God created life. In fact, God gives light to every soul that comes into the world to understand this fundamental fact of creation:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (Rom. 1:18-21)
Darwinian evolution is an assumed effect without a viable cause. The principle is called the Law of Biogenesis, life always comes from life. Everyone knows this but men suppress the truth in unrighteousness, their thoughts chase these chicken and egg question in circles like the proverbial fool chasing the wind. Abiogenesis is just one example, they emerge at every major node of the Darwinian tree of life.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,500
Milwaukee
✟410,948.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Darwinian evolution is an assumed effect without a viable cause. The principle is called the Law of Biogenesis, life always comes from life. Everyone knows this but men suppress the truth in unrighteousness, their thoughts chase these chicken and egg question in circles like the proverbial fool chasing the wind. Abiogenesis is just one example, they emerge at every major node of the Darwinian tree of life.
:oldthumbsup:
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: mark kennedy
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,652
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟104,175.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Hoyle came to the conclusion that the evolution of higher life forms, without some kind of intelligence operative in the background, was vanishingly small, to the point of being unbelievable. But that only pushed him in the direction of theism; not creationism.
 
Upvote 0