Congratulations -- since no one has suggested that viruses originated "by chance", you've just modeled the wrong thing, and thus your resulting number is totally pointless and irrelevant to the issue being discussed. How proud you must be.
Hint: All of the idiotic creationist calculations showing that a virus or a cell or a specific exact protein would be highly unlikely to spontaneously self-assemble in its present form entirely out of raw ingredients in a single trial of randomly ordered molecules don't actually pose a problem for evolution, they just reveal the cartoonish simplicity of creatoinist misunderstandings about biological origins.
If you guys ever get around to actually discussing actual biological scenarios, do feel free to try again. Until then, you're just making fools of yourselves.
Hint: Probability of Abiogenesis FAQs
Read that until your grasp of the topic begins to exceed that of a slow first-grader, then perhaps you'll finally have something of value to add to the discussion.
I don’t have the exact number, but it was something on the order of 10 to the 32 power to 1 for the off chance of life coming about by accident.
Show your math. We'll wait. Ten bucks says I can find five serious errors in it which invalidate it as a realistic model of abiogenesis. I've seen hundreds of other attempts, and they were all crap, for the reasons given in the above link.
The mathematician even gave evo’s a head start and said, OK lets assume the first few seconds a combo came about that created life. There still wasn’t enough time to mutate that life into anything else before now.
Show your math. This should be highly amusing. It's always funny watching people ignorant of real biology attempt to "disprove" it...
To assume that a whale crawled out of the water and became a cow is mathematically impossible in the billions of years assumed by evo’s.
...because...? You sort of "forgot" to show your work. We'll wait. Most likely we'll wait a *really* long time for you to back up your BS, like forever. In my long experience, I've found that waiting for an anti-evolution loudmouth to actually support his claims is likely to take billions of years as well.
Ergo, the new postulation that we had “hopeful monsters”. That is where a lizard lays an egg and a bird pops out.
No, it isn't. Thanks for telling a blatant lie about what evolutionary biology actually states. I don't care if it's your lie or you're just mindlessly parroting someone else's lie -- you bear the responsibility for spreading complete bulls**t, and I want to know whether you're going to do the honorable thing and apologize for telling your fellow FReepers a big fat lie. Are you adult enough to do that?
Kind of a stretch, even for evo’s.
The only stretch here is the kind required swallow the size of the whopper you're attempting to feed us.
Come back when you've got more to contribute than blatantly false assertions and claims of "irrefutable" mathematical proof when you're unable to provide even a single calculation.
Typical.
Taking just one, mathematical modeling -- here is an article that suggests the oft-heard mathematical models "disproving" evolution are incorrect: Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell (online lecture).
Thank goodness we don't assume anything so stupid.
Anti-evolutionists would be a lot more convincing if they could actually present the theory of evolution accurately. But I guess if they could do that, they wouldn't be anti-evolutionists.