> Well, I don't know that we can say with CERTAINTY that life evolved but > people certainly do SAY it. I've heard calculations that to just form > one protein (amino acid?? I think) by chance, one of the building > blocks of life is 10 to the 46th power - and that's not even life. So the > probability for life is significantly greater than that. And the time > involved is significantly greater than the longest estimates for the age > of the earth - so what conclusions should you draw from this??
Estimates like this keep cropping up in sci.math (and elsewehere) so let's knock them on the head once and for all: Nobody in their right mind is suggesting that proteins (made up of amino acids), eyeballs or any of the accoutrements of life did crop up _"by chance"_, so the probability estimate is irrelevant. Evolution is a highly plausible theory which explains their development. The fact that evolutionary theory 'involves' probability theory is often a cause of confusion, and people end up thinking that it is just the action of 'blind chance'. It isn't.