Basically, if you use bad maths, statistics or science to prove anything (be it social, polictical or religious points) then it will get criticized. This does not mean that the social, political or religious point is wrong - just that people find it abhorant to abuse science, logic or maths.

Of course it is wrong to use things such as "bad maths, statistics, or science to prove anything" as well as to "abuse science, logic, or maths." This is why I

I have been listing (what I believe) are some problems with the logic, and science on the Talk Origins site (with specific examples).

Here is another one:

http://www.talkorigi...b/abioprob.html

So let's play the creationist game and look at forming a peptide by random addition of amino acids. This certainly is not the way peptides formed on the early Earth, but it will be instructive.

I will use as an example the "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group mentioned above [7]. I could use other examples, such as the hexanucleotide self-replicator [10], the SunY self-replicator [24] or the RNA polymerase described by the Eckland group [12], but for historical continuity with creationist claims a small peptide is ideal. This peptide is 32 amino acids long with a sequence of RMKQLEEKVYELLSKVACLEYEVARLKKVGE and is an enzyme, a peptide ligase that makes a copy of itself from two 16 amino acid long subunits. It is also of a size and composition that is ideally suited to be formed by abiotic peptide synthesis. The fact that it is a self replicator is an added irony.

The probability of generating this in successive random trials is (1/20)32 or 1 chance in 4.29 x 1040. This is much, much more probable than the 1 in 2.04 x 10390 of the standard creationist "generating carboxypeptidase by chance" scenario, but still seems absurdly low.

So, if on our prebiotic earth we have a billion peptides growing simultaneously, that reduces the time taken to generate our replicator significantly.

The Talk Origins author is attempting to demonstrate that a very small protein polypeptide sequence (32 amino acids) could be reached by chance. However make the incredible assumption that all the amino acids are going to somehow self-polymerize into 32 acid length chains (and then based on this he starts his search sequence calculations) ! From what I have read in a watery environment polymers will tend to de-polymerize, therefore the idea that amino acids are all going to "link up" into chain sequences is the opposite of science.

According to a reviewed paper by Truman and Heisig, the ocean volume that the Talk Origins author used was the volume of the entire earth.So how does this shape up with the prebiotic Earth? On the early Earth it is likely that the ocean had a volume of 1 x 1024 litres. Given an amino acid concentration of 1 x 10-6 M (a moderately dilute soup, see Chyba and Sagan 1992 [23]), then there are roughly 1 x 1050 potential starting chains, so that a fair number of efficent peptide ligases (about 1 x 1031) could be produced in a under a year, let alone a million years. The synthesis of primitive self-replicators could happen relatively rapidly, even given a probability of 1 chance in 4.29 x 1040 (and remember, our replicator could be synthesized on the very first trial).

http://www.answersin...in_Families.pdf (see page 125 and foot note 55)