Most of this thread unfortunately is being supported by people not even remotely qualified to discuss it. Pahu doesn't even know what he's copy-pasting and although that makes it sort of funny at the same time it gets a bit tiring that this isn't actually a discussion.

I won't add the whole article here but two can certainly play the copy-paste game. You can read the whole page (and you really should, dear reader) over on Talk Origins. As we have now branched off into Astronomy (Fred Hoyle wasn't a biologist) and Abiogenesis I figured why the hell not...

Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations

1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.