[donh]

I've seen that link about abiogenisis a couple of times, though it's proponents will mount fierce arguments to the contrary, it just recapitulates the "windstorm can't build a 707" argument. If you want to make an argument that the odds don't favor an occurance, than I want to see the stochastic calculation: what is the state-space, exactly, and what were to criteria for successful selection from the state-space?

If you don't show me that math, this argument is so much wind. It amounts to saying that, because I can't conceive how something occured, therefore the odds against it are astronomical. This would be transparent nonsense if it were not so often accompanied by polysyllabic scientisms and apparent examples concocted from the imagination, as with Behe et. al.

[kinsman redeemer]

"windstorm can't build a 707"

I believe you meant to say, "C2"

[Heartlander]

You just say, “the argument just recapitulates the ‘windstorm can’t build a 707’ argument” and then dismiss it. Abiogenesis is the foundation of natural evolution – DNA and a single cell are far more complex than a 707. Would math equations really satisfy you or would you poke more holes and skew information to justify your belief?

To dismiss common sense and say that with nature anything is possible throws science into the religion category.

[gore3000]

it just recapitulates the "windstorm can't build a 707" argument.

No it does not say that abiogenesis is impossible because the wind cannot build a 707. It shows exactly how hard it is for even the simplest living thing to to have arisen. It shows that abiogenesis is scientifically impossible. It shows what real science has found about how hard it is to create the simplest living thing - a small, a very small, self sufficient, reproducing bacterium.

You cannot even give a specific way in which such a combination could ever have occurred, you ignore that such a thing never has been seen to occur. What that article explains, is the science of life as observed by real scientists.