ODDS AGAINST EVOLUTION (You listenin', t.o.?)

snip that stuff

That's no problem at all. Just think about the enormous size of the
universe, and about the billions of years it's been in existence. Even
if the odds against spontaneous abiogenesis (life arising from
nonliving matter) are astronomical, so is the scale of the universe
itself, and the number of earthlike planets in the universe is enough
to make many inhabitated worlds not only possible but probable. It
just happened by accident.
That doesn't mean that it doesn't have any meaning at all, and that
there are no divine powers at work - it just means that the divine
power didn't do it as the Bible tells us. It's just the world as the
Jews saw it 3,000 years ago. There is no ultimate truth, there is no
truth that is good forever - every truth is only true for a certain
time, at a certain place. We will see new religions, new gods, new
prophets, and they will be just as true as the old ones were back
then.

Nils

--
Lord BlackLight aka Lord Helmet aka ElfBoi
aka Lord Caramac the Clueless, NPIAB
His Arrogance Pope Cereal I., KBB, GHMB, DHB
http://kickme.to/elfboi/

"Ed Conrad" wrote in message
...


"On Page 234 of the book, "The Survival
of Charles Darwin," written by Ronald W.
Clark and published in 1984 by Random House:

"The authors (astronomer Fred Hoyle and his
colleague Chandra Wickramasinghe in their book,
"Evolution From Space," rejected the Darwinian
explanation of complex adaption on the grounds
that the possibility of life arising on earth,
defined as needing 2,000 enymes, each with an
average of 200 amino acids, would be 10 to the
10,000th power, a figure that for all practical
purposes ruled out such a chance."

The primary problem with this calculation is that it assumes that
there is only one possible end result. Using the poker analogy, this
is like dealing a hand of poker, and then complaining that the odds of
getting that particular hand are 1:311875200. Obviously, someone must
be cheating.

There are about 6 million humans on the Earth today, each of which is
genetically unique. We aren't all constructed from the same set of
proteins and enzymes. You can easily knock off several orders of
magnitude just due to the existing variation within our species.

What about the past? One million years ago, our biochemistry would
have been different. Or we could go forward a million years. There
is no reason to constrain our results to just this time, so
considering past and future variation, we could easily knock off
several more orders of magnitude.

Why just our species? There are about 300 million species living on
the Earth today, each with their own variation. And what about
extinct species? These considerations could easily knock off several
dozen more orders of magnitude.

So far, we've just been looking at the existing variation. What about
the possible variation? I have seen estimates suggesting that, for
hemoglobin, only 7 to 11 of the residues are necessary for the
function of carrying oxygen. All of the rest can vary in the
particular amino acid used. If this is typical, then that is more
than sufficient to remove all of the remaining orders of magnitude
from Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's probability argument.

Are all of the current proteins and enzymes even necessary? Could
oxygen be transported by some means other than hemoglobin? Plants
don't use hemoglobin. Single celled organisms don't use hemoglobin.
Undoubtedly, there are biologists who could point out several other
groups of organisms that do just fine without using hemoglobin.

The first self-replicating organism may have been a simple RNA
molecule using no proteins or enzymes. Using Hoyle and
Wickramasinghe's argument, the odds of that happening were 1:1. Once
life started, there is no reason it could not have developed the
ability to use proteins and enzymes. They certainly would have been
advantageous. Random mutation would have provided a wealth of options
to choose from, and natural selection would have removed the options
that didn't work. So there is really no reason to think that after 4
billion years of evolution, we wouldn't have a mere 2000 enzymes to
work with. I'm actually surprized there aren't more. Once life
began, some result was almost guaranteed. Like a poker hand, the
result we got is just one of many possible results.

Ok, here's the problem with your mathematics. Say -- just for
argument's sake -- that Hoyle and
Wickramasinghe got it right, and the odds against life arising
spontaneously really are 10^(10,000).

Your argument goes: but there's 6 billion people on earth. Let's
include all people who ever lived,
and make it 10^10 people. Now the odds drop "dramatically," to 10^9990.

Same with your other points. Take off "several orders of magnitude."
How many is that? 10? 20?

Ok, now we're down to 10^9970 against.

I guess you can see how this is going to go. Use up all the possible
alternative DNA sequences you
mention, and all the ones no one has thought of yet, and you're still
not going to make much of a dent
in that enormous number.

This is not to mention the small little problem that your assumptions
don't really fit the case, anyhow.
H & W weren't trying to compute the odds of the spontaneous occurrence
of a Jack Crenshaw or a
Ross Langerak; They were computing the odds of a DNA molecule capable
of self-reproducing. It's already
a given that, given a population of 6 billion humans, it's not that hard
to create a few more. But that's
not the question asked, is it?

The real question is: What is the complexity of a simple molecule --
simple enough to form spontaneously,
complex enough to be self-reproducing -- constructing itself through
random chance?

I don't think either your or I know enough to answer that question.
I've been trying for years to get
folks to tell me how many base pairs they think it takes to create a
self-reproducing DNA molecule, but
so far, no answer. Probably, it will be a long time before molecular
biologists can really answer that
question.

Assuming -- again for the sake of argument -- that H & W got this right
also, and 2000 enzymes of 200
amino acids is what is needed, one could pose the question this way:

Given all the possible combinations of 2000 enzymes of 200 amino acids
each, how many sets of those
combinations produce anything useful?

I don't know, and I doubt you do either. Presumable it's more than one
set. But how many more? Also
presumably, not a large percentage of the set of total possibilities.
In any case, whatever the number
is, one has to presume that a scientist of the stature of Fred Hoyle
knows how to compute permutations
and combinations, and wasn't so dumb as to assume that only one
combination would work.

In short, they got the math right the first time, so all your arm-waving
is moot.

Jack


Ross Langerak wrote:

"Ed Conrad" wrote in message
...


"On Page 234 of the book, "The Survival
of Charles Darwin," written by Ronald W.
Clark and published in 1984 by Random House:

"The authors (astronomer Fred Hoyle and his
colleague Chandra Wickramasinghe in their book,
"Evolution From Space," rejected the Darwinian
explanation of complex adaption on the grounds
that the possibility of life arising on earth,
defined as needing 2,000 enymes, each with an
average of 200 amino acids, would be 10 to the
10,000th power, a figure that for all practical
purposes ruled out such a chance."

The primary problem with this calculation is that it assumes that
there is only one possible end result. Using the poker analogy, this
is like dealing a hand of poker, and then complaining that the odds of
getting that particular hand are 1:311875200. Obviously, someone must
be cheating.

There are about 6 million humans on the Earth today, each of which is
genetically unique. We aren't all constructed from the same set of
proteins and enzymes. You can easily knock off several orders of
magnitude just due to the existing variation within our species.

What about the past? One million years ago, our biochemistry would
have been different. Or we could go forward a million years. There
is no reason to constrain our results to just this time, so
considering past and future variation, we could easily knock off
several more orders of magnitude.

Why just our species? There are about 300 million species living on
the Earth today, each with their own variation. And what about
extinct species? These considerations could easily knock off several
dozen more orders of magnitude.

So far, we've just been looking at the existing variation. What about
the possible variation? I have seen estimates suggesting that, for
hemoglobin, only 7 to 11 of the residues are necessary for the
function of carrying oxygen. All of the rest can vary in the
particular amino acid used. If this is typical, then that is more
than sufficient to remove all of the remaining orders of magnitude
from Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's probability argument.

Are all of the current proteins and enzymes even necessary? Could
oxygen be transported by some means other than hemoglobin? Plants
don't use hemoglobin. Single celled organisms don't use hemoglobin.
Undoubtedly, there are biologists who could point out several other
groups of organisms that do just fine without using hemoglobin.

The first self-replicating organism may have been a simple RNA
molecule using no proteins or enzymes. Using Hoyle and
Wickramasinghe's argument, the odds of that happening were 1:1. Once
life started, there is no reason it could not have developed the
ability to use proteins and enzymes. They certainly would have been
advantageous. Random mutation would have provided a wealth of options
to choose from, and natural selection would have removed the options
that didn't work. So there is really no reason to think that after 4
billion years of evolution, we wouldn't have a mere 2000 enzymes to
work with. I'm actually surprized there aren't more. Once life
began, some result was almost guaranteed. Like a poker hand, the
result we got is just one of many possible results.

"Jack Crenshaw" wrote in message
...

The real question is: What is the complexity of a simple molecule --
simple enough to form spontaneously,
complex enough to be self-reproducing -- constructing itself through
random chance?
The simple answer is one because it happened.
The more complex answer is that we don't know exactly but we do know that
there is far more than chance involved.
There is chemistry and chemistry follows strict laws.
(Except for the myth of titration, there is no pink)

Life happened and I'll bet we create it before I die. I'd also bet that once
done we will find other ways to do it. I'll also bet that it will be
completely natural.

Jack Crenshaw wrote in message ...
Ok, here's the problem with your mathematics. Say -- just for
argument's sake -- that Hoyle and
Wickramasinghe got it right, and the odds against life arising
spontaneously really are 10^(10,000).

Your argument goes: but there's 6 billion people on earth. Let's
include all people who ever lived,
and make it 10^10 people. Now the odds drop "dramatically," to 10^9990.

Same with your other points. Take off "several orders of magnitude."
How many is that? 10? 20?

Ok, now we're down to 10^9970 against.

I guess you can see how this is going to go. Use up all the possible
alternative DNA sequences you
mention, and all the ones no one has thought of yet, and you're still
not going to make much of a dent
in that enormous number.

The number of people have absolutely nothing to do with the number of
potential possible combinations. For that matter, neither do the
number of organisms that have ever lived, which incidentally is
enormous. Count all the bacteria that have ever existed, over the
course of the last several billion years.

The problem is that the 10^9970 number is entirely bogus. It
represents nonsense on so many different levels it is difficult to
know where to begin.

The real question is: What is the complexity of a simple molecule --
simple enough to form spontaneously,
complex enough to be self-reproducing -- constructing itself through
random chance?

Self replicating RNA molecules have arisen via natural means in the
lab.

"Jack Crenshaw" wrote in message
...
Ok, here's the problem with your mathematics. Say -- just for
argument's sake -- that Hoyle and
Wickramasinghe got it right, and the odds against life arising
spontaneously really are 10^(10,000).

Your argument goes: but there's 6 billion people on earth. Let's
include all people who ever lived,
and make it 10^10 people. Now the odds drop "dramatically," to
10^9990.

Same with your other points. Take off "several orders of
magnitude."
How many is that? 10? 20?

Ok, now we're down to 10^9970 against.

I guess you can see how this is going to go. Use up all the
possible
alternative DNA sequences you
mention, and all the ones no one has thought of yet, and you're
still
not going to make much of a dent
in that enormous number.

In that case, I should have started with the possible variations of
proteins. That alone would remove most of the zeroes in Ed's
argument. Then, given the number of species and the number of
individuals to work with, the production of something is almost
inevitable.

This is not to mention the small little problem that your
assumptions
don't really fit the case, anyhow.
H & W weren't trying to compute the odds of the spontaneous
occurrence
of a Jack Crenshaw or a
Ross Langerak; They were computing the odds of a DNA molecule
capable
of self-reproducing. It's already
a given that, given a population of 6 billion humans, it's not that
hard
to create a few more. But that's
not the question asked, is it?

I see. So Hoyle and Wickramasinghe were trying to calculate the odds
against the formation of the first self-replicating organism? It's
my understanding that the first self-replicating organism was most
likely a simple RNA molecule. It's also my understanding that such a
molecule has been produced in the lab. Since no enzymes were
required, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's calculations are bogus.

The real question is: What is the complexity of a simple molecule --
simple enough to form spontaneously,
complex enough to be self-reproducing -- constructing itself through
random chance?

It's my understanding that a self-replicating RNA molecule has been
produced using only a couple dozen nucleotides.

I don't think either your or I know enough to answer that question.
I've been trying for years to get
folks to tell me how many base pairs they think it takes to create a
self-reproducing DNA molecule, but
so far, no answer. Probably, it will be a long time before
molecular
biologists can really answer that
question.

I don't know of anyone who is suggesting that the first
self-replicating molecule was DNA. RNA is far more likely, as RNA can
also function as an enzyme.

Assuming -- again for the sake of argument -- that H & W got this
right
also, and 2000 enzymes of 200
amino acids is what is needed, one could pose the question this way:

Given all the possible combinations of 2000 enzymes of 200 amino
acids
each, how many sets of those
combinations produce anything useful?

Since the first self-replicating organism was most likely a simple RNA
molecule, the question is pointless.

If however, you are asking how the first organism requiring 2000
enzymes could have been produced, it isn't that difficult once our
self-replicating RNA molecule develops the ability to produce one
enzyme. Once it can produce one enzyme, it isn't that difficult to
produce a second, and then a third and a fourth until it hits 2000
enzymes. If at any point an enzyme is added that is not beneficial,
it is removed from the population. So you see, life didn't have to
produce 2000 working enzymes all at once. Instead, it produced n
working enzymes + 1 more, with n = 0 to 1999. With each advance, it
added one more working enzyme to a list of existing working enzymes.

I don't know, and I doubt you do either. Presumable it's more than
one
set. But how many more? Also
presumably, not a large percentage of the set of total
possibilities.
In any case, whatever the number
is, one has to presume that a scientist of the stature of Fred Hoyle
knows how to compute permutations
and combinations, and wasn't so dumb as to assume that only one
combination would work.

In short, they got the math right the first time, so all your
arm-waving
is moot.

They may have gotten the math right, but it didn't represent a
realistic scenario for the origin of life. Life didn't start by
looking for a combination of 2000 enzymes that would work. Life
started by looking for one enzyme that would work, and then adding to
it a second, and then a third and a fourth. Adding one more to an
existing combination isn't that difficult.

Ross Langerak wrote:

"Ed Conrad" wrote in message
...


"On Page 234 of the book, "The Survival
of Charles Darwin," written by Ronald W.
Clark and published in 1984 by Random House:

"The authors (astronomer Fred Hoyle and his
colleague Chandra Wickramasinghe in their book,
"Evolution From Space," rejected the Darwinian
explanation of complex adaption on the grounds
that the possibility of life arising on earth,
defined as needing 2,000 enymes, each with an
average of 200 amino acids, would be 10 to the
10,000th power, a figure that for all practical
purposes ruled out such a chance."

The primary problem with this calculation is that it assumes that
there is only one possible end result. Using the poker analogy,
this
is like dealing a hand of poker, and then complaining that the
odds of
getting that particular hand are 1:311875200. Obviously, someone
must
be cheating.

There are about 6 million humans on the Earth today, each of which
is
genetically unique. We aren't all constructed from the same set
of
proteins and enzymes. You can easily knock off several orders of
magnitude just due to the existing variation within our species.

What about the past? One million years ago, our biochemistry
would
have been different. Or we could go forward a million years.
There
is no reason to constrain our results to just this time, so
considering past and future variation, we could easily knock off
several more orders of magnitude.

Why just our species? There are about 300 million species living
on
the Earth today, each with their own variation. And what about
extinct species? These considerations could easily knock off
several
dozen more orders of magnitude.

So far, we've just been looking at the existing variation. What
about
the possible variation? I have seen estimates suggesting that,
for
hemoglobin, only 7 to 11 of the residues are necessary for the
function of carrying oxygen. All of the rest can vary in the
particular amino acid used. If this is typical, then that is more
than sufficient to remove all of the remaining orders of magnitude
from Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's probability argument.

Are all of the current proteins and enzymes even necessary? Could
oxygen be transported by some means other than hemoglobin? Plants
don't use hemoglobin. Single celled organisms don't use
hemoglobin.
Undoubtedly, there are biologists who could point out several
other
groups of organisms that do just fine without using hemoglobin.

The first self-replicating organism may have been a simple RNA
molecule using no proteins or enzymes. Using Hoyle and
Wickramasinghe's argument, the odds of that happening were 1:1.
Once
life started, there is no reason it could not have developed the
ability to use proteins and enzymes. They certainly would have
been
advantageous. Random mutation would have provided a wealth of
options
to choose from, and natural selection would have removed the
options
that didn't work. So there is really no reason to think that
after 4
billion years of evolution, we wouldn't have a mere 2000 enzymes
to
work with. I'm actually surprized there aren't more. Once life
began, some result was almost guaranteed. Like a poker hand, the
result we got is just one of many possible results.

"Ross Langerak" wrote in message
ink.net...

snip

I see. So Hoyle and Wickramasinghe were trying to calculate the odds
against the formation of the first self-replicating organism? It's
my understanding that the first self-replicating organism was most
likely a simple RNA molecule. It's also my understanding that such a
molecule has been produced in the lab. Since no enzymes were
required, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's calculations are bogus.
snip
It should be noted that Hoyle was an astronomer (and fair sci-fi writer).
I'm not sure what Wickramasinghe was but neither were biologists.

Mike Painter wrote:

"Jack Crenshaw" wrote in message
...

The real question is: What is the complexity of a simple molecule --
simple enough to form spontaneously,
complex enough to be self-reproducing -- constructing itself through
random chance?
The simple answer is one because it happened.

Wow! What a powerful argument! How much research did it take you to
come up with _THAT_ one?

Misdirection. No one disputes that it happened. I thought we were
talking about how.

The more complex answer is that we don't know exactly but we do know that
there is far more than chance involved.
There is chemistry and chemistry follows strict laws.
(Except for the myth of titration, there is no pink)

Which laws did you have in mind? Are there some I'm not aware of --
also neither Hoyle
nor Wickramasinghe -- that restrict the possible assembly of amino acids
into more complex
molecules?

Life happened and I'll bet we create it before I die. I'd also bet that once
done we will find other ways to do it. I'll also bet that it will be
completely natural.

As in, "The man, be-aba, the woman, be-aba," or did you have less
natural processes in mind?
Assuming that you're right, what would it prove? That life can be
created by an intelligent
designer?

In any case, I admire your optimism. Never lose it. Stanley Miller's
been trying for
50 years, with no success. But hey, don't let that discourage you.

Jack

Pavil Natanovich wrote:

Jack Crenshaw wrote in message ...
Ok, here's the problem with your mathematics. Say -- just for
argument's sake -- that Hoyle and
Wickramasinghe got it right, and the odds against life arising
spontaneously really are 10^(10,000).

Your argument goes: but there's 6 billion people on earth. Let's
include all people who ever lived,
and make it 10^10 people. Now the odds drop "dramatically," to 10^9990.

Same with your other points. Take off "several orders of magnitude."
How many is that? 10? 20?

Ok, now we're down to 10^9970 against.

I guess you can see how this is going to go. Use up all the possible
alternative DNA sequences you
mention, and all the ones no one has thought of yet, and you're still
not going to make much of a dent
in that enormous number.

The number of people have absolutely nothing to do with the number of
potential possible combinations. For that matter, neither do the
number of organisms that have ever lived, which incidentally is
enormous. Count all the bacteria that have ever existed, over the
course of the last several billion years.

The problem is that the 10^9970 number is entirely bogus. It
represents nonsense on so many different levels it is difficult to
know where to begin.

Therefore, you choose not to?


The real question is: What is the complexity of a simple molecule --
simple enough to form spontaneously,
complex enough to be self-reproducing -- constructing itself through
random chance?

Self replicating RNA molecules have arisen via natural means in the
lab.

Citation?

Jack

Ross Langerak wrote:

"Jack Crenshaw" wrote in message
...
Ok, here's the problem with your mathematics. Say -- just for
argument's sake -- that Hoyle and
Wickramasinghe got it right, and the odds against life arising
spontaneously really are 10^(10,000).

Your argument goes: but there's 6 billion people on earth. Let's
include all people who ever lived,
and make it 10^10 people. Now the odds drop "dramatically," to
10^9990.

Same with your other points. Take off "several orders of
magnitude."
How many is that? 10? 20?

Ok, now we're down to 10^9970 against.

I guess you can see how this is going to go. Use up all the
possible
alternative DNA sequences you
mention, and all the ones no one has thought of yet, and you're
still
not going to make much of a dent
in that enormous number.

In that case, I should have started with the possible variations of
proteins.

Yes.

That alone would remove most of the zeroes in Ed's
argument. Then, given the number of species and the number of
individuals to work with, the production of something is almost
inevitable.

Almost _INEVITABLE_? How does that follow?

This is not to mention the small little problem that your
assumptions
don't really fit the case, anyhow.
H & W weren't trying to compute the odds of the spontaneous
occurrence
of a Jack Crenshaw or a
Ross Langerak; They were computing the odds of a DNA molecule
capable
of self-reproducing. It's already
a given that, given a population of 6 billion humans, it's not that
hard
to create a few more. But that's
not the question asked, is it?

I see. So Hoyle and Wickramasinghe were trying to calculate the odds
against the formation of the first self-replicating organism?

That was my understanding.

It's
my understanding that the first self-replicating organism was most
likely a simple RNA molecule.

AFAIK there is little or no agreement as to _WHAT_ that first organism
was, or
how it worked. Most likely, the mechanism by which it replicated was
several
generations removed from the mechanism of DNA. I think the best
likelihood is that
_SOME_ mechanism (layers of clay have been suggested) kicked things off
and got life
started, and then more efficient mechanisms such as RNA and DNA evolved
and took over
We don't see the Adam molecule today, because it would be quickly
gobbled up by all
those more efficient little boogers.

I don't think there is a consensus that the first life was RNA. Some
have pointed out
that it's almost certainly not DNA, since the replication of DNA only
occurs inside a
cell and requires a host of supporting players like enzymes, ribosomes,
etc. -- all of
which would have to be in place _FIRST_ before the DNA could reproduce.

Because of the problems with DNA, RNA has been suggested. It also makes
a modicum of
sense, since it is a simpler molecule of sorts. Only problem: The
reproduction of
RNA requires an even _BIGGER_ cast of supporting characters. In nature,
RNA only
reproduces as in viruses, which need a host cell to provide the
"infrastructure."

Perhaps it's not possible to figure out what really was the first
self-replicating
organism. Perhaps it's so far removed from RNA and DNA that there is no
recognizable
similarity. Still, it would be nice to _KNOW_, wouldn't it? Seems to
me, doing the
research to figure it all out is a lot more worthy endeavour than
sitting on a newsgroup
looking for fundies to toy with.

It's also my understanding that such a
molecule has been produced in the lab.

So it's been said. It's true, there are people working to create such
things. But it's always
struck me as a particularly odd thing to do. No one disputes the fact
that designer molecules,
like designer genes, can be created. So what? That's a bit like
saying, given two
purebred, licensed Great Danes, I can produce a litter of them. It
doesn't say much at all about
what can happen by chance, does it? To me, setting out to assemble a
molecule of known design
can be done, given enough ingenuity (which is considerable) on the part
of the people who make the labs and their equipment, proves nothing at
all about what happened In The Beginning.

Since no enzymes were
required, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's calculations are bogus.

Oh, Ok. Why didn't you say so in the first place?

The real question is: What is the complexity of a simple molecule --
simple enough to form spontaneously,
complex enough to be self-reproducing -- constructing itself through
random chance?

It's my understanding that a self-replicating RNA molecule has been
produced using only a couple dozen nucleotides.

I'd like to know more about that. Can you give me a citation?

I don't think either your or I know enough to answer that question.
I've been trying for years to get
folks to tell me how many base pairs they think it takes to create a
self-reproducing DNA molecule, but
so far, no answer. Probably, it will be a long time before
molecular
biologists can really answer that
question.

I don't know of anyone who is suggesting that the first
self-replicating molecule was DNA. RNA is far more likely, as RNA can
also function as an enzyme.

Assuming -- again for the sake of argument -- that H & W got this
right
also, and 2000 enzymes of 200
amino acids is what is needed, one could pose the question this way:

Given all the possible combinations of 2000 enzymes of 200 amino
acids
each, how many sets of those
combinations produce anything useful?

Since the first self-replicating organism was most likely a simple RNA
molecule, the question is pointless.

Not true. RNA uses the same nucleotides as DNA. It only has a single
helix, though.
And, again, I don't think there's general agreement that it _WAS_ RNA.

If however, you are asking how the first organism requiring 2000
enzymes could have been produced, it isn't that difficult once our
self-replicating RNA molecule develops the ability to produce one
enzyme. Once it can produce one enzyme, it isn't that difficult to
produce a second, and then a third and a fourth until it hits 2000
enzymes. If at any point an enzyme is added that is not beneficial,
it is removed from the population. So you see, life didn't have to
produce 2000 working enzymes all at once. Instead, it produced n
working enzymes + 1 more, with n = 0 to 1999. With each advance, it
added one more working enzyme to a list of existing working enzymes.

Of course. Just as it's possible to generate more Great Danes (or
two-legged Danes),
given an initial population of Danes. The question, though, is how that
first molecule
got assembled from its parts.

I don't know, and I doubt you do either. Presumable it's more than
one
set. But how many more? Also
presumably, not a large percentage of the set of total
possibilities.
In any case, whatever the number
is, one has to presume that a scientist of the stature of Fred Hoyle
knows how to compute permutations
and combinations, and wasn't so dumb as to assume that only one
combination would work.

In short, they got the math right the first time, so all your
arm-waving
is moot.

They may have gotten the math right, but it didn't represent a
realistic scenario for the origin of life. Life didn't start by
looking for a combination of 2000 enzymes that would work. Life
started by looking for one enzyme that would work, and then adding to
it a second, and then a third and a fourth. Adding one more to an
existing combination isn't that difficult.

Define "work."

You are obviously free to discount Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's
assumptions and their
math. In fact, you are free to believe that the first life was
assembled by the
proverbial Pink Bunny Rabbit. However, if you assert -- as you just did
-- that
their mathematics is all wet, isn't it sort of incumbent upon you to
provide
an alternative? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, right?

However, you implicitly accepted the original number by seeking to
modify the
1:10^10,000 number to something closer to 1:1. I was merely pointing
out the
flaws in your modifications.

Jack