As an absolute matter, I'm sure the answer is no. An 8x10 sheet of film contains way more information than a 50 mp sensor. But as a practical matter, as others have pointed out, it's a much closer ball game. There's many factors that prevent the full potential of an 8x10 film sheet from fully expressing itself on a finished print. With the 8x10, there's so many variables that can affect the final outcome: the image lighting, the sharpness, camera shake, scanning, printing, lens choice, the printing process (optical printing has its own set of issues). With digital, it's a much straighter path from capture to output. The X1D lenses are amazingly sharp - much sharper than older generations of lenses that you're likely to find on film cameras.
Recently I took in the Stephen Shore exhibition at MOMA. They had a gallery filled with his 16x20 sized prints from his 8x10. There was nothing in these prints that couldn't have been duplicated with a 40 or 50 mp MF camera. On the other hand, I also saw Gursky's most recent show at Gagosian in NYC. I assume that he's shooting those 10 by 20 foot prints with an 8x10. Whatever he's using, he's wringing everything possible out of his image - from capture to printing. No way can a 50 mp camera match that.