JJHLH

The more I contemplate this the more convinced I am that the greatest phenomenon in the universe isn't a supernova, or a nebula, or a blackhole. It's a humble living cell capable or replicating itself. As amazing as those other phenomena are, they are rather commonplace in the universe. We don't know of course, but it is possible that life may only exist on earth. Looking at the odds, however you want to calculate them, it defies explanation. The next time you are out at night looking up at the stars ponder that for a moment. One thing we can probably agree on; from either a scientific, philosophical, or religious perspective, it really is an amazing thing to be alive. Best regards.

I saw the Ian Musgrave article posted as a reference as if it were a scientific work worthy of reference, which is most certainly is not. It is filled with error including basic math, which I pointed out. Did someone else already point out his math errors on this thread? If so could you show me since I must have missed it. There are only 1^50 atoms on Earth in total. Let's use Ian's assumptions (which are of course wrong as we've already seen). Assuming 1 x 10^24 liters, a 1 x 10^-6 molar concentration, and that there are 6.02 x 10^23 molecules per mole (Avogadro's number), the correct value would be 6.02 x 10^41 amino acids in the pre-biotic soup. Assuming all are locked up in 32 subunit peptides (a ridiculous assumption of course), there would be a maximum of 1.88 x 10^40 chains in the soup at any one time. So he is off by ten orders of magnitude! I guess this is what you are referring to when you say "the number is going to be off by a bit". Good grief. http://wiki.answers....h#ixzz24CoCdxuS The link clearly states the composition of the Earth in total. It doesn't just refer to crust. The fact that proteins are composed of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen (and sometimes sulfur) as I pointed out in my original post makes Ian Musgrave's math errors even more obvious.

I wanted to point out that Ian Musgrave's article has been thoroughly debunked. I'll give you just one example of why that involves math, something we can all agree on. Musgrave says, "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 10^24 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 10^50 potential starting chains" First, there are only 1^50 atoms on earth. You can verify this yourself by doing a Google search or click this link. http://wiki.answers...._there_on_earth Every protein chain contains multiple atoms so it is immediately clear that Musgrave's math doesn't work. Even if all the atoms on earth were in protein chains, which of course they are not, there aren't enough atoms available to support the number given by Musgrave. Furthermore, Earth's solid mass is about 32% iron, 30% oxygen, 15% silicon, 14% magnesium, 3% sulfur, 2% nickel, 1.5% calcium, and 1.4% aluminum. Much of the iron and nickel are in the planetary core, which is 89% iron and 6% nickel. The atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, with traces of other gases including carbon dioxide (0.3%). Read more:http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_composition_of_the_Earth#ixzz24CoCdxuS The key elements of proteins are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen,and nitrogen. So it is clear that proteins, which are a small-organized subset of these elements, constitute only a tiny fraction of the number of atoms on earth. This is basic high school science and clearly demonstrates that Musgrave's article is complete rubbish. I'd be happy to give you additional examples of his math errors if you would like. He is trying to impress people with his use of demonstrably false scientific jargon in an attempt to prove that abiogenesis is possible, which of course it isn't. All science, including statistics, points to an intelligent design of the universe and life. Einstein came to the same conclusion. As an aside, I'm troubled that they presented the fairy tale of abiogenesis to me as a fact when I was in school. The textbooks talk about the "primordial ooze" and the perfect conditions that existed to allow abiogenesis to occur, even though science demonstrates clearly that it can't. In their defense, as microbiology progresses we learn more and more about the complexity of a single cell. As it turns out, it much easier to build a complex machine like the space shuttle, or a supercomputer, or an atomic bomb than it is a single living cell capable of replication. Scientists still haven't been able to create a cell from scratch without the aid of other living organisms like yeast and bacteria, yet they want me to make the leap of faith that "it just happened by chance" in the primordial ooze. Sorry, I want to be taught facts, not fairy tales.