Addressing the theistic argument of statistical impossibility of life:

[DavidWahl]

You may have heard the argument that theists often make about the necessity of an intelligent designer for the existence of life. The argument goes as:

"It's impossible for something too complex like life to have occurred at random without an intelligent designer."

Arguments like this or variations of the same that often leave us feeling unsatisfied or inept to provide concrete answers with proper reasoning.

Below I have devised or attempted to make a sequence of logical arguments based on pre-established knowledge and successful theories in science to tackle this common theistic argument of the impossibility or pure coincidence of life and that its existence does not necessitate supernatural explanations but rather arises from natural processes under specific conditions.

My set of arguments is as follow:

1) Life, despite its complexity, can be understood as a mechanism that is completely possible and operates entirely within the known laws of physics. 

2) Following the Big Bang, the Universe underwent a period of extreme instability, characterized by high levels of radiation and chaotic conditions. Over billions of years, however, the Universe now has approached a state of equilibrium. This shift has created regions with conditions conducive to the emergence and sustenance of life, such as lower radiation levels and the presence of essential chemical elements.

3) Given the vast number (billions) of galaxies, stars, and planetary systems within the observable Universe, it is reasonable to hypothesize that a subset of planets possesses resources and conditions favorable for the development and sustenance of life. 

4) Among the multitude of planets, one of them, that we are very familiar with, happens to meet all of those precise requirements and luckily underwent through very specific circumstances through which life came into existence. Earth's history demonstrates a series of highly specific and contingent events that facilitated the origin of life. 

5) A pertinent question arises: is it merely coincidental that the most suitable environment for life to emerge and thrive happens to be the same environment we inhabit? This coincidence, though seemingly extraordinary, is a reflection of the conditions under which observers, such as ourselves, can arise to question it.

6) While the probability of life emerging under such specific circumstances may be exceedingly low, it does not imply impossibility. Our very existence serves as empirical evidence that such an event, however improbable, has occurred. Thus, the realization of this "low-probability event" is not a contradiction but an affirmation of the principle that possibility, however rare, can manifest given sufficient opportunities.

7) Once life emerged, its ability to undergo Darwinian evolution became a fundamental mechanism driving its complexity. Through natural selection, genetic variation, and adaptation, living organisms gradually evolved to exploit diverse environments and develop increasingly intricate structures and behaviors. This process of evolution not only explains the diversity of life on Earth but also underscores why life has transitioned from simple molecular beginnings to the complex ecosystems and intelligent beings observed today.

This is the best that I could do as of currently and I have convinced myself that it's enough to convince others too. However I believe it does need slight improvements. 

[KJW]

3 hours ago, DavidWahl said:

...

Earth's history demonstrates a series of highly specific and contingent events that facilitated the origin of life. 

...

Our very existence serves as empirical evidence that such an event, however improbable, has occurred.

...

With these two statements, you are begging the question.

 

Edited Sunday at 03:30 PM by KJW

[Peterkin]

4 hours ago, DavidWahl said:

This is the best that I could do as of currently and I have convinced myself that it's enough to convince others too. However I believe it does need slight improvements. 

Whatever for ? The statistical improbability argument has been a non-starter since the day we became aware of the existence of other planets. Plus, of course, you can always shove it up one decimal point and argue the statistical improbability of god/s.  

Edited Sunday at 04:20 PM by Peterkin

[exchemist]

4 hours ago, DavidWahl said:

You may have heard the argument that theists often make about the necessity of an intelligent designer for the existence of life. The argument goes as:

"It's impossible for something too complex like life to have occurred at random without an intelligent designer."

Arguments like this or variations of the same that often leave us feeling unsatisfied or inept to provide concrete answers with proper reasoning.

Below I have devised or attempted to make a sequence of logical arguments based on pre-established knowledge and successful theories in science to tackle this common theistic argument of the impossibility or pure coincidence of life and that its existence does not necessitate supernatural explanations but rather arises from natural processes under specific conditions.

My set of arguments is as follow:

1) Life, despite its complexity, can be understood as a mechanism that is completely possible and operates entirely within the known laws of physics. 

2) Following the Big Bang, the Universe underwent a period of extreme instability, characterized by high levels of radiation and chaotic conditions. Over billions of years, however, the Universe now has approached a state of equilibrium. This shift has created regions with conditions conducive to the emergence and sustenance of life, such as lower radiation levels and the presence of essential chemical elements.

3) Given the vast number (billions) of galaxies, stars, and planetary systems within the observable Universe, it is reasonable to hypothesize that a subset of planets possesses resources and conditions favorable for the development and sustenance of life. 

4) Among the multitude of planets, one of them, that we are very familiar with, happens to meet all of those precise requirements and luckily underwent through very specific circumstances through which life came into existence. Earth's history demonstrates a series of highly specific and contingent events that facilitated the origin of life. 

5) A pertinent question arises: is it merely coincidental that the most suitable environment for life to emerge and thrive happens to be the same environment we inhabit? This coincidence, though seemingly extraordinary, is a reflection of the conditions under which observers, such as ourselves, can arise to question it.

6) While the probability of life emerging under such specific circumstances may be exceedingly low, it does not imply impossibility. Our very existence serves as empirical evidence that such an event, however improbable, has occurred. Thus, the realization of this "low-probability event" is not a contradiction but an affirmation of the principle that possibility, however rare, can manifest given sufficient opportunities.

7) Once life emerged, its ability to undergo Darwinian evolution became a fundamental mechanism driving its complexity. Through natural selection, genetic variation, and adaptation, living organisms gradually evolved to exploit diverse environments and develop increasingly intricate structures and behaviors. This process of evolution not only explains the diversity of life on Earth but also underscores why life has transitioned from simple molecular beginnings to the complex ecosystems and intelligent beings observed today.

This is the best that I could do as of currently and I have convinced myself that it's enough to convince others too. However I believe it does need slight improvements. 

I'd be tempted myself to take a more direct approach. First, who deems life to be "impossible" without supernatural intervention, and on what basis? There are many highly complex structures in the universe, both at macro and micro scale, for which we have good models accounting for their formation. Why should life be uniquely different? Is there a logic to this judgement, or is it just the Argument from Personal Incredulity?  Such statements are normally made by people without any knowledge of the relevant pre-biotic chemistry, so there is at the very least room to question whether they should think themselves authorities on the matter. 

Second, science is in fact making a lot of progress in understanding how life may have arisen. So, although abiogenesis is probably the hardest unsolved problem in modern science, it has by no means met a brick wall. There is every reason to have faith that science will in time uncover one or more likely pathways by which life may have arisen. Unlike people promoting a naïve religious agenda, science is patient: the fact we have no answer yet does not mean there won't be one in time.    

[swansont]

The statistical argument is a shell game. It’s an argument used to justify a position that had already been reached. When it’s refuted, the proponent Gish-gallops to the next argument. Lack of/poor information isn’t the barrier.

It’s fine to put better information out there, but it’s unlikely to change minds.

[DavidWahl]

2 hours ago, KJW said:

With these two statements, you are begging the question.

 

Well, good heavens I didn't put those two statements together for a reason and I've carefully framed them to prevent such logical fallacies. The first statement is an observation grounded in scientific evidence while the second statement is merely a reflection of the anthropic principle.

Note that it does not explain why life emerged but shows that its emergence is compatible with both Earth's conditions and probabilistic reasoning. This way, I'm not assuming life exists to prove Earth's conditions facilitated it but instead highlighting how Earth's conditions align with the scientific understanding of life’s requirements for it to flourish into existence.

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, DavidWahl said:

1) Life, despite its complexity, can be understood as a mechanism that is completely possible and operates entirely within the known laws of physics. 

Why, do you think we know all the Laws of Physics ?

And what about other Laws belonging to other Sciences ?

 

4 minutes ago, DavidWahl said:

favorable for the development and sustenance of life. 

Which conditions are ?

 

5 minutes ago, DavidWahl said:

Among the multitude of planets, one of them, that we are very familiar with, happens to meet all of those precise requirements and luckily underwent through very specific circumstances through which life came into existence. Earth's history demonstrates a series of highly specific and contingent events that facilitated the origin of life. 

Agreed, but that does not mean it is the only one.

 

6 minutes ago, DavidWahl said:

5) A pertinent question arises: is it merely coincidental that the most suitable environment for life to emerge and thrive happens to be the same environment we inhabit? This coincidence, though seemingly extraordinary, is a reflection of the conditions under which observers, such as ourselves, can arise to question it

But it decidedly didn't. Life on Earth emerged in an anoxic atmousphere or ocean.

7 minutes ago, DavidWahl said:

7) Once life emerged, its ability to undergo Darwinian evolution became a fundamental mechanism driving its complexity. Through natural selection, genetic variation, and adaptation, living organisms gradually evolved to exploit diverse environments and develop increasingly intricate structures and behaviors. This process of evolution not only explains the diversity of life on Earth but also underscores why life has transitioned from simple molecular beginnings to the complex ecosystems and intelligent beings observed today.

We have moved on a very long way since 1859.

 

8 minutes ago, DavidWahl said:

2) Following the Big Bang, the Universe underwent a period of extreme instability, characterized by high levels of radiation and chaotic conditions. Over billions of years, however, the Universe now has approached a state of equilibrium. This shift has created regions with conditions conducive to the emergence and sustenance of life, such as lower radiation levels and the presence of essential chemical elements.

Equilibrium ?

[DavidWahl]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Why, do you think we know all the Laws of Physics ?

And what about other Laws belonging to other Sciences ?

To be honest, I don't know but I believe that we don't know all the laws of physics or at least not in their most general form. I dream of the day we would finally discover the physical laws that are so fundamental that they could explain even the workings of a blackhole. 

I've priorised physics because the laws of physics are more fundamental than that of other sciences, duh. In fact, these laws form the foundational framework upon which all other sciences are built.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Which conditions are ?

Various conditions like the presence of liquid H2O, the location of planet earth in the habitable zone of the solar system, the formation of a protective layer of atmosphere, the presence of a magnetic field, the availability of essential resources and chemical diversity and so on. 

 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

But it decidedly didn't. Life on Earth emerged in an anoxic atmosphere or ocean.

Metabolism is key. Early life didn't need oxygen but eventually life found an ingenious way to utilize oxygen for metabolism through photosynthesis. 

 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

We have moved on a very long way since 1859.

Evolution could be anything like the evolution of anime, technology, fashion and more. In scientific literature, Darwinian evolution refers to the process of biological change in populations of organisms over generations through the variation, inheritance and natural selection. Do not confuse it with Darwin's Original Theory of Evolution which is presented in his book On the Origin of Species. 

 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Equilibrium ?

Yes, all it means is that our universe has reached to a stage where the extreme and chaotic conditions of its early moments have settled into more stable and predictable patterns. The Early universe was extremely hot, dense, and dominated by high-energy radiation and particles in constant interaction. Subsequently, with sufficient amount of time, the universe has expanded and cooled significantly, reducing the intensity of harmful radiation. This cooling allowed matter to condense into atoms and form stable structures like galaxies, solar systems and even chemical elements like carbon, nitrogen and oxygen. It's not an absolute state but it's relative to the turbulent conditions of our early universe which is why now is much better for a phenomenon such as life to occur. 

[studiot]

Just now, DavidWahl said:

Metabolism is key. Early life didn't need oxygen but eventually life found an ingenious way to utilize oxygen for metabolism through photosynthesis.

so claims a would be physicist

who seems to know nothing about Chemistry.

Further I was responding to your claim that the conditions under which life emerged are the same as the ones we now find on Earth.

2 hours ago, DavidWahl said:

for life to emerge and thrive happens to be the same environment we inhabit?

There was no oxygen when life emerged period.

 

Just now, DavidWahl said:

To be honest, I don't know but I believe that we don't know all the laws of physics or at least not in their most general form. I dream of the day we would finally discover the physical laws that are so fundamental that they could explain even the workings of a blackhole. 

I've priorised physics because the laws of physics are more fundamental than that of other sciences, duh. In fact, these laws form the foundational framework upon which all other sciences are built.

And Physics would be a real shadow without Mathematics.

But don't be so disdainful of other sciences.

 

Just now, DavidWahl said:

the location of planet earth in the habitable zone of the solar system,

This assumes what you set out to demonstrate.

The hew horizons space probe has cast serious doubt on that with the astounding data gathered from Pluto

 

Just now, DavidWahl said:

Yes, all it means is that our universe has reached to a stage where the extreme and chaotic conditions of its early moments have settled into more stable and predictable patterns. The Early universe was extremely hot, dense, and dominated by high-energy radiation and particles in constant interaction. Subsequently, with sufficient amount of time, the universe has expanded and cooled significantly, reducing the intensity of harmful radiation. This cooling allowed matter to condense into atoms and form stable structures like galaxies, solar systems and even chemical elements like carbon, nitrogen and oxygen. It's not an absolute state but it's relative to the turbulent conditions of our early universe which is why now is much better for a phenomenon such as life to occur.

Clearly you don't knpow what equilibrium means.

Strange for a would be Physicist.

 

Just now, DavidWahl said:

Evolution could be anything like the evolution of anime, technology, fashion and more. In scientific literature, Darwinian evolution refers to the process of biological change in populations of organisms over generations through the variation, inheritance and natural selection. Do not confuse it with Darwin's Original Theory of Evolution which is presented in his book On the Origin of Species. 

Not according to Wkipedia.

Quote

Wikipedia

Evolution is not a random process. Although mutations in DNA are random, natural selection is not a process of chance: the environment determines the probability of reproductive success. Evolution is an inevitable result of imperfectly copying, self-replicating organisms reproducing over billions of years under the selective pressure of the environment. The outcome of evolution is not a perfectly designed organism. The end products of natural selection are organisms that are adapted to their present environments. Natural selection does not involve progress towards an ultimate goal. Evolution does not strive for more advanced, more intelligent, or more sophisticated life forms.^[25] For example, fleas (wingless parasites) are descended from a winged, ancestral scorpionfly, and snakes are lizards that no longer require limbs—although pythons still grow tiny structures that are the remains of their ancestor's hind legs.^[26][27] Organisms are merely the outcome of variations that succeed or fail, dependent upon the environmental conditions at the time.

 

[DavidWahl]

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

Further I was responding to your claim that the conditions under which life emerged are the same as the ones we now find on Earth.

There was no oxygen when life emerged period.

Show me an argument I made that suggest oxygen (O2) as a necessity for the emergence of life, please do not confuse it with the elemental oxygen that also exist in other compounds like water. Your preconceived notions are not mine. Do you think the stars made a special exception for the production of elemental oxygen? There was no oxygen at all, I'm dead. 

 

11 minutes ago, studiot said:

And Physics would be a real shadow without Mathematics.

But don't be so disdainful of other sciences.

Thank you for expressing your unnecessary viewpoints, I mean if you want to understand it that way. 

 

13 minutes ago, studiot said:

Clearly you don't knpow what equilibrium means.

The word 'equilibrium' is not exclusively used to convey only the concept of thermodynamical equilibrium. I hope that is clear. 

 

21 minutes ago, studiot said:

Not according to Wkipedia.

I'm sorry, please offer me clarification. What is not according to wikipedia? 

Do not confuse more complex with more advance. Even though they are related, these two are separate things. Although, complexity is not inherently the "goal" of evolution, natural selection favors traits that increase an organism's ability to survive and reproduce in its environment. Over generations, organisms accumulate beneficial adaptations. Some of these adaptations may lead to greater complexity if they provide a survival advantage. Since natural selection preserves variations that confer advantages and passes it down through generations, complexity arises from the accumulation of small, incremental changes over millions or billions of years.

You are butchering my arguments in every single way without understanding the essence of them even a little bit. I've made sure that my arguments are pretty much flawless. I would highly recommend you to think twice before you write because I don't think you are making any progress as far as I'm concerned. 

[DavidWahl]

11 hours ago, swansont said:

The statistical argument is a shell game. It’s an argument used to justify a position that had already been reached. When it’s refuted, the proponent Gish-gallops to the next argument. Lack of/poor information isn’t the barrier.

It’s fine to put better information out there, but it’s unlikely to change minds.

I agree. 

I've found that misrepresentation, misinterpretation, and manipulation of statistical data are among the methods they often resort to, to support their biased arguments and make weak justifications. 

It is unlikely to convince them but by erecting a more solid set of arguments based on evidence, I'm expecting it would prevent them from developing complex, obscure and yet nonetheless wrong arguments in the future and reinforce them to take time to understand what is written before they could point out what is wrong but, of course, only if they don't want to embarrass themselves which is also very unlikely. When you don't make good, simple and complete arguments, they'd find ways to exploit them for which they haven't really understood and later they repeat their premises to argue with someone else because they haven't lost their faith in them since they don't think you have been able to completely refute them. 

Edited Monday at 04:41 AM by DavidWahl

[KJW]

On 12/23/2024 at 3:41 AM, DavidWahl said:

Well, good heavens I didn't put those two statements together for a reason and I've carefully framed them to prevent such logical fallacies.

I didn't put the two statements together to logically connect them. I put the two statements together because individually they are both begging the question.

 

 

On 12/23/2024 at 3:41 AM, DavidWahl said:

The first statement is an observation grounded in scientific evidence

The first statement is an observation grounded in scientific evidence of what exactly?

 

 

On 12/23/2024 at 3:41 AM, DavidWahl said:

the second statement is merely a reflection of the anthropic principle.

Point #5:

"5) A pertinent question arises: is it merely coincidental that the most suitable environment for life to emerge and thrive happens to be the same environment we inhabit? This coincidence, though seemingly extraordinary, is a reflection of the conditions under which observers, such as ourselves, can arise to question it."

seems to me to be a statement of the anthropic principle. This statement from point #6:

"Our very existence serves as empirical evidence that such an event, however improbable, has occurred."

seems to me to be saying that our existence is evidence that the probability of forming life was not too low for it to occur without an intelligent designer, whereas this is the conclusion at which you are trying to arrive and thus begging the question. Your opponent could just as easily say that our very existence serves as empirical evidence that life occurred by an intelligent designer. Our existence may be empirical evidence, but of what exactly?

With regards to the anthropic principle, I posted (on another forum) the view that the multiverse of all possible universes combined with the anthropic principle guarantees our existence regardless of how improbable life is (assuming that it is not actually impossible), making the point that our existence says nothing about its likelihood. At the time, I was suggesting that life was too improbable for it to exist elsewhere in the observable universe. Such a low probability wouldn't affect the likelihood of our existence but would affect the likelihood of the existence of alien life. The reason I mention this here is because the anthropic principle alone doesn't guarantee our existence in the absence of an intelligent designer, but combined with a multiverse, an intelligent designer is no longer necessary regardless of how improbable life is.
 
One additional remark I'd like to make is that I don't think the complexity of life can ever make it impossible, only improbable.

 

[studiot]

30 minutes ago, KJW said:

I posted (on another forum) the view that the multiverse of all possible universes combined with the anthropic principle guarantees our existence regardless of how improbable life is (assuming that it is not actually impossible), making the point that our existence says nothing about its likelihood.

You clearly understand the meaning and workings of probability, even though you don't actually (mathematically) require the Everett interpretation for what you said to be true. +1

I have linked this to another thread to help the OP understand better.

On 12/22/2024 at 9:03 PM, DavidWahl said:

Show me an argument I made that suggest oxygen (O2) as a necessity for the emergence of life, please do not confuse it with the elemental oxygen that also exist in other compounds like water. Your preconceived notions are not mine. Do you think the stars made a special exception for the production of elemental oxygen? There was no oxygen at all, I'm dead. 

Firstly I was not feeling very well the other night so I apoligise if you thought my posting over aggressive.

The red vote was not mine so I have added a + vote to cancel it.

However please read it properly as you have not responded to the points I made but points I did not say.

In particular this one where I did not say that oxygen was eityher necessary or unneccessary. I said that going from no unbound oxygen to a biogenerated atmousphere of between 10% and 20 % was an enormous change, not to be dismissed lightly.

 

On 12/22/2024 at 9:03 PM, DavidWahl said:

Thank you for expressing your unnecessary viewpoints, I mean if you want to understand it that way. 

Is what I said not true then ?

 

On 12/22/2024 at 9:03 PM, DavidWahl said:

The word 'equilibrium' is not exclusively used to convey only the concept of thermodynamical equilibrium. I hope that is clear. 

You are the only one who mentioned thermodynamic equilibrium.

On 12/22/2024 at 9:03 PM, DavidWahl said:

On 12/22/2024 at 8:27 PM, studiot said:

Not according to Wkipedia.

I'm sorry, please offer me clarification. What is not according to wikipedia? 

I posted an excerpt from Wiki which directly contradicted the statement you made.

 

You did not respond to my offering of the New Horizons data.

[DavidWahl]

6 hours ago, studiot said:

In particular this one where I did not say that oxygen was eityher necessary or unneccessary. I said that going from no unbound oxygen to a biogenerated atmousphere of between 10% and 20 % was an enormous change, not to be dismissed lightly.

I understood what you meant. Some of the conditions were different back then. The environment that is suitable for current living organisms is not the same environment under which life originally emerged. Life adapted and evolved over billions of years, gradually modifying Earth's conditions to make them more hospitable for modern organisms. We are active participants in shaping our own environment, for example the emergence of cyanobacteria and other early life, as you have pointed out, caused an increased of oxygen levels in the atmosphere which contributed to the evolution of complex life. This doesn't violate my previous statement; it's an extension that is not so obvious at first sight but requires understanding to see how things play out with time and bring about those changes. Although I think I do need to make revisions and incorporate this as well if I need to strengthen my argument. 

6 hours ago, studiot said:

Is what I said not true then ?

Personally? Yes what you said is agreeable but, as I mentioned, it is unnecessary to what I'm trying to argue. The intention of writing these set of arguments is not to give the idea to the reader that I'm inconsiderate of other fields of knowledge and in no way do I want that. I chose physics particularly for simplicity and convention or else I would've mentioned everything on the list. Your attack is less on the formal and more on the personal side which I found meaningless with respect to the context.

6 hours ago, studiot said:

You are the only one who mentioned thermodynamic equilibrium.

Yes I did, but still equilibrium is perfectly fine in this context as well. Unless, you feel like equilibrium should only be one thing. In that case, you can state your strong points why equilibrium should not be used the way I used it. 

6 hours ago, studiot said:

I posted an excerpt from Wiki which directly contradicted the statement you made.

I read it and everything is in alignment to my arguments as far as I'm concerned. I didn't find the contradiction that you said which is why I asked you to offer me more clarification and to be more specific. Unless by contradiction, you meant this:

"Evolution could be anything like the evolution of anime, technology, fashion and more"

                             Versus

"Evolution is not a random process"

To be honest, this is the only contradiction that my brain could point out. 

6 hours ago, studiot said:

You did not respond to my offering of the New Horizons data.

I didn't because I couldn't find the article after playing with all word combinations I could make from the sufficient information you gave me. So I now request you to kindly provide me a link but only if you want to be bothered. 

 

6 hours ago, studiot said:

Firstly I was not feeling very well the other night so I apoligise if you thought my posting over aggressive.

The red vote was not mine so I have added a + vote to cancel it.

However please read it properly as you have not responded to the points I made but points I did not say.

Not that I found it aggressive but a little careless. I apologize from my side too, I replied without giving much thought to what you said. If I haven't mentioned it yet, I'm relatively new to philosophy so I'm not properly acquainted with advanced concepts, argumentation, lexicon and condensed expressions. I try my best to do whatever I can and write what goes inside my head. Frankly I'm here to learn from others and have a bit of fun as well. So, please feel free to correct me when I'm wrong. 

Edited Wednesday at 06:33 PM by DavidWahl

[Moontanman]

I would like to suggest that the oxygenation of Earth's atmosphere wasn't exactly a benign occurrence that life then learned to use. The emergence of free oxygen due to photosynthesis was a devastating mass extinction event! Life didn't just "learn" to use it, the vast majority of life died or was forced into special ecological niches where oxygen didn't or couldn't exist while new organisms evolved to tolerate and then actually use oxygen as a energy source. This mass extinction lead to all complex life on earth. 

On 12/22/2024 at 3:07 PM, DavidWahl said:

 

On 12/22/2024 at 12:53 PM, studiot said:

But it decidedly didn't. Life on Earth emerged in an anoxic atmosphere or ocean.

Metabolism is key. Early life didn't need oxygen but eventually life found an ingenious way to utilize oxygen for metabolism through photosynthesis. 

 I'm not trying to be pedantic but this is just not an accurate description of  how oxygen was or is produced or even what oxygen was. Oxygen was a waste product, life didn't just not need oxygen, oxygen is a poison to anaerobic life! Oxygen caused a mass extinction event!

Also, this is simply not what photosynthesis is, how it works, or how the use of it evolved "but eventually life found an ingenious way to utilize oxygen for metabolism through photosynthesis." this is just backwards and twisted and suggests oxygen was just a benign substance that appeared not to mention that metabolism doesn't always need or even use free oxygen! Also photosynthesis does not utilise oxygen it produces oxygen as a waste product, oxygen metabolism utilizes the oxygen photosynthesis produces.  

[DavidWahl]

5 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I would like to suggest that the oxygenation of Earth's atmosphere wasn't exactly a benign occurrence that life then learned to use. The emergence of free oxygen due to photosynthesis was a devastating mass extinction event! Life didn't just "learn" to use it, the vast majority of life died or was forced into special ecological niches where oxygen didn't or couldn't exist while new organisms evolved to tolerate and then actually use oxygen as a energy source. This mass extinction lead to all complex life on earth. 

Oxygen was a waste product, life didn't just not need oxygen, oxygen is a poison to anaerobic life! Oxygen caused a mass extinction event!

Yes I was aware of these facts beforehand. By the way, oxygen is not an energy source itself but is essential for the extraction of energy from organic molecules during aerobic respiration. And by implying that 'this mass extinction lead to all complex life on earth' is simply wrong because it alone was not the sole reason. More accurately it can be said that the rise in oxygen levels combined with mass extinction created the conditions necessary for the evolution of complex life on Earth. 

5 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Also, this is simply not what photosynthesis is, how it works, or how the use of it evolved "but eventually life found an ingenious way to utilize oxygen for metabolism through photosynthesis." this is just backwards and twisted and suggests oxygen was just a benign substance that appeared not to mention that metabolism doesn't always need or even use free oxygen! Also photosynthesis does not utilise oxygen it produces oxygen as a waste product, oxygen metabolism utilizes the oxygen photosynthesis produces. 

I got mixed up and made a silly mistake that slipped out of my notice until you've pointed it out. 

The correct that I wanted and should have written is:

 "but eventually life found a way to utilize oxygen for metabolism through cellular respiration although not always exclusively"  

But after a little reflection, I realised that the above statment would still be an incorrect one. As you mentioned, a lot of organisms died in the process because oxygen was poisonous to them but life didn't instantly evolved to be able to tolerate oxygen and perform aerobic respiration. Some microorganisms (likely ancestors of modern aerobic organisms) already had the biochemical machinery to use oxygen, but most likely this was initially just a minor adaptation. As natural selection goes, when oxygen levels rose dramatically, those organisms that could tolerate or even use oxygen for energy had a significant survival advantage. Since aerobic respiration is far more efficient at generating energy than anaerobic processes, this ability became more widespread and refined through evolutionary processes and is now a dominant metabolic pathway for many organisms. Even cyanobacteria, the main contributors of the oxygen uprise, was one of the earliest organisms that could perform aerobic respiration so that it could metabolize even in the absence sunlight and thrive in the oxygen-rich environment.