Request for Scientific Review

[needimprovement]

Any scientists out there who are interested, I'd like a mathematical and/or scientific critique of the assertions made at the following website:

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/448517/Evolution-What-Are-the-Odds

 

Note there are some comments on the side that are directed towards a mathematical critique of the poster's assertions. These critiques appear to be valid, but I think the underlying premise in the post has something to it.

 

The underlying argument posed at the site is that it is, essentially, mathematically impossible (or at least so improbable as to be impossible) for life to have arisen on its own using pure random chance. The poster appears to believe that this means that life could not evolve from non-life without the intercession of a greater power (i.e., God).

 

What I'm thinking of is recasting the argument in a more mathematically or scientifically correct way - if that's possible. It may not be possible, given lack of understanding of how amino acids could combined and eventually form cells exhibiting industrial complexity. Nevertheless, it stands to reason that while 4 billion years is a long time, the number is still quite finite and may be too small to support random chance.

 

I suspect the counter argument may be that industrial complexity builds on itself as time goes on. However, I'm not sure how much that will hold water scientifically speaking; after all, you have to achieve some measure of industrial complexity in the first place.

 

I know the basic argument of life from non-life, but to my knowledge the argument has never been positivistically proven; and thus is subject to skepticism in the scientific realm.

 

 

 

To you atheists out there - I'm not interested in proving or disproving God using an argument of probabilities. While I admit that eventually I would like to use this type of argument as merely one argument in a range of arguments that, as a whole, point to God's existence, I first need to know if the underlying premise is sound before engaging in any kind of metaphysics. For, if the physics or math is wrong, then any rationale supporting metaphysical conclusions based on it (either for or against God's existence) must also be flawed (i.e., the premise is flawed and thus not helpful to the conclusion).

 

Same thing to my fellow brothers in Christ: This is no challenge against God or proof for Him, I merely want to enquire if the premise is sound or weak - and if it is weak whether it can be improved so that it is sound.

 

Accordingly, again, what I really want is a purely scientific or mathematical analysis of the argument posed in the website. From there I might springboard into another, separate, thread discussing metaphysical speculation.

 

Thank you for your time!

[Ophiolite]

Hello needimprovement,

I can't provide an exhaustive analysis of the linked article, but here are some thoughts that occur to me as I work through it. (Since an individual's background can effect their take on any issue you may wish to have a capsule summary of mine. I am a devout agnostic who fully accepts the reality of evolution, but is intrigued by the uncertainties surrounding abiogenesis. I do not doubt that a natural explanation for this will be developed, but we are still a considerable distance from that point, with many more questions than answers.)

 

Dr. Harold Morowitz, former professor of biophysics at Yale University, estimated that

the probability of the chance formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism

known is 1 out of 10^340,000,000.

 

At the outset the paper seems to be addressing an irrelevant strawman. The smallest, simplest living organism is thought to be considerably more complex than the first life. Life did not begin with something as complex as the current simplest organism, so assessing the probability of life arising in comparison with such is just meaningless.

 

The very popular evolutionist, Dr. Carl Sagan of Cornell University, figured even steeper odds against the simplest life beginning naturally on a planet such as earth. According to Sagan, the probability would be about 1 out of 10^2,000,000,000. Try to imagine ten to the 2 billionth power. Pretty astounding odds. Interestingly, these impossible odds against evolution came from one of the most prominent evolutionists of our time.

 

I have seen exactly the same calculation attributed to Francis Crick. Either way this smacks of quote mining. If Sagan calculated this figure, then he was taken out of context. I imagine his argument would be something along the lines of ".....however, life did not emerge by chance. Certain chemical pathways are favoured over others. There is a tendency for chemical systems - in the right environment - to become more complex. The laws of chemistry and physics drive reactions in particualr directions."

 

The author of the article, in taking those words out of context is guilty of manipulation and is, frankly, lying.

 

The author then launches into a pointless exercise of calculating how many events could have occured since the universe began, at which point the link fails for me and I am left unable to read the rest of the article. This is doubtless a blessing since the author clearly has a) a simplistic view of the world B) no knowledge of science c) serious issues of morality.

 

Needimprovement, you have absolutely no reason to trust me on this, but the linkage is a very large barrel of hokum. Since you do have no reason to trust me, I would be happy to answer any and all quesitons you may wish to ask about specifics in the paper or in my reply.

 

Ophiolite

[Sisyphus]

It can't be evaluated, since the odds aren't explained. He just says "so and so estimates odds of 1/zillion." It's the method of determining those odds that would need to be evaluated, as that's the only substance in the paper - the rest is just arithmetic.

 

If, for example, the odds are calculated based on (known simple life configurations)/(total possible arrangements of matter), then that isn't valid, for what should be obvious reasons. Life gradually arising as a consequence of natural processes is not equivalent to random molecules being tossed together and a bacterium popping out. Nobody believes the latter.

 

There is also the matter of the size of the universe. It is still an open question whether or not the universe is infinite. If it is, then such probabilities become meaningless - anything that could happen has happened.

[Mr Skeptic]

It smells more of the graceful art of politics, of saying things that might be technically correct but using them to mislead. For example, almost everyone things it is incredibly unlikely to have life (or even worse, a specific life-form) arise by pure chance. Which is why no one believes that. Life is not the only thing that can self-replicate, you know. However, to calculate the odds of life forming by pure chance would require one to know every single possible form of life there could possibly be, which is impossible. So, generally these calculations are for a specific life, and by necessity absurdly smaller than for life in general, and even then it is addressing a false argument, since no one proposes a pure-chance process.

[needimprovement]

I greatly appreciate your input, and understood all of it. It seems that the article might have too many logical flaws to be really useful. I will have to cogitate on this idea some more.

 

Would it somehow change things if we found that life in the universe is *common?* If it's common, then you have many "unrealistic" probabilities occurring, instead of just the one ad-hoc probablility (Earth) that has been observed.

[Ophiolite]

Would it somehow change things if we found that life in the universe is *common?* If it's common, then you have many "unrealistic" probabilities occurring, instead of just the one ad-hoc probablility (Earth) that has been observed.

One of the apparent weaknesses of the creationist arguments against abiogenesis is the great depth of ignorance science has about the process. While many plausible schemes have been proposed in outline, we actually have no idea of which of these, if any is valid, I we quite lack any detailed understanding of the environment, mechanisms, process and timing by which they developed.

 

Therefore, if life were found to be commonplace as you suggest it might, it would strongly indicate that the laws of nature were so attuned as to encourage, perhaps assure, its emergence whenever conditions were right - and that such conditions were not too stringent.

[Mr Skeptic]

If life were found to be commonplace in the universe, the religious would say it is proof of God because how could so much life arise by chance, whereas the non-religious would simply think life had an even better chance of forming naturally than we currently believe. Unless someone can actually calculate the odds of life forming, there really wouldn't be a way to tell which is right, and so naturally both would claim it as evidence for their beliefs.