Probability and life by Chance Alone

[swansont]

Wrong.

 

My argument is that regardless of how many people you have rolling the die 1/6 is the probable outcome for EACH INDIVIDUAL. Which is a fact.

 

But we are discussing outcomes. The more times an attempt is made, the more likely the outcome will occur. We want the odds of the outcome (i.e. the number of sixes that happened); the odds of each event is only part of that calculation. The odds of a six being rolled, by anyone, is not the same as the odds of one person rolling a six — it's a different question. Life only had to occur once, so every opportunity for molecules to interact increases the probability of the outcome.

 

(All of this under the disclaimer that the odds calculations are inherently flawed, of course)

[Emilio Primo]

Again you display an amazing lack of understanding the true details of what life and evolution is and how it works, there was no abrupt change to oxygen, it took many millions of years and complex life did not evolve until there was oxygen, not the other way around. Read this closely, write it down, this is an important point, life did not and does not require oxygen...

 

1) The building block of life, amino acids, require oxygen.

 

2) There would have to be oxygen present in early earth's atmosphere at some point for amino acids, ect ,ect to form and survive.

 

2)I said that in order for chemical compounds to form in earth's early atmosphere that it would have to be a reducing atmosphere

 

3) I said in order for amino acids to form the atmosphere would have to go from a reducing atmosphere to an oxidizing one.

 

 

I understand evolution very well:

 

 

(5) Reducing atmosphere

 

(a) The Earth's early atmosphere appears to have lacked any more than trace concentrations of molecular oxygen (O2)

 

(B) These low-concentrations-of-molecular-oxygen conditions appear to have been present during the first billion or so years of life's existence (ending about 2.5 billion years ago as molecular oxygen generated by cyanobacteria finally began to accumulate)

 

© See figure 26.1, Some major episodes in the history of life (about 2500 million years ago)

 

(d) See figure 26.2, Clock analogy for some key events in evolutionary history (about 2500 million years ago)

 

(e) This lack of molecular oxygen is expected given that molecular oxygen is highly reactive, especially in an environment that evolved in the absence of molecular oxygen

 

(f) This is because many materials that are stable in environments lacking in molecular oxygen are readily degraded by (unstable in the presence of) molecular oxygen

 

(g) In the absence of oxygen, oxygen-labile materials can accumulate, only ultimately to be destroyed (oxidized) once oxygen became abundantly available (resulting in a loss of both the material and the material-destroying molecular oxygen)

 

(h) Such materials that accumulate in the absence of oxygen are termed reduced

 

(i) The early Earth's atmosphere is thus described as a reducing atmosphere (certainly it was not oxidizing)

 

(j) Biomolecules tend to be somewhat reduced (certainly they do not represent carbon in its most oxidized form)

 

(k) Biomolecules are somewhat unstable in the presence of oxygen

 

(l) Thus, only in an environment that lacks molecular oxygen could life have slowly evolved from reduced carbon-containing materials found more or less stably present in such an environment

 

(m) Were oxygen present in large concentrations then the instability of organic molecules in oxygen�s presence would have placed a too-stringent time limit on the simultaneous evolution of self-replication and resistance to oxygen

 

(n) Molecular oxygen is a poison that all organisms that live in oxygenated environments have had to evolve to deal with; numerous organisms still exist that are incapable of survival in the presence of molecular oxygen (e.g., strict anaerobes such as Clostridium tetani, the bacterium that lives in anoxic, deep puncture wounds and causes tetanus)

 

 

http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/campbl26.htm#logic_of_origin_of_life

 

 

 

 

You are simply deep in a large river in Egypt , if you want to believe in miracles feel free to do so but do not try to prove their existence with no evidence but that belief.

 

 

Actually I was referring to the astronomical odds of biopoiesis, which according to our understanding of physics, is impossible, or to put it simply. Cannot occur in nature. So accepting this possibility is accepting a supernatural feat.

 

So it seems you do believe in miracles.

 

Again you display an amazing lack of understanding the true details of what life and evolution is and how it works, there was no abrupt change to oxygen, it took many millions of years and complex life did not evolve until there was oxygen, not the other way around. Read this closely, write it down, this is an important point, life did not and does not require oxygen...

 

1) The building block of life, amino acids, require oxygen.

 

2) There would have to be oxygen present in early earth's atmosphere at some point for amino acids, ect ,ect to form and survive.

 

2)I said that in order for chemical compounds to form in earth's early atmosphere that it would have to be a reducing atmosphere

 

3) I said in order for amino acids to form the atmosphere would have to go from a reducing atmosphere to an oxidizing one.

 

 

I understand evolution very well:

 

 

(5) Reducing atmosphere

 

(a) The Earth's early atmosphere appears to have lacked any more than trace concentrations of molecular oxygen (O2)

 

(B) These low-concentrations-of-molecular-oxygen conditions appear to have been present during the first billion or so years of life's existence (ending about 2.5 billion years ago as molecular oxygen generated by cyanobacteria finally began to accumulate)

 

© See figure 26.1, Some major episodes in the history of life (about 2500 million years ago)

 

(d) See figure 26.2, Clock analogy for some key events in evolutionary history (about 2500 million years ago)

 

(e) This lack of molecular oxygen is expected given that molecular oxygen is highly reactive, especially in an environment that evolved in the absence of molecular oxygen

 

(f) This is because many materials that are stable in environments lacking in molecular oxygen are readily degraded by (unstable in the presence of) molecular oxygen

 

(g) In the absence of oxygen, oxygen-labile materials can accumulate, only ultimately to be destroyed (oxidized) once oxygen became abundantly available (resulting in a loss of both the material and the material-destroying molecular oxygen)

 

(h) Such materials that accumulate in the absence of oxygen are termed reduced

 

(i) The early Earth's atmosphere is thus described as a reducing atmosphere (certainly it was not oxidizing)

 

(j) Biomolecules tend to be somewhat reduced (certainly they do not represent carbon in its most oxidized form)

 

(k) Biomolecules are somewhat unstable in the presence of oxygen

 

(l) Thus, only in an environment that lacks molecular oxygen could life have slowly evolved from reduced carbon-containing materials found more or less stably present in such an environment

 

(m) Were oxygen present in large concentrations then the instability of organic molecules in oxygen�s presence would have placed a too-stringent time limit on the simultaneous evolution of self-replication and resistance to oxygen

 

(n) Molecular oxygen is a poison that all organisms that live in oxygenated environments have had to evolve to deal with; numerous organisms still exist that are incapable of survival in the presence of molecular oxygen (e.g., strict anaerobes such as Clostridium tetani, the bacterium that lives in anoxic, deep puncture wounds and causes tetanus)

 

 

http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/campbl26.htm#logic_of_origin_of_life

 

 

 

 

You are simply deep in a large river in Egypt , if you want to believe in miracles feel free to do so but do not try to prove their existence with no evidence but that belief.

 

 

Actually I was referring to the astronomical odds of biopoiesis, which according to our understanding of physics, is impossible, or to put it more simply cannot occur in nature. So accepting this possibility is accepting a supernatural feat.

 

So it seems you believe in miracles too.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Emilio Primo

[cypress]

Why's that?

 

As swansont has explained, if I start with the necessary precursors to what I want, I have significantly improved odds of creating what I want, compared with starting with completely random molecules.

 

Of course, but the number Hoyle used stipulated availability of all necessary precursors so it is irrelevant to this discussion as I said before.

 

 

Ahem.

 

Entropy increases in a closed system. Earth, or even any lifeform, is not a closed system. Many interactions occur between objects on Earth's surface, and between Earth and other astronomical bodies. (Like sunlight.)

 

I am aware that the earth is not a closed system. Please note that my statement does not stipulate a closed system. I allow for import of any resource but one must identify a resource that provides molecular order. The thermal energy from the sun does not seem to be a source of molecular order. If you can show that it does provide molecular order then you will have demonstrated that my statement is false.

 

Entropy is allowed to increase in a test-tube in my lab if I'm allowed to interfere with the test-tube as much as I want. But the global entropy of the entire system will increase, yes.

 

Of course, but in order for information entropy or molecular entropy to act on the contents of the tube you must have a source of low entropy. What and where in natural systems is this source?

 

Interestingly, many models of abiogenesis focus on undersea vents rich in organic compounds. No atmosphere required.

 

And who says the first life forms were dependent on oxygen? Quite a few modern life forms aren't.

 

Or a change in the conditions of the experiment.

 

Right, these are all red herring issues some of which are simply incorrect and others that don't bear on the subject at hand.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

1) The building block of life, amino acids, require oxygen.

 

2) There would have to be oxygen present in early earth's atmosphere at some point for amino acids, ect ,ect to form and survive.

 

2)I said that in order for chemical compounds to form in earth's early atmosphere that it would have to be a reducing atmosphere

 

3) I said in order for amino acids to form the atmosphere would have to go from a reducing atmosphere to an oxidizing one.

The Miller-Urey experiment shows that point #3 here is false. Numerous amino acids were formed in a reducing atmosphere in the experiment.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14966-volcanic-lightning-may-have-sparked-life-on-earth.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

[Moontanman]

1) The building block of life, amino acids, require oxygen.

 

Not free oxygen emilio...

 

2) There would have to be oxygen present in early earth's atmosphere at some point for amino acids, ect ,ect to form and survive.

 

See above

 

2)I said that in order for chemical compounds to form in earth's early atmosphere that it would have to be a reducing atmosphere

 

Agreed

 

3) I said in order for amino acids to form the atmosphere would have to go from a reducing atmosphere to an oxidizing one.

 

No, you have a profound lack of knowledge about this emilio, no free oxygen is necessary for life or amino acids...

 

I understand evolution very well:

 

Evidently not.....

 

 

 

http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/campbl26.htm#logic_of_origin_of_life

 

Your link only proves my point, did you read it at all?

 

 

 

 

 

Actually I was referring to the astronomical odds of biopoiesis, which according to our understanding of physics, is impossible, or to put it simply. Cannot occur in nature. So accepting this possibility is accepting a supernatural feat.

 

So it seems you do believe in miracles.

 

No, this is simply not true, this builds on all the other things you get wrong emilio, every link in your chain is broken...

 

 

1) The building block of life, amino acids, require oxygen

 

Not free oxygen.

 

2) There would have to be oxygen present in early earth's atmosphere at some point for amino acids, ect ,ect to form and survive.

 

No, this is totally false

 

2)I said that in order for chemical compounds to form in earth's early atmosphere that it would have to be a reducing atmosphere

 

This is true.

 

3) I said in order for amino acids to form the atmosphere would have to go from a reducing atmosphere to an oxidizing one.

 

And as I said before no this is not true...

 

I understand evolution very well:

 

No you do not...

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/campbl26.htm#logic_of_origin_of_life

 

This does not support your assertion in any way shape or form

 

 

 

 

 

Actually I was referring to the astronomical odds of biopoiesis, which according to our understanding of physics, is impossible, or to put it more simply cannot occur in nature. So accepting this possibility is accepting a supernatural feat.

 

So it seems you believe in miracles too.

 

Making claims over and over doesn not make them true...

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Of course, but the number Hoyle used stipulated availability of all necessary precursors so it is irrelevant to this discussion as I said before.

Precursors of what level? One could state that atoms of hydrogen and oxygen are "precursors," or one could state that certain organic compounds already available are precursors.

 

I am aware that the earth is not a closed system. Please note that my statement does not stipulate a closed system. I allow for import of any resource but one must identify a resource that provides molecular order. The thermal energy from the sun does not seem to be a source of molecular order. If you can show that it does provide molecular order then you will have demonstrated that my statement is false.

You'll have to provide a law of thermodynamics that requires "molecular order" first. The Second Law certainly doesn't.

 

AzurePhoenix has given examples of order appearing without a "source."

 

Of course, but in order for information entropy or molecular entropy to act on the contents of the tube you must have a source of low entropy. What and where in natural systems is this source?

A "source" of low entropy? What do you think entropy is, some sort of mystical goo?

 

No, you don't need a "source." The tube cannot be considered in isolation. The net entropy of the system increases. I don't have to find a spot of exceedingly low entropy and introduce it to the system. I just have to make the system increase in entropy one way or another.

 

Right, these are all red herring issues some of which are simply incorrect and others that don't bear on the subject at hand.

Perhaps you could explain, rather than merely dismissing arguments you don't like.

[Emilio Primo]

The Miller-Urey experiment shows that point #3 here is false. Numerous amino acids were formed in a reducing atmosphere in the experiment.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14966-volcanic-lightning-may-have-sparked-life-on-earth.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

 

 

You are correct.

 

This does not support your assertion in any way shape or form

 

I erred in amino acids in a oxidizing atmosphere. My mistake...

 

 

Making claims over and over doesn not make them true...

 

No, it doesn't, but science makes my claim true. Life from non life as we understand physics is a supernatural occurrence.

[cypress]

Precursors of what level? One could state that atoms of hydrogen and oxygen are "precursors," or one could state that certain organic compounds already available are precursors.

 

 

You'll have to provide a law of thermodynamics that requires "molecular order" first. The Second Law certainly doesn't.

 

In molecular diffusion, entropy applies to concentration gradients independent of thermal entropy. Thermodynamics is the most common application of entropy laws but not the only application. Information entropy has also been widely validated, particularly as it applies to cosmological events, but also when dealing with information encoded by material objects transcribe on neutral carriers. Writing on a page is an example. Digital codes imbedded into electronic carriers is another. Nucleotide bases on a ribose carrier is a third.

 

AzurePhoenix has given examples of order appearing without a "source."

 

Sorry no. One can easily demonstrate that crystallization forms by deterministic processes once brownian motion provides the random event suitable for ordering. This is an isetropic event with respect to molecular entropy. The before and after states are equivalent. there is no net increase in molecular order since the probability of forming the crystal is 1.

 

 

A "source" of low entropy? What do you think entropy is, some sort of mystical goo?

 

It is a vernacular that seems to describe the situation even if it is not completely accurate. Forgive my prose unless you truely do not understand what I meant by this.

 

No, you don't need a "source." The tube cannot be considered in isolation. The net entropy of the system increases. I don't have to find a spot of exceedingly low entropy and introduce it to the system. I just have to make the system increase in entropy one way or another.

 

Systems degrade and increase entropy without intervention. However one does require a source of higher order in order to decrease the entropy of the system. To claim that entropy drops without a source of higher order is equivalent to thumbing your nose at physical laws.

 

Perhaps you could explain, rather than merely dismissing arguments you don't like.

 

I read my posts and truly see them as explanations. If you would more clearly identify where you do not understand, rather than counter that I am wrong, I may be able to focus on that issue rather than just provide a retort.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Systems degrade and increase entropy without intervention. However one does require a source of higher order in order to decrease the entropy of the system. To claim that entropy drops without a source of higher order is equivalent to thumbing your nose at physical laws.

Which physical laws? The Second Law of thermodynamics certainly doesn't require this.

 

I read my posts and truly see them as explanations. If you would more clearly identify where you do not understand, rather than counter that I am wrong, I may be able to focus on that issue rather than just provide a retort.

I very clearly quoted the portion of your post I was referring to. It was the part where you didn't identify why you objected, but rather countered that I am wrong.

[DJBruce]

Actually I was referring to the astronomical odds of biopoiesis, which according to our understanding of physics, is impossible, or to put it more simply cannot occur in nature. So accepting this possibility is accepting a supernatural feat.

 

So it seems you believe in miracles too.

 

First the odds you keep citing are completely bogus from the start. As they assume that all the needed enzymes synthesized in one trial. The theory of biogenesis by no means thinks that life formed in one single event. It states that over uncountable interactions the necessary components came together to form life. The idea that life came out of a single event, and the odds you give of it occurring, [math]10^{-41000}[/math], is more in line with intelligent design than it is with biogenesis.

 

Again where does physics state that an event is unlikely to occur will not occur at all.

[cypress]

Which physical laws? The Second Law of thermodynamics certainly doesn't require this.

 

Huh? The second law of thermodynamics sets the direction of flow of order from high to low in the absence of an external driver for systems that proceed by random processes. Brownian motion is a random process that drives heat transfer and chemic processes and molecular diffusion. The physical law constrains the average heat energy flux to flow from low entropy areas to high entropy areas and in the process increases total entropy of the system. Analogs exist for molecular entropy and information entropy. This behavior is observed to be true for all similar systems involving random processes.

 

It is possible that I misspoke somewhere though I doubt it, so please explain exactly where entropy principles do not require any aspect of what I described in any of my posts.

 

I very clearly quoted the portion of your post I was referring to. It was the part where you didn't identify why you objected, but rather countered that I am wrong.

 

It's not that I don't like them. They simply apply to other situations. They are red herring arguments. I did not say you are wrong. I actually think you are more often correct, but that you simply do not address the topic at hand. This is why I call them red herrings. some are arguments about formation of amino acids but Hoyle stipulates availability of all required amino acids. Others deal with pre-biotic conditions, but again the analysis grants that for tjis analysis conditions are taken to be as required. In this way these items are not relevant to the points.

[Emilio Primo]

First the odds you keep citing are completely bogus from the start. As they assume that all the needed enzymes synthesized in one trial. The theory of biogenesis by no means thinks that life formed in one single event. It states that over uncountable interactions the necessary components came together to form life. The idea that life came out of a single event, and the odds you give of it occurring, [math]10^{-41000}[/math], is more in line with intelligent design than it is with biogenesis.

 

Again where does physics state that an event is unlikely to occur will not occur at all.

 

 

I didn't cite the odds, a scientist did, and was posted by the original OP of this thread, so read the OP to learn further.

 

Then if you accept the theory that life can come from inanimate matter, then you are accepting the occurrence of a miracle, and this is not me saying so, this is physics.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Emilio Primo

[cypress]

First the odds you keep citing are completely bogus from the start. As they assume that all the needed enzymes synthesized in one trial. The theory of biogenesis by no means thinks that life formed in one single event. It states that over uncountable interactions the necessary components came together to form life. The idea that life came out of a single event, and the odds you give of it occurring, [math]10^{-41000}[/math], is more in line with intelligent design than it is with biogenesis.

 

Nonsense. they are treated as combinatorial events that can happen over any time period and most any order, with any number of precursor events.

 

Again where does physics state that an event is unlikely to occur will not occur at all.

 

Observation of ordered systems acted on by random processes confirms that on average these systems move to high probability states thus systems that would require a steady supply of low probability outcomes (life from non-life by chance alone perhaps unless it was a single event which you have rejected) does not occur and would violate the physical principles that drive systems to low order high entropy states.

[DJBruce]

I didn't cite the odds, a scientist did, and was posted by the original OP of this thread, so read the OP to learn further.

 

Then if you accept the theory that life can come from inanimate matter, then you are accepting the occurrence of a miracle, and this is not me saying so, this is physics.

 

You have cited them throughout this thread as "proof" that abiogenesis could not occur. Regardless of who introduced them into the debate you have continued to used them. So me pointing out that the statistics you claim to prove your point are invalid is a perfectly acceptable point.

 

No, there is no need to believe in a miracle. A miracle has nothing to do with abiogensis. A miracle has to do with intelligent design. My point was that your odds you keep citing are for the creation of all the enzymes needed at once to occur in one trial. Or put in another sense the odds of life being created in a single event. Which is in my opinion more consistent with intelligent design rather than abiogenesis.

[Moontanman]

Cypress, Emilio, so you guys are going with Hoyle's Fallacy?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_fallacy

 

According to Ian Musgrave in Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations:

 

These people, including Fred, have committed one or more of the following errors.

They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.[1]

 

Good luck with that

Edited August 7, 2010 by Moontanman

[DJBruce]

Nonsense. they are treated as combinatorial events that can happen over any time period and most any order, with any number of precursor events.

 

 

 

Observation of ordered systems acted on by random processes confirms that on average these systems move to high probability states thus systems that would require a steady supply of low probability outcomes (life from non-life by chance alone perhaps unless it was a single event which you have rejected) does not occur and would violate the physical principles that drive systems to low order high entropy states.

 

Yes life from non-life in steps would require many successful outcomes that have a low-chance of occurring. However, if the number of trails is large the events would still occur.

 

So, if on our prebiotic earth we have a billion peptides growing simultaneously, that reduces the time taken to generate our replicator significantly.

 

Okay, you are looking at that number again, 1 chance in 4.29 x 1040, that's a big number, and although a billion starting molecules is a lot of molecules, could we ever get enough molecules to randomly assemble our first replicator in under half a billion years?

 

Yes, one kilogram of the amino acid arginine has 2.85 x 1024 molecules in it (that's well over a billion billion); a tonne of arginine has 2.85 x 1027 molecules. If you took a semi-trailer load of each amino acid and dumped it into a medium size lake, you would have enough molecules to generate our particular replicator in a few tens of years, given that you can make 55 amino acid long proteins in 1 to 2 weeks [14,16].

 

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 1024 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 1050 potential starting chains, so that a fair number of efficent peptide ligases (about 1 x 1031) could be produced in a under a year, let alone a million years. The synthesis of primitive self-replicators could happen relatively rapidly, even given a probability of 1 chance in 4.29 x 1040 (and remember, our replicator could be synthesized on the very first trial).

 

Assume that it takes a week to generate a sequence [14,16]. Then the Ghadiri ligase could be generated in one week, and any cytochrome C sequence could be generated in a bit over a million years (along with about half of all possible 101 peptide sequences, a large proportion of which will be functional proteins of some sort).

 

Also I am still not seeing how this would violate the second law, as the Earth is not a closed system. It seems to me that you are just throwing the term "entropy" without any real reason.

[cypress]

Yes life from non-life in steps would require many successful outcomes that have a low-chance of occurring. However, if the number of trails is large the events would still occur.

 

Indeed, however in this analysis we have our best offered probability at 1 in 10^41000 and fewer than 10^140 total trials possible. this leaves us thousands and thousands of orders of magnitude short. In this case the number of trials is miniscule compared to the probability. The number is unimaginably small.

 

The quoted material lacks context. It speaks of numbers in the range of 10^40 for a hypothetical peptide self replicator but that is a far cry from a biological system. Ignoring the whole picture to make it seem plausible does not help us discover truth. It is not even in the same ballpark. when one pieces in a more complete picture the probability approaches the number Hoyle uses for any hypothetical path.

 

 

Also I am still not seeing how this would violate the second law, as the Earth is not a closed system.

 

No I am not speak of a closed system. I speak of imported order so I am allowing for an open system.

 

It seems to me that you are just throwing the term "entropy" without any real reason.

 

In an open system do you believe entropy of that open system can decrease without import of a source of order? If so, please offer an example because this would be a violation of the law. Entropy is a measure of the probability state of systems influenced by random processes. The law states that systems acted upon by random events migrate to the highest probability state over time and in proportion to the resources available. It does not matter if the system is open or closed, only the form of the state equations change.

 

When speaking of natural systems influenced by random events, it is inevitable that one must consider entropy.

 

Cypress, Emilio, so you guys are going with Hoyle's Fallacy?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_fallacy

 

Any error Hoyle may have made would have to be in context with the argument that it supports. Newtonian physics is erroneous but it is still very useful for certain purposes. Let's take a look at the claimed errors and see if they apply to this case:

 

These people, including Fred, have committed one or more of the following errors.

They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

 

It is the best information we have about what it takes to construct and operate a biological system. If this is a fallacy then one would be able to offer a better set of components required for minimal biological activity. It is easy to suggest that something is wrong when nobody knows what is "right". Furthermore we now know a great deal about what it means to be biologically active and to suggest that ancient systems should be different ignores the knowledge we do have.

 

 

They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

 

At the time that Hoyle did his analysis he presumed there were limited fixed sequences. Douglas Axe and several others have since confirmed this. For a protein sequence 150 acids in length, about 1 in 10^74 are capable of forming stable tertiary structures and active binding sites required to be biologically active. The number drops as the size grows.

 

They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

 

Nonsense. The analysis is independent of timing or sequence.

 

They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

 

Nonsense. Please demonstrate the misunderstanding. These are empty words. Accusation without substance.

 

They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.[1]

 

Again Douglas Axe disposed of this criticism with his work on what it means to have stable and functional biological components. At the time of Hoyle's work, this argument may have been valid, however today it is not.

 

Good luck with that

 

Your critiques are doing very poorly moontanman. Stay focused on the areas Cap'n and Skeptic address, they are at least looking at the weaker and easier to attack arguments.

[swansont]

Indeed, however in this analysis we have our best offered probability at 1 in 10^41000

 

Best-offered? Hardly.

[cypress]

Best-offered? Hardly.

 

Sounds like an opinion to me. I have not seen any better. Most Origin of Life researchers reject life by chance alone and don't even attempt to provide an estimate. I reject it also but Skeptic wanted to make an argument for it thus the thread. I would be surprised if you advocate Life by chance alone.

[ydoaPs]

Sounds like an opinion to me. I have not seen any better. Most Origin of Life researchers reject life by chance alone and don't even attempt to provide an estimate.

Perhaps that's because no abiogenesis theory claims 'life by chance alone'. Why would they provide an estimate of a strawman?

[cypress]

Perhaps that's because no abiogenesis theory claims 'life by chance alone'.

 

At one time it was quite popular. Even now there are supporters. see Koonin, "The Cosmological Model".

 

Why would they provide an estimate of a strawman?

 

Beats me, perhaps you should ask Koonin, or why Skeptic wanted to advocate for this scenario, because as I said, I do not accept it.

[ydoaPs]

Did you even read his paper, or are you strawmanning?

[swansont]

At one time it was quite popular. Even now there are supporters. see Koonin, "The Cosmological Model".

 

 

 

Yes, but there are many people in the world, making the odds against this support as approximately 6.5 billion to one. Therefore, I conclude that it does not exist.

[Mr Skeptic]

Huh? The second law of thermodynamics sets the direction of flow of order from high to low in the absence of an external driver for systems that proceed by random processes. Brownian motion is a random process that drives heat transfer and chemic processes and molecular diffusion. The physical law constrains the average heat energy flux to flow from low entropy areas to high entropy areas and in the process increases total entropy of the system. Analogs exist for molecular entropy and information entropy. This behavior is observed to be true for all similar systems involving random processes.

 

It is possible that I misspoke somewhere though I doubt it, so please explain exactly where entropy principles do not require any aspect of what I described in any of my posts.

 

Well, for one thing heat usually flows from areas of high entropy to areas of low entropy. Also it seems you took the term "molecular entropy" and invented your own definition that is convenient for your argument but doesn't really appear in any real physics. But you did pretty good considering your kind never was good with thermodynamics. Of course this is where you will mention how wrong I am or ignore me completely, rather than trying to show you were right by referencing a source.

 

 

It's not that I don't like them. They simply apply to other situations. They are red herring arguments. I did not say you are wrong. I actually think you are more often correct, but that you simply do not address the topic at hand. This is why I call them red herrings. some are arguments about formation of amino acids but Hoyle stipulates availability of all required amino acids. Others deal with pre-biotic conditions, but again the analysis grants that for tjis analysis conditions are taken to be as required. In this way these items are not relevant to the points.

 

Skeptic and Cap'n are at least on the right track to recognize that the real challenge for life by chance alone is to bring in resources to shore up the odds.

 

Most Origin of Life researchers reject life by chance alone and don't even attempt to provide an estimate. I reject it also but Skeptic wanted to make an argument for it thus the thread. I would be surprised if you advocate Life by chance alone.

 

Yes, speaking of red herrings, the whole thread is based off a red herring (everyone agrees that the odds of life forming by chance alone are ridiculous). However I decided to take that red herring and make myself a delicious fish dinner. The crux of my argument is that there is a significant chance that the universe is infinite. As I demonstrated, an infinite universe negates any tininess of probability of life forming. Therefore, the probability of life forming by chance alone is the greater of the chance of the universe being infinite and the chance of life forming by entirely chance alone given a finite universe. So far, cypress focuses on the unimaginably smaller and completely irrelevant probability of life forming entirely by chance alone.

 

Skeptic wishes to bring in more resources by hypothesizing an infinite universe with infinite mass. Trouble is that most infinite universe scenarios are contradicted by observation, the ones that are not contradicted are pure speculation since they enjoy no evidence for the part of the speculation that allows for an infinite past universe. An equally significant issue is that these additional resources, if they do exist, cannot influence the probability of life from non-life on earth. This is the point Emilio Primo properly makes. It is significant because entropy laws preclude extraordinarily low probability events from occurring that exceed the availability of the resources to allow them to occur. To counter Emilio's argument one would have to show that the law of entropy is false.

 

Yes, and I cited a source to support my claim (unlike you, who have just kept claiming some kind of magical non-existent unreferenced observation contradicts an infinite universe). Remember, if you are claiming that the probability of life arising by chance alone is 10^-41,000, then you are also claiming the probability that the universe is infinite is also less than 10^-41,000. I never claimed that the universe is infinite -- I claimed that it could be and if it was then your odds of life forming are 1 and the probability per unit whatever is meaningless. Beyond that I also cited a source that puts the universe as probably being flat.

[Moontanman]

Your critiques are doing very poorly moontanman. Stay focused on the areas Cap'n and Skeptic address, they are at least looking at the weaker and easier to attack arguments.

 

 

My critiques are overwhelmingly correct, it's you proselytizing a totally outdated and falsified world view that is suffering. Your constant appeals to an authority that is not considered an authority by anyone but creationists is sad, my link was an attempt to show how flawed your appeals to Hoyle really were. You have been totally dishonest in this from the very beginning, from the time you straw-manned the discussion by being dishonest about what you wanted to discuss to the pitiful attempts at appeals to an authority that was never really an authority to begin with. This is your dog and pony show but it is sadly a one trick pony that everyone has seen multiple times and is no longer much of a show.