Theory of Variance and Life on Earth

[Realitycheck]

For what its worth, I agree that it was indeed a quite rare trial combination that just happened to find itself in the right place, at the right time, nestled into a little lipid vesicle with another chemical or two to produce the perfect combination. But other people have come up with other equally sensible explanations that are not easily shrugged off. So maybe life is more common than you think, considering all of these different ways with all of these trial combinations. All it takes is a way, then it is just a matter of time till the pieces fall together in the right place at the right time.

[Moontanman]

are you happy? you are speaking in the singular. its all good.. .disparage my character.. call me names. if i cared i wouldn't have posted to begin with.

 

@mooeypie

 

who cares what you call it... explosion.. inflation. what caused it? what powered it? no one knows. from now on i will say "before the big inflation". does that make you happy?

 

 

 

wrong, wrong and more wrong.

 

i watched it fully. i thought 4:00 was very interesting.

 

i guess time will tell then. If a researcher can put together a stew that can create a molecule of DNA on its own with zero assistance then you will be right and i will concede. so far this just hasnt happened. creating one base in the DNA strand by accident is a far cry from creating life. Here is a quote from the guy that discovered DNA just to give you some perspective. think you got me? u missed by a long shot kid.

 

"To produce this miracle of molecular construction all the cell need do is to string together the amino acids (which make up the polypeptide chain) in the correct order. This is a complicated biochemical process, a molecular assembly line, using instructions in the form of a nucleic acid tape (the so-called messenger RNA). Here we need only ask, how many possible proteins are there? If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare of an event would that be?

This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything, rather less than the average length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 20²⁰⁰, that is a one followed by 260 zeros!

This number is quite beyond our everyday comprehension. For comparison, consider the number of fundamental particles (atoms, speaking loosely) in the entire visible universe, not just in our own galaxy with its 10¹¹ stars, but in all the billions of galaxies, out to the limits of observable space. This number, which is estimated to be 10⁸⁰, is quite paltry by comparison to 10²⁶⁰. Moreover, we have only considered a polypeptide chain of a rather modest length. Had we considered longer ones as well, the figure would have been even more immense." Francis Crick, [Crick received a Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA.] Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature (1981), pp 51-52.

 

 

So you are going to move the goal posts and then quote a guy who is 50 years out of date? I'll tell you again, chance doesn't figure into it, the molecules do not form by chance. I thought the video pointed that out quite well, if indeed it was by chance you would have a point but chance doesn't figure into it, the laws of chemistry have nothing to do with chance. The universe is full of organic molecules, carbon chemistry is very complex and complexity arises from chaos, it's well documented.

 

http://www.space.com/1686-life-building-blocks-abundant-space.html

 

Why is forming a protein molecule so important to your idea? Life doesn't have to have proteins, you are asking a complete modern cell to form spontaneously, that won't happen and is not what is thought to have happened, The first life was far more simple than modern life and contained no DNA the idea of a modern cell arising from a prebiotic earth spontaneously is a strawman argument to begin with.

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007#p/a/0696457CAFD6D7C9/0/U6QYDdgP9eg

[mooeypoo]

@mooeypie

 

who cares what you call it... explosion.. inflation. what caused it? what powered it? no one knows. from now on i will say "before the big inflation". does that make you happy?

 

 

It's mooeypoo, have some respect.

 

 

You're not just using the term wrong, you're using the concept wrong. You say an explosion doesn't create order, but the Big Bang is not an explosion. That makes your entire assertion irrelevant.

 

Now, it's one thing arguing about facts and evidence, it's quite another insulting anyone who answers you. If you keep this up, this thread will not live much longer. Have some respect to the people who spend their time participating in this debate with you. That, if it's not clear, is not a request; you chose to come to this forum, you agreed to its rule, and you better start following them.

 

Not to mention that this condescending rude attitude doesn't help convincing anyone in the validity of your points.

 

~mooey

[CharonY]

I thought the video pointed that out quite well, if indeed it was by chance you would have a point but chance doesn't figure into it, the laws of chemistry have nothing to do with chance.

 

 

Well, to be fair, all biochemical reactions are stochastic to some extent, depending on a variety of factors. But the OP is using probability in a different context, of course. Also note that selective factors significantly shape the probability landscape. Moreover one has to consider that these reactions did not happen one after the other, but an enormous amount of reactions were happening all around the earth simultaneously. And still it too a few billion years before the first life arose.

[Bignose]

The poker analogy is not false.

 

I am of the opinion that the randomness in poker is a rather poor analogy to explain much at all about life. But I am open minded enough to listen to well-founded reasons that show it. Please provide in exacting detail how shuffling and dealing cards relates to the development of life.

[Ringer]

Virtually your entire argument seems to be an argument from personal incredulity. Please instead of taking insult to peoples thoughts, including this, produce all this evidence you have. Even enough of it to disprove our currently held concepts of naturally occurring diversity, one of the most supported theories in existence.

 

If this little forum's response to your hypothesis bothers you this much prepare yourself for the real scientific establishment. Even if you are right, which I personally doubt but am ready to look at your evidence and be swayed, your hypothesis will be put through a real trial that I don't know if you're ready for. Consider this a time to review your ideas and truly prepare yourself. But before anyone can help you you will have to produce your evidence.

 

[edit] Spelling [/edit]

Edited August 24, 2011 by Ringer

[himoura]

I am of the opinion that the randomness in poker is a rather poor analogy to explain much at all about life. But I am open minded enough to listen to well-founded reasons that show it. Please provide in exacting detail how shuffling and dealing cards relates to the development of life.

 

 

This will be my last post on the subject.

 

I know I have put u guys through some pain but I hope at least it was entertaining. I do apologize for being abrasive and hope I did not offend. At the end of the day I have to defend my thesis though.

 

First, whoever said crick is 50 years out of date in an effort to defend that ridiculous vid is just lost. That vid is a joke, but people will believe anything I guess. In the Vid the creation of adenine was significant, why? Because it happened by accident. So don't start kidding yourself.

 

Ok... I will answer the question of how this relates to cards. Let's take Cricks quote and look at it through the lens of the Theory of Variance. Crick says that the odds of the amino acids in the polypeptide chain lining up in the proper sequence to form just one measly protein are 1 in 10^260 (and remember that's one of the shorter chains). Let's take that one step further. So how much time do we have from the beginning of the earth until life first formed? Remember the timeline is finite. The universe came into existence around 13 billion years ago and we know that life started appearing 4.5 billion years ago. Let's be generous and say that conditions on earth were right for life as soon as the earth was born. So that is what, 8.5 billion years? Using the poker analogy we now ask ourselves a very simple question.

 

Is 8.5 billion years enough time for an event to take place that has a 1 in 10^260 chance?

 

My money is on No.

 

As a matter of fact let's be even more generous and say that even though the odds were solidly against it we got lucky and it happened anyway. What are the odds it could happen again? What about 4 times? Eight? Really?

 

This is the beauty of the Theory of Variance. It gives us a way to logically look at the odds through an analogy everyone can easily relate to... Poker. It basically says... "what ARE the actual odds that a certain event could take place, and what are the odds of that event being negatively affected afterwards?" "Roughly how many times could a rare event take place within a specific period of time?" In science we seem to only look at positive odds when dealing with the origins of the universe. We never look at negative odds and we never question rare occurrences. We just assume it's possible.

 

I think this proves the validity of my thesis. You guys wanted real proof and now u have it. It is mathematically impossible for life to exist as a result of chance.

 

However, this does not mean evolution is not possible. It simply means it could not have happened as a result of chance.

Edited August 24, 2011 by himoura

[mooeypoo]

However, this does not mean evolution is not possible. It simply means it could not have happened as a result of chance.

 

You're either not reading or you insist on being the hero despite what people write to you, but everyone on this thread agree with you that evolution is not due to chance. It's due to an accumulation of small adaptations through time.

 

You decided to misinterpret evolution, and then you use your misinterpretation to claim the theory is wrong. But the theory isn't wrong.. your misinterpretation of the evolution is wrong. We all agree on that.

 

 

 

The reason people tell you that poker is a bad analogy is because you're talking about chance, and (a) poker isn't just about chance, it's also about talent, and (b) evolution isn't about chance. You insist on making your point despite what people reply to you.

 

You haven't defended the theory because you're not listening to what people answer. This isn't a blog, it's a discussion forum, you seem to insist on lecturing to show you much you "win" the argument, rather than discussing the points.

 

 

 

I think you should go over this article, here: http://www.newscient...r&nsref=dn13620

Or this one, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist&page=1

And of course this very good resource site: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

 

Perhaps then we can conduct the debate starting from the same point, and talking the same language. So far, that's not what's going on at all.

 

~mooey

[himoura]

I have never once said the theory of evolution was wrong. Good job trying to twist posts and put words in my mouh. I guess if u can't make a credible argument then the best thing to do is lie and try to discredit your opponent. GG

[mooeypoo]

However, this does not mean evolution is not possible. It simply means it could not have happened as a result of chance.

Emphasis mine. Quote is yours, and it is a summary of many other quotes you are making on the same topic.

 

Everyone agrees that evolution does not happen "by chance", you seem to still argue against everyone that it didn't happen by chance, even though we all agree with you that it did not happen by chance. No evolutionary biologist will tell you that evolution is "by chance".

 

You're the one who claims people claim it, when they don't. You are misrepresenting the actual scientific theory.

 

~mooey

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

himoura

The rules of the forum not only directs you to support your thesis with some kind of evidence, it precludes you from using logical fallacies. Your complaint against evolution is basically a series of straw man arguments. Many of these are such tired repetitions of standard creationist claptrap that it's hard to make the case that you aren't simply trolling. Also, rudeness is not acceptable.

If you continue to post in this thread you need to correct the effect of, and not repeat, these transgressions. Do not derail this thread further by responding to this warning.

[himoura]

Omg this is a joke... I have ZERO complaints against evolution. You guys are just totally lying.

 

Look at my statement that is quoted. Mooeypoo just got done saying that everyone agrees with me that it didn't happen by chance. So what's the problem?? lol

 

Moderator... u should at least read this stuff before u decide to take sides. I never argued against evolution. Not once. I even supported it lol

Edited August 24, 2011 by himoura

[mooeypoo]

Omg this is a joke... I have ZERO complaints against evolution. You guys are just totally lying.

 

Look at my statement that is quoted. Mooeypoo just got done saying that everyone agrees with me that it didn't happen by chance. So what's the problem?? lol

 

The problem is that you're making claims about the theory that the theory is not making. The reason people agree with this particular claim is not because you convinced people, it's because that was never a point of contention at all. You're not making any new claims with this particular statement, and yet you keep making it seem like you're arguing against the mainstream perception of the theory.

 

Moderator... u should at least read this stuff before u decide to take sides. I never argued against evolution. Not once. I even supported it lol

It's not about taking sides, it's about reminding you (again) that there are rules you are obligated to follow.

 

This is the claim you are making RIGHT OFF THE BAT in post #1:

 

The idea that life on Earth exists as a result of chance is absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable.

Great. Only, no one claims that's how life evolved.

 

You make this claim in the context of the theory of "variance and existence of life on Earth" -- which is currently being explained by Evolution.

 

And yet, evolution does NOT claim that life exists as a result of chance. You make it sound like the theory claim it, and then you argue against that claim. It's called "Strawman", and you seem to repeat this a lot.

 

You set forth what you THINK scientists claim about evolution but it's not what scientists actually claim about evolution.

 

You did the same thing to support your idea of an "explosion" with regards to the big bang, which isn't an explosion.

 

The problem here is not so much your claim, it's that you seem to make a case against mainstream science by arguing against something that isn't at all scientific claim.

 

Beyond that, you're moving the goal post (changing your 'goal' assertions), you don't seem to give actual evidence (analogies, even if they don't fail, are not evidence), and you continue strawmanning (misrepresenting) people's claims so you can argue against them.

 

That's why moderators tell you to lay off the attitude. It's also part of the rules, so I suggest you go over them.

 

In a previous post I gave you a few links to take a look at. I think you should go over some of them so you can see what it is you seem to be misrepresenting when you talk about how science explains life on Earth.

 

 

Here they are again:

 

I think you should go over this article, here: http://www.newscient...r&nsref=dn13620

Or this one, http://www.scientifi...ationist&page=1

And of course this very good resource site: http://www.talkorigi...dexcc/list.html

 

 

Have a try in reading them, I think it will shed some light as to why people are so frustrated arguing about this.

It's not what you think.

 

~mooey

[John Cuthber]

To be fair, he hasn't been opposing evolution.

What he has been doing is putting forward a poorly constructed "theory" which is based on a set of premises which are, as I pointed out earlier, simply are not true.

So far as I can see, his "theory" is "life isn't created by a fantastically improbable event" which is true, but dull; since only the God Squad think it was (and even some of them are having doubts)

 

He seems to be right for the wrong reasons.

Adding to the "not true" stuff, he made up some stuff, then said I had said it.

I'm still waiting for him to respond to that with his apology.

[himoura]

I don't always agree with John but I appreciate ur honesty sir.

 

I am definitely not in any way disagreeing with evolution. I even supported it twice.

 

@John I already did apologize sir!

 

@ mooeypoo

 

Hey man I got pulled into the evolution stuff. If u notice my original thesis it's not even mentioned. I totally agree with you that it's not part of what I am trying to say. So please don't try to make controversy where there is none.

Edited August 24, 2011 by himoura

[swansont]

Omg this is a joke... I have ZERO complaints against evolution. You guys are just totally lying.

 

Look at my statement that is quoted. Mooeypoo just got done saying that everyone agrees with me that it didn't happen by chance. So what's the problem?? lol

 

Moderator... u should at least read this stuff before u decide to take sides. I never argued against evolution. Not once. I even supported it lol

 

!

Moderator Note

"science would have us believe that we just got really lucky and that luck continues to provide us with the perfect conditions to support life to this very day" (and other statements) sound an awful lot like anti-evolution complaints. But, OK. Your complaint against a caricature of evolution/abiogenesis/cosmology is a strawman. If your intent was not to show these concepts wrong, you have done a poor job of explaining your position.

 

Now for the rhetorical question: what part of "Do not derail this thread further by responding to this warning." gave you trouble? (Rhetorical mans you shouldn't actually answer it)

[mooeypoo]

To be fair, he hasn't been opposing evolution.

Yes, I know. That's why I phrased my claim as I did: The opposition that was made was against a particular claim that evolution isn't making, and then making it poorly.

 

The connection in the first post, though, the first sentence that I have quoted, is written as a disagreement with the current understanding -- and yet, that's not what current understanding SAYS.

 

What he has been doing is putting forward a poorly constructed "theory" which is based on a set of premises which are, as I pointed out earlier, simply are not true.

So far as I can see, his "theory" is "life isn't created by a fantastically improbable event" which is true, but dull; since only the God Squad think it was (and even some of them are having doubts)

To be fair myself, we can't really say it is true or not. Abiogenesis (which is NOT evolution, as you know, and has little to no connection with evolution) has a few common explanations. None of them is completely supported.

He seems to be right for the wrong reasons.

Adding to the "not true" stuff, he made up some stuff, then said I had said it.

I'm still waiting for him to respond to that with his apology.

 

This is part of the logical fallacy extravaganza I was trying to make a point out of. That's why I said the problem isn't necessarily what the CLAIM is about, it's more about the method and what was done with it.

 

Hey man I got pulled into the evolution stuff. If u notice my original thesis it's not even mentioned. I totally agree with you that it's not part of what I am trying to say. So please don't try to make controversy where there is none.

From *your* first post:

But yet science would have us believe that we just got really lucky and that luck continues to provide us with the perfect conditions to support life to this very day.

YOU make this claim, no one else is. This is not what "science" would have us believe. It's not even close.

 

 

You claim mainstream science is being ridiculous by claiming X, when mainstream science claims no such thing. Enough with the quibbling and the goal post changes.

 

~mooey

[himoura]

!

Moderator Note

himoura

 

The rules of the forum not only directs you to support your thesis with some kind of evidence, it precludes you from using logical fallacies. Your complaint against evolution is basically a series of straw man arguments. Many of these are such tired repetitions of standard creationist claptrap that it's hard to make the case that you aren't simply trolling. Also, rudeness is not acceptable.

 

If you continue to post in this thread you need to correct the effect of, and not repeat, these transgressions. Do not derail this thread further by responding to this warning.

 

Please remove this post sir. It's 100% incorrect. No hard feelings.

 

Yes, I know. That's why I phrased my claim as I did: The opposition that was made was against a particular claim that evolution isn't making, and then making it poorly.

 

The connection in the first post, though, the first sentence that I have quoted, is written as a disagreement with the current understanding -- and yet, that's not what current understanding SAYS.

 

 

To be fair myself, we can't really say it is true or not. Abiogenesis (which is NOT evolution, as you know, and has little to no connection with evolution) has a few common explanations. None of them is completely supported.

 

 

This is part of the logical fallacy extravaganza I was trying to make a point out of. That's why I said the problem isn't necessarily what the CLAIM is about, it's more about the method and what was done with it.

 

 

From *your* first post:

 

YOU make this claim, no one else is. This is not what "science" would have us believe. It's not even close.

 

 

You claim mainstream science is being ridiculous by claiming X, when mainstream science claims no such thing. Enough with the quibbling and the goal post changes.

 

~mooey

 

U just made my point again. The last quote ur referrig too is taken completely out if context. That quote has nothing to do with evolution but refers to the idea that our solar system not only exists but persists as a result of chance. Mainstream science still asserts this. Am I nit allowed to try to disagree with that in the "speculative" forum now?? lol? I thought that's why I was moved here in the first place. So now I'm not allowed to disagree with anything u deem "mainstream" at all? Censorship anyone??

[Ringer]

I think we all have broken internet rule 14

[mooeypoo]

U just made my point again. The last quote ur referrig too is taken completely out if context. That quote has nothing to do with evolution but refers to the idea that our solar system not only exists but persists as a result of chance. Mainstream science still asserts this. Am I nit allowed to try to disagree with that in the "speculative" forum now?? lol? I thought that's why I was moved here in the first place. So now I'm not allowed to disagree with anything u deem "mainstream" at all? Censorship anyone??

 

If it's so mainstream, you will have no problems finding papers asserting that the solar system exists by chance. And persists by chance.

 

Link to them, please, or write the sources so I can find them.

 

 

 

That's not quite how astronomers and astrophysicists explain the formation of the solar system or its behavior. "Chance" is not a word they use. But I am open to change my mind with the right sources. Provide your evidence that this is what modern science says, and we can continue. Otherwise, it seems you again strawman the actual theory.

[Bignose]

Ok... I will answer the question of how this relates to cards.  Let's take Cricks quote and look at it through the lens of the Theory of Variance.  Crick says that the odds of the amino acids in the polypeptide chain lining up in the proper sequence to form just one measly protein are 1 in 10^260 (and remember that's one of the shorter chains).  Let's take that one step further.  So how much time do we have from the beginning of the earth until life first formed?  Remember the timeline is finite.  The universe came into existence around 13 billion years ago and we know that life started appearing 4.5 billion years ago.  Let's be generous and say that conditions on earth were right for life as soon as the earth was born.  So that is what, 8.5 billion years?  Using the poker analogy we now ask ourselves a very simple question. 

 

Is 8.5 billion years enough time for an event to take place that has a 1 in 10^260 chance?  

 

My money is on No.  

 

Despite all the valid issues about how chance alone is NOT how most scientists working in the field would describe the situation, yes 10^260 is a big number (I'd actually like to see the calculation that got this number, too, if you'd be kind enough to cite it). But how quickly are experiments happening? You can't just dismiss a number because it is large without knowing how many times it is being sampled, or how often the experiment is happening. If it happens 10^245 times every second, then 10^260 doesn't look so imposing anymore. If it happens 10^10 times every second, then we can talk.

 

But without an estimate on the rate of trials, 10^260 is meaningless in isolation.

 

To go back to your previous favorite analogy, a royal flush happens only once every 649,740 hands in poker. That is a pretty large number. Say your favorite casino deals at 40 hands an hour. That means, on average, a person would have to spend over 16000 hours playing poker at that casino. Even an avid player is going to take quite a while to accrue that number.

 

Most importantly, note that I provided a sampling rate at how often the experiment (a hand dealt) happens. THEN, conclusions are drawn.

 

So, please provide an estimate how often the 'experiment' is conducted before you can draw any conclusions about it.

[himoura]

I am kind of afraid to respond because I don't want my posts being taken out of context or misrepresented, but the gauntlet has been thrown down again so I guess I have to.

 

@Mooeypoo... your assumption is incorrect. Chance is not only apparent in any papers you will find regarding the formation of our Solar system, it is implied. It does not need to be stated in any way because it is inherent to the argument. Basically it exists for lack of a better explanation. Just for arguments sake though I have linked to several respected theories to prove my point. I didn't look hard for this stuff its everywhere. These are articles derived from respected theories i guess i should say.

 

 

http://articles.cnn....ions?_s=PM:TECH

 

 

Take the moon theory for example. What is a collision? An accident. My deduction is common sense and logical.

 

 

http://honest-ab.blo...part-three.html

 

http://www.hhgs.org....ucky_planet.htm

 

http://www.nhm.ac.uk...tion/index.html

 

 

The formation of our solar system is a completely different theory then the big bang and is not as widely accepted. It is however the most accepted by the scientific community which is plainly stated everywhere i saw similar articles like the last link. Honestly just forget everything you know for a moment ask yourself this question, why do we have 8 planets? (I know technically there are more). We have them as a result of chance. I am not arguing against that. I am aware of no process in nature that chooses how many planets each system gets. If there was some kind of gas cloud that triggered fusion to form our sun than that's not unreasonable to me. The odds of that happening could be acceptable I suppose. Our system forming from that and the planets clumping together is a natural process. I have no qualms with any of that kicking off as a result of a chance reaction. Not saying it's true, just saying it seems plausible.

 

The problem arises when you drill down into the specifics of "our" solar system and the earth being in the "goldilox" zone as well as the nuances of the Earth itself. The odds of all the circumstances that must align perfectly for this to happen become exponential and quickly run outside of the feasibility timeline. This is a very logical train of thought. This is not any sort of fallacy. This is simple mathematics. Anyone can reproduce and calculate these numbers for themselves.

 

@bignose that's a very large number. My iPhone scientific calculator says Error when I try to calculate up to 10^9. You should go back and read the quote as it is a very humbling experience.

 

There is nothing wrong with the poker analogy. The problem is your perception of the game just like the perception of 10^260. Poker is undoubtedly the most complex and mind numbing game I have ever played which makes this a great analogy due to the sheer depth of the game. It gives us a way to view variance or trends, while also forcing us to constantly count the odds of a multitude of varying scenarios. Pulling the handle on a slot machine does not allow us to relate to trends that exist in terms of randomness and does not force us to count odds.

 

I have played a lot of poker. Years of my life literally divested when i could have been out chilling with girls or having fun. I have won large tournaments of up to 160 or more players. I win a lot live but barely break even in online cash games. Don't play anymore because its illegal now where i live. Poker is two fold. One aspect is counting odds. You must be adept at counting odds or at least memorize them. If you cannot successfully do this just stop now. The second aspect is the psychological. Being able to fool your opponent. It's the combination of these two aspects that makes poker a skill game. Tournament poker is considered a "luck" game by the IRS.

 

The odds in a poker game cannot be manipulated. The odds of u getting a royal flush are the same regardless of skill level. One can however "cheat" those odds and this is where the skill comes into play. If you can make your opponent think u have a great hand when u don't or think u have a crappy hand when in fact ur hand is awesome, the odds become irrelevant to an extent. However, even though you may have played your hand flawlessly the other player could still get lucky and suck you out on the river. Regardless of how skilled you may be you are ultimately subject to the odds. This explains why Phil Ivey (one of the greatest players in the world) was consistently down a half million chips on full tilt for a long time. His bluffing game simply doesn't work online because too many people are willing to call. Poker is a great analogy in terms of perspective because it not only forces us to constantly count odds, but also illuminates how we as human beings have advantages. If we relate the earth to poker we quickly realize the earth has no advantages. It cannot cheat the odds. It is fully subject to them. This becomes especially apparent when we start talking about variance.

 

What is variance? Variance is basically trends. Let's say your incredibly good but u have been on a losing streak. This happens. It's very normal. It's like a curve and you are hitting rock bottom. Just relax and give it some time and you will find yourself getting good cards again.

 

What's a donkey? A donkey is a poker player that plays horrible cards and still wins. Now granted the odds WILL catch up with this player and he WILL net huge losses. A player like this will take your hard earned cash and give it to the guy sitting beside you an hour later. Why does this happen? Variance.

 

Now we see in our analogy that the earth cannot cheat the odds and is subject to variance. This gives us perspective.

 

Imagine yourself pulling the handle on a slot machine. We only seem to look at the earth as having won the jackpot, but what about all of the losing pulls of the handle? Most people that play slots have dumped tons of money into those machines without winning crap. Even the ones that win probably put most of those winnings right back in the machine.

 

I could honestly write a book on this. I have really tried to avoid such lengthy explanations because people get bored. Most of what I am saying is common sense or should be. Anyone can calculate and verify this for themselves. Or calculate and prove me wrong.

 

I have tried to be as forthright and honest with these arguments as possible.

Edited August 25, 2011 by himoura

[mooeypoo]

Take the moon theory for example. What is a collision? An accident. My deduction is common sense and logical.

There are tons of collisions going on in space EVERY day. At the time the moon was created, there were quite a lot of them all over the solar system every day. When something happens a lot? It's not "by chance". It's obvious.

 

Our moon isn't the only moon to form the same way either, so that isn't remarkably amazing chance as well. As you were told in the thread, when events happen a lot maximize the chance of something "out of the ordinary".

 

There's a baby born somewhere in the world as you read this post. How extraordinary! Isn't it? Well.. it should be, right? A baby! And yet, the reason I say this is because there are so many babies born around the world, that a baby born while you're reading this is not really a surprising "chance" event. It's pretty much a given.

 

The same is true to our solar system. If you look at the events most of them are truly remarkable if you ignore the fact that (a) our universe is huge, (b) those events happen a *lot* in our universe and © they keep happening quite a lot and repeat themselves in other solar systems.

 

These transform the remarkable chance event into an interesting pretty expected event.

 

the other thing is that you can't really compare the fact it didn't happen (life, I mean) anywhere else in the universe, because it would be necessary to compare ourselves to a similar solar system -- and we only found handful of those.

 

If science would consider this "pure chance" then we wouldn't have looked for life on planets that are under the same conditions as our planet, because "chance" is inconsistent. But we do look for life on planets in the Goldilocks zone -- where the earth is -- because we anticipate that these events, while not happening 100% of the time, are still semi predictable.

 

That's not chance.

 

 

Finally, I don't mean to be a nag here, but your posts are popular-science articles; these aren't really what science SAYS, it's what the media says that science says. They're written for the laymen to get people awed and excited, so the use of "omg! we're a miracle" is abundant, even if inaccurate. That's why I asked you for properly scientific articles. Peer reviewed ones.

 

You claim science says it's a chance -- find me a paper from a scientist - peer reviewed, to show that other scientists agree with him (as in "science says" and not "this guy says" - that says the solar system was created by chance.

 

That is simply not the scientific view of things. It is the popular science laymen-media view, but it's not what physics and astronomy actually say on the matter.

 

 

~mooey

[Bignose]

@bignose that's a very large number. My iPhone scientific calculator says Error when I try to calculate up to 10^9. You should go back and read the quote as it is a very humbling experience.

 

There is nothing wrong with the poker analogy. The problem is your perception of the game just like the perception of 10^260.

 

You need a better calculator, then. Both Python and Mathematica have no problem with 10^260. It is just a number.

 

You didn't address my question at all. Which is how many experiments per unit time occur?

 

If you can play 10,000 poker hands an hour, you're going to get more royal flushes than 10 hands an hour. It really becomes important to know how often the experiment for 'life' is conducted to put meaning on 10^260. I don't know how to estimate the rate, but I know that without the rate, 10^260 is just a number.

 

I mean, 10^0 is a large number if the sampling rate is 10^-260 per year. One number is only large when compared to another. One number is isolation is meaningless and arbitrary, really.

 

And, I have played plenty of poker myself. I do not need a treatise on the game. What I need is a compelling reason to think that the dealing of 5 cards to many players and seeing whose hand is stronger is in any way a model for the formation of life. Because I still don't see it.

[Moontanman]

I am kind of afraid to respond because I don't want my posts being taken out of context or misrepresented, but the gauntlet has been thrown down again so I guess I have to.

 

@Mooeypoo... your assumption is incorrect. Chance is not only apparent in any papers you will find regarding the formation of our Solar system, it is implied. It does not need to be stated in any way because it is inherent to the argument. Basically it exists for lack of a better explanation. Just for arguments sake though I have linked to several respected theories to prove my point. I didn't look hard for this stuff its everywhere. These are articles derived from respected theories i guess i should say.

 

 

http://articles.cnn....ions?_s=PM:TECH

 

 

Take the moon theory for example. What is a collision? An accident. My deduction is common sense and logical.

 

From your link

 

"It is known that giant collisions are a common aspect of planet formation," said Erik Asphaug of the University of California-Santa Cruz.

 

How does that link support your idea? Why the emphasis on the moon, why would you assume a large moon is necessary for life?

 

http://honest-ab.blo...part-three.html

 

This one is just silly, why would a larger planet not be able to evolve complex life? More gravity? MBE for sure, The Earth may very well be just barely suitable for complex life, we really don't know and a curve cannot be made from one data point. Even if a complex life bearing planet is a one in a billion fluke there are still 100 complex life bearing planets just in our galaxy. The so called Goldilocks zone is quite a bit bigger than was originally thought, is assumes an earth like planet when actually many factors can make the Goldilocks zone much bigger than what the earth seems to indicate. Simply a thicker atmosphere extends this zone by a considerable margin. The Earth looks so perfect for complex life not because it is but because complex life has adapted to the conditions on the earth, it's quite easy to imagine a planet better suited for life, a bigger but less dense world with a vast deep atmosphere would be able to have liquid water way out past Mars, additionally life actually changes the conditions on the Earth to suit life. No accident, no game of chance. In fact for much of Earths existence the earth was not suitable for complex life and in a half a billion years or so it will no longer be suitable for complex life, luck is not what allowed the earth to have complex life.

 

http://www.hhgs.org....ucky_planet.htm

 

http://www.nhm.ac.uk...tion/index.html

 

Totally off target, assuming all life is like Earth life is just plain silly, life on the earth has adapted to the earth, life would adapt to another planet in the same way and that planet appear to be perfect for that life...

 

The formation of our solar system is a completely different theory then the big bang and is not as widely accepted. It is however the most accepted by the scientific community which is plainly stated everywhere i saw similar articles like the last link. Honestly just forget everything you know for a moment ask yourself this question, why do we have 8 planets? (I know technically there are more). We have them as a result of chance. I am not arguing against that. I am aware of no process in nature that chooses how many planets each system gets. If there was some kind of gas cloud that triggered fusion to form our sun than that's not unreasonable to me. The odds of that happening could be acceptable I suppose. Our system forming from that and the planets clumping together is a natural process. I have no qualms with any of that kicking off as a result of a chance reaction. Not saying it's true, just saying it seems plausible.

 

We have already discovered hundreds of planets around other stars and some of them do indeed orbit in the so called goldilocks zone and we have sampled only a small fraction of the stars in the Milkyway....

 

The problem arises when you drill down into the specifics of "our" solar system and the earth being in the "goldilox" zone as well as the nuances of the Earth itself. The odds of all the circumstances that must align perfectly for this to happen become exponential and quickly run outside of the feasibility timeline. This is a very logical train of thought. This is not any sort of fallacy. This is simple mathematics. Anyone can reproduce and calculate these numbers for themselves.

 

As i have pointed out this is a false assumption, you assume that only a planet exactly like the earth could support life, there is no reason to assume this.

 

@bignose that's a very large number. My iPhone scientific calculator says Error when I try to calculate up to 10^9. You should go back and read the quote as it is a very humbling experience.

 

There is nothing wrong with the poker analogy. The problem is your perception of the game just like the perception of 10^260. Poker is undoubtedly the most complex and mind numbing game I have ever played which makes this a great analogy due to the sheer depth of the game. It gives us a way to view variance or trends, while also forcing us to constantly count the odds of a multitude of varying scenarios. Pulling the handle on a slot machine does not allow us to relate to trends that exist in terms of randomness and does not force us to count odds.

 

Poker is indeed a good analogy, you are just using it incorrectly, if a million people are playing poker, and i would assume that is not a large mumber of people considering the popularity of poker, then a royal flush would be quite likely to occur, if a billion people were playing poker then a royal flush would be quite common, you are assuming that only one game of poker is being played but in actuality billions of games of poker are being played at the rate of billions of hands a second on any newly formed planet, if the conditions are right then life will form, so royal flushes are occurring every second of every day.

 

I have played a lot of poker. Years of my life literally divested when i could have been out chilling with girls or having fun. I have won large tournaments of up to 160 or more players. I win a lot live but barely break even in online cash games. Don't play anymore because its illegal now where i live. Poker is two fold. One aspect is counting odds. You must be adept at counting odds or at least memorize them. If you cannot successfully do this just stop now. The second aspect is the psychological. Being able to fool your opponent. It's the combination of these two aspects that makes poker a skill game. Tournament poker is considered a "luck" game by the IRS.

 

I have played lots of poker too, it's not a game of chance, and far more than one hand is being played, do you understand that the odds of drawing to an inside straight only apply if you are drawing only one, if you are drawing millions of them per second the odds get quite good, in fact they are inevitable.

 

The odds in a poker game cannot be manipulated. The odds of u getting a royal flush are the same regardless of skill level. One can however "cheat" those odds and this is where the skill comes into play. If you can make your opponent think u have a great hand when u don't or think u have a crappy hand when in fact ur hand is awesome, the odds become irrelevant to an extent. However, even though you may have played your hand flawlessly the other player could still get lucky and suck you out on the river. Regardless of how skilled you may be you are ultimately subject to the odds. This explains why Phil Ivey (one of the greatest players in the world) was consistently down a half million chips on full tilt for a long time. His bluffing game simply doesn't work online because too many people are willing to call. Poker is a great analogy in terms of perspective because it not only forces us to constantly count odds, but also illuminates how we as human beings have advantages. If we relate the earth to poker we quickly realize the earth has no advantages. It cannot cheat the odds. It is fully subject to them. This becomes especially apparent when we start talking about variance.

 

Yes life does cheat the odds, by the fact that there are not an unlimited number of ways organic molecules can come together, this one fact disputes your idea of "chance" add to that fact the number of hands being delt and the idea of chance being a problem is swept away completely.

 

What is variance? Variance is basically trends. Let's say your incredibly good but u have been on a losing streak. This happens. It's very normal. It's like a curve and you are hitting rock bottom. Just relax and give it some time and you will find yourself getting good cards again.

 

 

But if you are playing millions of hand per second, one of them will indeed win and all you need is one win and life starts, once started it can and will adapt to conditions as they change, life is capable of considerable adaptation to changing conditions.

 

What's a donkey? A donkey is a poker player that plays horrible cards and still wins. Now granted the odds WILL catch up with this player and he WILL net huge losses. A player like this will take your hard earned cash and give it to the guy sitting beside you an hour later. Why does this happen? Variance.

 

I don't see how this matters, are there planets that have been sterilized by disasters, i am sure there are but that doesn't mean they all will be before complex life can start.

 

Now we see in our analogy that the earth cannot cheat the odds and is subject to variance. This gives us perspective.

 

No you are incorrect in your analogy as I have pointed out.

 

Imagine yourself pulling the handle on a slot machine. We only seem to look at the earth as having won the jackpot, but what about all of the losing pulls of the handle? Most people that play slots have dumped tons of money into those machines without winning crap. Even the ones that win probably put most of those winnings right back in the machine.

 

 

Imagine a billion handles being pulled, winners would be all over the place.

 

I could honestly write a book on this. I have really tried to avoid such lengthy explanations because people get bored. Most of what I am saying is common sense or should be. Anyone can calculate and verify this for themselves. Or calculate and prove me wrong.

 

Many books and DVDs have indeed been produced on this faulty assumption, doesn't make them any more correct.

 

I have tried to be as forthright and honest with these arguments as possible.

 

 

I applaud you for that but you are none the less incorrect...

 

I think I know where he got the idea of poker and chance, can you say Bob Dutko?

 

Edited August 26, 2011 by Moontanman