What are the Odds of Life evolving by chance alone?

[Raider5678]

14 minutes ago, Ares said:

You do realise that the bible does not state that the Universe wasn't created 6,000 years ago...

According to the bible, Mankinds existence on Earth is approx 6,000 years. There has never been any mention of a time frame of when the Universe was created. All it states is that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"  and that could have been, hundred of thousands, millions or billions of years ago, we don't know, all we know is that it was created first.

So do not assume or misinterpret when debating

You're going down a rabbit hole.

Just warning you.

[Moontanman]

Does no one realise that the life by "random chance" meme is not only dishonest but impossible? Random chance doesn't figure into the equation of abiogenesis! Chemicals can only react with certain other chemicals in certain ways. There no randomness to it....

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Does no one realise that the life by "random chance" meme is not only dishonest but impossible? Random chance doesn't figure into the equation of abiogenesis! Chemicals can only react with certain other chemicals in certain ways. There no randomness to it....

There is some randomness to it, but not what is implied in the framing ("all outcomes equally probable"). If I mix H₂ and O₂ and add a spark, I'll get a whole lot of water. But I could get HO, and  H₂O₂ as well. But the odds of getting those are not dictated by the calculations presented in the OP. 

[Ares]

19 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

You're going down a rabbit hole.

Just warning you.

Just stating facts of what is written in ink

Unfortunately facts are misinterpreted and deliberately misconstrued in a way for some to favor their arguments, as I pointed out

 

PS

As long as I don't meet the Easter Bunny, I'll be fine 

[Raider5678]

Just now, Ares said:

Just stating facts of what is written in ink

Unfortunately facts are misinterpreted and deliberately misconstrued in a way for some to favor their arguments, as I pointed out

 

PS

As long as I don't meet the Easter Bunny, I'll be fine 

Good luck then.

[mistermack]

If the Universe originally came from nothing, then chance alone could be a valid description. The basic laws of physics and chemistry could have been anything. Once those laws were established, by the nature of what came into existence, then what happened after was directed by a combination the nature of what now existed, and the random nature of things that happened within the constrictions of the laws of physics and chemistry. 

Nobody knows if the Universe originally came from nothing, or has an infinitely old history, so chance alone could be a true description, or not.

[Moontanman]

45 minutes ago, mistermack said:

If the Universe originally came from nothing, then chance alone could be a valid description. The basic laws of physics and chemistry could have been anything. Once those laws were established, by the nature of what came into existence, then what happened after was directed by a combination the nature of what now existed, and the random nature of things that happened within the constrictions of the laws of physics and chemistry. 

Nobody knows if the Universe originally came from nothing, or has an infinitely old history, so chance alone could be a true description, or not.

We have no data about how the universe came into existence or if this is the way it has to be or even if other laws in other universes allow for life on some sort or not. The big bang could have spawned trillions of billions of fluffy pink bunnies, all we can honestly is that don't see that now... 

[GalvestonTommy]

I believe the Youtube website I posted this past Friday (my first post) is worthy of spending the time to watch. I've been searching for answers to the abiogenesis and evolution questions for the past 8 years and have not found anyone who seems more qualified than Dr. Tour. He is a synthetic organic chemist, specializing in nanotechnology and one of the leaders (if not the leader) in this field. When asked in a Q&A session at the end of the lecture about "God-of-the-gaps" he reminded the inquirer that he did not mention God in his discussion. His arguments were strictly technical and scientific.

I would like to get more involved in this train of thought but I don't believe it would be meaningful if the responder(s) do not at least hear what Dr. Tour has to say. I don't believe it is too much to ask considering the content and quality.

"I could be wrong" to quote Mr. Monk

[zapatos]

It's unlikely that many people are going to spend over an hour on a video unless they've shared your eight year quest for answers. I know it is too much to ask of me. You will have more luck generating discussion if you share with us some of his thoughts and go from there. People come here to talk, not to get Youtube recommendations.

[GalvestonTommy]

11 minutes ago, zapatos said:

It's unlikely that many people are going to spend over an hour on a video

I guess you are right, it was too much to ask. Dr. Tour goes into detail regarding what it takes for scientists like himself to synthesize molecules from non-living matter. He ably points out that we cannot explain how nature, without the advantages that lab scientists have, would not be able to duplicate this synthesis let alone cause a living cell to come into existence. He, of course, backs up his arguments with highly technical data. However, I don't see how a conversation could continue on this without the parties first listening to him explain it all.

Dr. Tour's talk is on abiogenesis. My degree is in architecture and I look at another aspect, embryonic development, from a different point of view. I wrote a 3 page paper called "Embryonic Development Quandary". It appears it would be too long to post here but the question I raise in my second paragraph is as follows:

"In the architectural and engineering fields there is always a set of instructions as to how and where materials are arranged, connected and otherwise assembled to achieve a finished product, a building or piece of machinery. In most cases the instructions come in the form of drawings and specifications. Whatever cannot be shown graphically (drawings) will be described in written form (specifications). Without these instructions you are stuck with just a pile of bricks, lumber, etc. and an idle crew of workers. A newly fertilized egg (zygote) is much the same in the beginning. It contains the DNA which is like a material supplier. DNA carries the codes for assembling a string of amino acids which are then used to build proteins, the organic construction materials. Other products are generated that become controlling factors, the organic construction workers."

Like I mentioned, after 8 years of research, I have found countless descriptions regarding the embryonic development process but not a thing on where the proteins, enzymes, signaling pathways, etc. get the instruction to do what they do, place the correct kinds of cells in the proper form and locations to generate the various organs and other body parts in an organism. This is all considering that every cell (exempting red blood cells, etc.) has the same DNA and that the unexplained "plan" or "program" that guides the process must be heritable.

[Endy0816]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeotic_gene

They mostly cheat, using mirroring and controlled cell death. Epigenetics plays a role too (differentiation).

Edited January 25, 2018 by Endy0816

[GalvestonTommy]

1 hour ago, Endy0816 said:

They mostly cheat, using mirroring and controlled cell death. Epigenetics plays a role too (differentiation).

Is this a response to how and where controlling factors like proteins, enzymes and signaling pathways get their information as to how, what and where to perform what they do? I don't understand your explanation. It is like saying that masons use the kind of bricks they use and put them where they do by using their masonry skills and knowledge. No mention of the plans and specifications which is a separate issue.

In Keith L. Moore, et. al., The Developing Human; ISBN 978-323-31338-4 (2016) page 339, under the heading of Histogenesis of Cartilage, the authors state: “Cartilage develops from mesenchyme during the fifth week. In areas where cartilage is programmed to develop, the mesenchyme condenses to form chondrification centers.” How is the cartilage “programmed”? Where is the program? The explanation is missing.

[Endy0816]

Was in response to your question about body and organ development.

 

They are using 'programming' to mean the cell is stuck reading the dna one particular way.

 

Demo of self-assembly. Same basic concept the enzymes and such work on.

Maybe someday you'll be able to set out your bricks and mortar and they can go to work on their own

Edited January 25, 2018 by Endy0816

[Strange]

6 hours ago, GalvestonTommy said:

Like I mentioned, after 8 years of research, I have found countless descriptions regarding the embryonic development process but not a thing on where the proteins, enzymes, signaling pathways, etc. get the instruction to do what they do, place the correct kinds of cells in the proper form and locations to generate the various organs and other body parts in an organism. This is all considering that every cell (exempting red blood cells, etc.) has the same DNA and that the unexplained "plan" or "program" that guides the process must be heritable.

Perhaps the problem is that you are coming at this as an architect, where you expect the final result to exist in a plan before work starts. That isn't how self-organisation and emergent phenomena work, though.

Take an even simpler example: a snowflake. They are all different but they all have six-fold symmetry. How does a water molecule attaching itself on one side of the growing snow flake, know where to put itself so that it will match the six other water molecules that may have already or are yet to attach themselves to the corresponding sides of the structure? Can physics explain that or is it divine intervention? (Hint: it's physics.)

As an organism develops, there are biochemical gradients that develop between cells that tell them if they are nearer the front or the back, on the inside or the outside, etc. These then control which genes are expressed and how those cells develop further (and which chemical signals they then generate to tell the other cells around them how to develop). This process starts as soon as the first cell division occurs.

You say you haven't been able to find any explanation of these processes after 8 years of "research". I find that surprising (to say the least). Biology and evolution are not subjects I have studied since I was at college (and have worked in engineering for the 5 decades since then) and yet I have been exposed to these ideas almost continuously ever since. I don't wish to appear rude, but maybe you should spend less time watching videos (especially those by creationists) and more time actually studying the subject (you know, books and things; maybe even take some courses).

BTW I haven't watched the video. I find videos to be possibly the worst medium for communicating serious information. I'm not going to watch even a 5 minute video on creationism and certainly not an hour or more. Tour tries to fudge the issue by saying he doesn't know anything about the theory of evolution and therefore isn't in a position to criticise it. And then goes on to criticise it. In his own way, he is just as dishonest as every other creationist.

 

Tour signed a creationist document which concluded "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." This is a typically dishonest creationist trick. It sounds entirely reasonable (because it is) but is only stated in order to imply that the evidence for evolution is not being examined. Which is obviously untrue. Because, you know, science.

Edited January 25, 2018 by Strange

[GalvestonTommy]

4 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

Demo of self-assembly. Same basic concept the enzymes and such work on.

I agree that the parts in your video are being autonomously self assembled. But it appears to be because their forms, unique connection points and implanted magnets have been predetermined by intelligence (MIT researchers), not a good example of non-creationism. I just think that zygotes come with an inherited plan or program that the controlling factors follow. Why is a human jawbone distinguishable from that of an alligator? Both organisms use the same set of nucleotides and amino acids. Even though a jawbone shape will vary slightly between humans, they can always be identified as human. We get into the concept of constants and variables. We come with both. You don't have to be a creationist to acknowledge that organisms pass on something to their progeny that causes the descendant to be identified as coming from them, with minor variations. I'm just saying that in spite of the vast world of knowledge exhibited by today's bio-scientists, I have yet to find an explanation of what and where the plan or program is that controlling factors follow.

 

[Endy0816]

If I got a bunch of magnetic rocks they'll do something similar...

Even if all a deity did was plop down some self replicators, you'd see evolution occur.

 

There's additional code in the non(protein)coding regions. Scales well with relative complexity.

[GalvestonTommy]

5 hours ago, Strange said:

Perhaps the problem is that you are coming at this as an architect, where you expect the final result to exist in a plan before work starts. That isn't how self-organisation and emergent phenomena work, though.

“self-organisation and emergent phenomena” are only workers and not plans and specifications.

5 hours ago, Strange said:

Take an even simpler example: a snowflake.

Simple, yes. Physics, yes, but only in accordance with natural laws.

5 hours ago, Strange said:

As an organism develops, there are biochemical gradients that develop between cells that tell them if they are nearer the front or the back, on the inside or the outside, etc. These then control which genes are expressed and how those cells develop further (and which chemical signals they then generate to tell the other cells around them how to develop). This process starts as soon as the first cell division occurs

“Biochemical gradients” are the same as “self-organisation and emergent phenomena.”

5 hours ago, Strange said:

I don't wish to appear rude, but maybe you should spend less time watching videos (especially those by creationists) and more time actually studying the subject (you know, books and things; maybe even take some courses).

You are not being rude, only presumptuous due to prejudice. I understand. I too have spent the better part of 5 decades in the architectural/engineering fields (mostly engineering). My research included the following college textbooks and other sources:

Keith L. Moore, et. al., The Developing Human; Benjamin A. Pierce, Genetics, Fourth Edition; Garrett & Grisham, Biochemistry; Patton & Thibodeau, Anatomy & Physiology; Futuyma, Evolution; Kenneth R. Miller, at least 7 books by Richard Dawkins, Matt Ridley, dozens of other books and hundreds of abstracts, articles, websites and other media.

5 hours ago, Strange said:

BTW I haven't watched the video. I find videos to be possibly the worst medium for communicating serious information. I'm not going to watch even a 5 minute video on creationism and certainly not an hour or more. Tour tries to fudge the issue by saying he doesn't know anything about the theory of evolution and therefore isn't in a position to criticise it. And then goes on to criticise it. In his own way, he is just as dishonest as every other creationist.

 You imply that a creationist cannot have a valid scientific thought. This is like a Yankee fan saying an Astro fan cannot know anything about baseball. As stated, this is not a video on creationism. Tour just says that the question of abiogenesis needs to be addressed before evolution can be resolved. He doesn’t criticize  evolution.

As I suspected, in order to participate in a science forum, one must extol the scientific validity of the theory of evolution. My postings are meant to be neutral and scientific.  Suggesting that someone view the video might have been a mistake, seeing that persons with a prejudiced viewpoint could be afraid of what might happen if they view it.

[zapatos]

23 minutes ago, GalvestonTommy said:

Suggesting that someone view the video might have been a mistake, seeing that persons with a prejudiced viewpoint could be afraid of what might happen if they view it.

You really want to go this route? You are not talking to adolescents here. Your little psychological ploy to get us to do some introspection to address our prejudices and fears and thus listen to this video you are so enamored with, assumes we have prejudices and fears to begin with.

If you want to talk science, fine. If you want to manipulate us into buying into creationism you are barking up the wrong tree.

[Moontanman]

36 minutes ago, GalvestonTommy said:

 You imply that a creationist cannot have a valid scientific thought. This is like a Yankee fan saying an Astro fan cannot know anything about baseball. As stated, this is not a video on creationism.

 

So you are suggesting that creationism or creation is akin to science as a matter of opinion? 

 

36 minutes ago, GalvestonTommy said:

 

Tour just says that the question of abiogenesis needs to be addressed before evolution can be resolved. He doesn’t criticize  evolution.

Simply not true, evolution is true no matter where the the first replicators came from. 

 

36 minutes ago, GalvestonTommy said:

As I suspected, in order to participate in a science forum, one must extol the scientific validity of the theory of evolution. My postings are meant to be neutral and scientific.  Suggesting that someone view the video might have been a mistake, seeing that persons with a prejudiced viewpoint could be afraid of what might happen if they view it.

If you meant your your posts to be neutral and scientific then you should establish that the validity of evidence has no basis in opinion....   

[GalvestonTommy]

27 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

So you are suggesting that creationism or creation is akin to science as a matter of opinion? 

No. Creationism is based on faith, not science. It shouldn't detract from a creationist having a scientific opinion, one apart from faith. If anyone expresses doubts concerning the scientific validity of abiogenesis or the theory of evolution then they are labelled non-scientific, regardless of the fact that their presentation is wholly science based. Do you not agree that we pass on to our descendants something in the gametes that makes the zygote produce something identifiable as coming from us, with similar phenotypic characteristics. This something is separate and apart from "biochemical gradients” and “self-organisation and emergent phenomena." I guess I haven't made myself clear. Even if abiogenesis and evolution are proven to be valid, a plan or program must be passed on from the parents to the zygote so the developmental controlling factors know what to do and how to do it. I just haven't seen it explained. Could it be epigenetic or hidden in the introns or maybe in microtubules or the cell membrane patterns. I'm curious.

I apologize for the "afraid" thing. It won't happen again.

[elias_marquez_zoho]

We still don't know what is "life" exactly.

 

Biologists say the fundamental unit of life is the cell... what makes cell special regarding the other matter (they all have protons, electrons, neutrons, quarks, etc)?

Edited January 25, 2018 by elias_marquez_zoho

[Moontanman]

9 minutes ago, GalvestonTommy said:

 Even if abiogenesis and evolution are proven to be valid, a plan or program must be passed on from the parents to the zygote so the developmental controlling factors know what to do and how to do it. I just haven't seen it explained. Could it be epigenetic or hidden in the introns or maybe in microtubules or the cell membrane patterns. I'm curious.

No plan or program exists independent of what we name it, nothing but chemicals that replicate with variation filtered by natural selection. The complexity is built out of the competition for resources via natural selection. We name it a code for our own benefit but it is not a code independent of our label. I am going to go against the grain here and give you a short video that explains this concept much better than i can. 

 

51 minutes ago, elias_marquez_zoho said:

We still don't know what is "life" exactly.

 

Biologists say the fundamental unit of life is the cell... what makes cell special regarding the other matter (they all have protons, electrons, neutrons, quarks, etc)?

 

Citation please. My sources do not say that. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Quote

Life is a characteristic that distinguishes physical entities that do have biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased, or because they never had such functions and are classified as inanimate. Various forms of life exist, such as plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria. The criteria can at times be ambiguous and may or may not define viruses, viroids, or potential artificial lifeas "living". Biology is the primary science concerned with the study of life, although many other sciences are involved.

 

[GalvestonTommy]

14 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

independent of what we name it

I don't seem to be able to wrap my mind around this phrase. I don't think I'll get any reasonable (or even scientific) attention to my queries.

[Moontanman]

6 minutes ago, GalvestonTommy said:

I don't seem to be able to wrap my mind around this phrase. I don't think I'll get any reasonable (or even scientific) attention to my queries.

 

The only reason we say it is a code is because we applied that label to it. Saying it is a code implies a coder, there is no intelligence behind DNA. DNA is nothing but reacting chemicals... It says nothing independent of our own label for it... FNA is no more a code than the unique shape of a rock found on the beach... 

Maybe this will make it a bit more clear. I live near the beach, I beach comb all the time, the action of the surf sorts out all kinds of things from nit of coral to shells to rocks and other flotsam according to size and shape. The surf does this so well that you can identify certain areas of certain shells just by how the surf is running. It looks like an intelligence is sorting out the pieces, in fact I once walked down the beach and noticed that pieces of bricks dumped in the ocean decades before had been exposed by the action of a recent storm. The pieces had been sorted out by shape. At first I noticed round rod shaped brick fragments and on to ovals and then round balls and then in a very short space were many more or less heart shaped fragments and finally few a very perfect hearts and then as I went on the water worn fragments went back to rounds, ovals, rods and finally stopped being  washed up at all. 

Edited January 25, 2018 by Moontanman

[GalvestonTommy]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

No plan or program exists

This statement and your post that followed makes me think that I have the wrong idea of what "information" is. Has it been redefined? I watched your video twice. What I do ask is that you or someone else who is reluctant to watch the Tour video watch only the first 5 or so minutes. Can you spare that? If during that time (or subsequently if you decide to proceed further) you think he is not presenting his talk in a scientific manner, I have no problem with your stopping your viewing.m I would be interested in hearing your criticism. My original post was to ask others in the scientific community if there was anything of value in what he is saying.