What are the Odds of Life evolving by chance alone?

[Alan McDougall]

I am still curious, do you understand why we have been saying your arguments are fallacious? If not we would be more than happy to clarify.

 

 

I you refering to me I know what a fallicious arguments are?

 

 

**********************************

[mod edit] Alan McDougall continued his post by placing a complete list of all fallacies, which was HUGE. He also failed to link to the original source. Anyway, the size of the post alone was enough to intervene.

 

Personally, I prefer this list of fallacies on Wikipedia.

 

Alan, please don't sabotage our forum. You know nobody was gonna read all that.

Edited August 3, 2012 by CaptainPanic
Sanity

[Ringer]

I didn't as if you could copy and paste an article, this article to be exact, I asked if you knew why we were calling your arguments fallacious.

 

[edit] Apologies, I accused you of plagiarizing the article, I didn't see that the link was in the middle. [/edit]

Edited August 3, 2012 by Ringer

[Norbert]

Life came into existence some 700 million years after the earth's formation. That's an incredibly long time. The ingredients were here, it was only a matter of time before something interesting coalesced from them. I'm sure life formed a few times before that point but wasn't as successful. A better question would be what are the odds of our planet being just far enough yet near enough to the sun to support life...

Edited August 3, 2012 by Norbert

[doG]

A better question would be what are the odds of our planet being just far enough yet near enough to the sun to support life...

Many Billions of Rocky Planets in Habitable Zones Around Red Dwarfs in Milky Way

 

A new result from ESO's HARPS planet finder shows that rocky planets not much bigger than Earth are very common in the habitable zones around faint red stars. The international team estimates that there are tens of billions of such planets in the Milky Way galaxy alone, and probably about one hundred in the Sun's immediate neighbourhood. This is the first direct measurement of the frequency of super-Earths around red dwarfs, which account for 80% of the stars in the Milky Way...

 

It's beginning to look like planets in habitable zones are not as rare as once thought.

[akh]

Life came into existence some 700 million years after the earth's formation. That's an incredibly long time. The ingredients were here, it was only a matter of time before something interesting coalesced from them. I'm sure life formed a few times before that point but wasn't as successful. A better question would be what are the odds of our planet being just far enough yet near enough to the sun to support life...

 

And we still have the possibility of life on Mars. Not to mention the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, which are considered to be outside the habitable zone.

[Alan McDougall]

I didn't as if you could copy and paste an article, this article to be exact, I asked if you knew why we were calling your arguments fallacious.

 

[edit] Apologies, I accused you of plagiarizing the article, I didn't see that the link was in the middle. [/edit]

 

 

I obviously knew why I was constantly accused of fallacious aguments and strawman comments, but I have difficulty avoiding them, due to my lack of understanding of even the basics of biology. Limited to high school senior level only.

 

I am now learning about more advanced biology, by reading up what I can and able to comprehend with my limited knowledge of the subject matter.

 

However, I started the thread, because like most people, I would like a scientific answer for how life came into existence from non-life billions of years ago.

 

I will try my utmost in future to pose meaningful questions, with sufficient detail so that a reasonable reply can be offered by more informed members in the forum.

 

In my own speciality I would obviously not have made the same debating mistakes as I did in this topic, which by the way has generated huge interest!

 

Science remains fairly deterministic despite some acceptance of concepts like emergent complexity. The concept of randomness is hard for the average person, me, to understand as it is not interchangeable with chance or accident as used in a debate like this topic, is it?

 

Alan

Edited August 3, 2012 by Alan McDougall

[mooeypoo]

I obviously knew why I was constantly accused of fallacious aguments and strawman comments, but I have difficulty avoiding them, due to my lack of understanding of even the basics of biology. Limited to high school senior level only.

I don't think it was obvious to us at all, since we thought you kept repeating them. The better solution than just "copy/pasting" this entire chunk of text would have been to answer our specific claims about your fallacious arguments with why you think we're wrong.

 

I am now learning about more advanced biology, by reading up what I can and able to comprehend with my limited knowledge of the subject matter.

 

However, I started the thread, because like most people, I would like a scientific answer for how life came into existence from non-life billions of years ago.

 

Look, you have to understand that there's a difference between what you mean and what it comes across, and when that is the case, you need to be careful, perhaps, how you phrase things.

 

It did not sound like you're interested in scientific answer to how life came into existence -- it sounded (and do go over your initial posts) like you are setting a trap to "Atheist Biologists" so you can show how their explanations are wrong.

 

If you didn't mean to do that, at least take into consideration that this is how the tone of your replies made it sound like; you seem to have been very much leading towards the religious aspect (which is why the thread was split and moved to religion) and kept dismissing claims with logic that didn't quite bode well with the other debaters.

 

I'm glad you want to learn more, and you should if you are interested in this. But part of learning science is willing to try and shed off your preconceptions and go by what the evidence shows. That means that you will need to stop going at it with the *conclusion* that intelligent designer did it, and instead hold off on a conclusion until you go over the evidence as a whole.

 

That is part of what much of the posts in this thread are aimed at. And same for the other thread, where the religious tone was only slightly more subtle, and why it was allowed to stay in the mainstream science despite some clear creationism undertones.

 

 

I will try my utmost in future to pose meaningful questions, with sufficient detail so that a reasonable reply can be offered by more informed members in the forum.

 

In my own speciality I would obviously not have made the same debating mistakes as I did in this topic, which by the way has generated huge interest!

 

Science remains fairly deterministic despite some acceptance of concepts like emergent complexity. The concept of randomness is hard for the average person, me, to understand as it is not interchangeable with chance or accident as used in a debate like this topic, is it?

 

Alan

 

The concept of randomness is hard on everyone to accept, it's not an intuitive issue at all. But you should take into consideration that quite a LOT of what we know about the universe is counter-intuitive. Sadly, nature has no consideration for what we think is "nice" to understand. I wish it did, really, it would've helped me a lot during my finals...

 

Anyways, I really do think it's great that you take the time to study about this. I am not posting this as an intention to bash or offend you. I want you to be mindful of how your posts came out, and how it seems that your undertones shows you have the conclusion already relatively firm in your mind. That tends to be frustrating to both sides.

 

~mooey

[Alan McDougall]

Thank you staff member I read carefully what you said!

[JJHLH]

Every time I read that quote about the 747 it makes me chuckle, because it's the biggest strawman of the lot. No serious scientist is claiming that life went from a bunch of chemicals directly to a living organism. There were intermediate steps in the process, and the probability of some of those steps may be nearly close to 100%.

 

Here's what Dr. Ian Musgrave, from the University of Adelaide says on that:

 

 

Feel free to read the entire paper - it covers quite a bit about the steps involved in going from "soup" to life.

 

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

 

 

edit to fix an obnoxious font.

 

 

 

 

 

I wanted to point out that Ian Musgrave's article has been thoroughly debunked. I'll give you just one example of why that involves math, something we can all agree on.

 

Musgrave says, "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 10^24 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 10^50 potential starting chains"

 

First, there are only 1^50 atoms on earth. You can verify this yourself by doing a Google search or click this link.

 

http://wiki.answers...._there_on_earth

 

Every protein chain contains multiple atoms so it is immediately clear that Musgrave's math doesn't work. Even if all the atoms on earth were in protein chains, which of course they are not, there aren't enough atoms available to support the number given by Musgrave. Furthermore, Earth's solid mass is about 32% iron, 30% oxygen, 15% silicon, 14% magnesium, 3% sulfur, 2% nickel, 1.5% calcium, and 1.4% aluminum. Much of the iron and nickel are in the planetary core, which is 89% iron and 6% nickel. The atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, with traces of other gases including carbon dioxide (0.3%).

 

Read more:http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_composition_of_the_Earth#ixzz24CoCdxuS

 

The key elements of proteins are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen,and nitrogen. So it is clear that proteins, which are a small-organized subset of these elements, constitute only a tiny fraction of the number of atoms on earth.

 

This is basic high school science and clearly demonstrates that Musgrave's article is complete rubbish. I'd be happy to give you additional examples of his math errors if you would like. He is trying to impress people with his use of demonstrably false scientific jargon in an attempt to prove that abiogenesis is possible, which of course it isn't. All science, including statistics, points to an intelligent design of the universe and life. Einstein came to the same conclusion.

 

As an aside, I'm troubled that they presented the fairy tale of abiogenesis to me as a fact when I was in school. The textbooks talk about the "primordial ooze" and the perfect conditions that existed to allow abiogenesis to occur, even though science demonstrates clearly that it can't. In their defense, as microbiology progresses we learn more and more about the complexity of a single cell. As it turns out, it much easier to build a complex machine like the space shuttle, or a supercomputer, or an atomic bomb than it is a single living cell capable of replication. Scientists still haven't been able to create a cell from scratch without the aid of other living organisms like yeast and bacteria, yet they want me to make the leap of faith that "it just happened by chance" in the primordial ooze. Sorry, I want to be taught facts, not fairy tales.

[Moontanman]

I wanted to point out that Ian Musgrave's article has been thoroughly debunked. I'll give you just one example of why that involves math, something we can all agree on.

 

Musgrave says, "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 10^24 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 10^50 potential starting chains"

 

First, there are only 1^50 atoms on earth. You can verify this yourself by doing a Google search or click this link.

 

http://wiki.answers...._there_on_earth

 

Every protein chain contains multiple atoms so it is immediately clear that Musgrave's math doesn't work. Even if all the atoms on earth were in protein chains, which of course they are not, there aren't enough atoms available to support the number given by Musgrave. Furthermore, Earth's solid mass is about 32% iron, 30% oxygen, 15% silicon, 14% magnesium, 3% sulfur, 2% nickel, 1.5% calcium, and 1.4% aluminum. Much of the iron and nickel are in the planetary core, which is 89% iron and 6% nickel. The atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, with traces of other gases including carbon dioxide (0.3%).

 

Read more:http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_composition_of_the_Earth#ixzz24CoCdxuS

 

The key elements of proteins are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen,and nitrogen. So it is clear that proteins, which are a small-organized subset of these elements, constitute only a tiny fraction of the number of atoms on earth.

 

This is basic high school science and clearly demonstrates that Musgrave's article is complete rubbish. I'd be happy to give you additional examples of his math errors if you would like. He is trying to impress people with his use of demonstrably false scientific jargon in an attempt to prove that abiogenesis is possible, which of course it isn't. All science, including statistics, points to an intelligent design of the universe and life. Einstein came to the same conclusion.

 

As an aside, I'm troubled that they presented the fairy tale of abiogenesis to me as a fact when I was in school. The textbooks talk about the "primordial ooze" and the perfect conditions that existed to allow abiogenesis to occur, even though science demonstrates clearly that it can't. In their defense, as microbiology progresses we learn more and more about the complexity of a single cell. As it turns out, it much easier to build a complex machine like the space shuttle, or a supercomputer, or an atomic bomb than it is a single living cell capable of replication. Scientists still haven't been able to create a cell from scratch without the aid of other living organisms like yeast and bacteria, yet they want me to make the leap of faith that "it just happened by chance" in the primordial ooze. Sorry, I want to be taught facts, not fairy tales.

 

 

I am curious, did you bother to read the entire thread or did you just jump in here at the end and ignore all the evidence presented in the other 108 posts?

[Ringer]

Sorry, I want to be taught facts, not fairy tales.

 

And yet you support ID.

 

[edit] Also, the number is potential starting chains, not potential chains. Meaning the amount of available options. It would equal out to 10^18 mol amino acids. It also seems your link only mentions the elemental makeup of the Earths crust and only uses the elements that are most abundant. If it doesn't use any of the trace elements or the atmospheric elements when considering pre-biotic Earth the number is going to be off by a bit. [/edit]

Edited August 22, 2012 by Ringer

[JJHLH]

I am curious, did you bother to read the entire thread or did you just jump in here at the end and ignore all the evidence presented in the other 108 posts?

 

 

 

I saw the Ian Musgrave article posted as a reference as if it were a scientific work worthy of reference, which is most certainly is not. It is filled with error including basic math, which I pointed out. Did someone else already point out his math errors on this thread? If so could you show me since I must have missed it.

 

 

 

And yet you support ID.

 

[edit] Also, the number is potential starting chains, not potential chains. Meaning the amount of available options. It would equal out to 10^18 mol amino acids. It also seems your link only mentions the elemental makeup of the Earths crust and only uses the elements that are most abundant. If it doesn't use any of the trace elements or the atmospheric elements when considering pre-biotic Earth the number is going to be off by a bit. [/edit]

 

 

There are only 1^50 atoms on Earth in total. Let's use Ian's assumptions (which are of course wrong as we've already seen). Assuming 1 x 10^24 liters, a 1 x 10^-6 molar concentration, and that there are 6.02 x 10^23 molecules per mole (Avogadro's number), the correct value would be 6.02 x 10^41 amino acids in the pre-biotic soup. Assuming all are locked up in 32 subunit peptides (a ridiculous assumption of course), there would be a maximum of 1.88 x 10^40 chains in the soup at any one time. So he is off by ten orders of magnitude! I guess this is what you are referring to when you say "the number is going to be off by a bit". Good grief.

 

And yet you support ID.

 

[edit] It also seems your link only mentions the elemental makeup of the Earths crust and only uses the elements that are most abundant. If it doesn't use any of the trace elements or the atmospheric elements when considering pre-biotic Earth the number is going to be off by a bit. [/edit]

 

 

 

 

http://wiki.answers....h#ixzz24CoCdxuS

 

The link clearly states the composition of the Earth in total. It doesn't just refer to crust.

 

The fact that proteins are composed of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen (and sometimes sulfur) as I pointed out in my original post makes Ian Musgrave's math errors even more obvious.

 

Edited August 22, 2012 by JJHLH

[Ringer]

There are only 1^50 atoms on Earth in total. Let's use Ian's assumptions (which are of course wrong as we've already seen). Assuming 1 x 10^24 liters, a 1 x 10^-6 molar concentration, and that there are 6.02 x 10^23 molecules per mole (Avogadro's number), the correct value would be 6.02 x 10^41 amino acids in the pre-biotic soup. Assuming all are locked up in 32 subunit peptides (a ridiculous assumption of course), there would be a maximum of 1.88 x 10^40 chains in the soup at any one time. So he is off by ten orders of magnitude! I guess this is what you are referring to when you say "the number is going to be off by a bit". Good grief.

 

No, I was referring to the fact that the measurement didn't even take into account the most abundant element in Earth's atmosphere. Given that those elements weren't taken into account the estimate of the amount of atoms are 'going to be off by a bit'. I also misspoke, I meant to say Earth's solid mass, not the crust alone. Since the link given as a source from your link doesn't work so I assumed that it only gave solid mass elements since it didn't use the major atmospheric elements. I figured it would be a fair assumption, since it said '(what about earth's atmosphere?)', that they didn't include those. I don't know why a I wasn't arguing for or against the paper seeing as I haven't read it.

 

 

 

 

 

[Moontanman]

I saw the Ian Musgrave article posted as a reference as if it were a scientific work worthy of reference, which is most certainly is not. It is filled with error including basic math, which I pointed out. Did someone else already point out his math errors on this thread? If so could you show me since I must have missed it.

 

I suggest you read the entire thread before asserting ID as the most likely way life came into being....

[imatfaal]

Hang On - this is a science forum and questions like this deserve an answer rather than being dismissed.

 

A paper was put up to refute the anti-abiogenesis argument - it was Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations by Dr Ian Musgrave. JJHLH questioned the figures of Dr Musgrave - I agree with his criticisms, and I must admit the first piece of maths I came across in the paper is also wrong; a basic maths mistake and a basis chemistry error pretty much discredit the paper's conclusions. I have followed this thread keenly - and the quote-mining and disingenuous abuse of science by creationists has been rightly pounced upon; academically and ethically we should treat this paper with the same rigour.

 

Is it possible that one of the posters so vehemently and articulately protesting against the creationist's improbability fallacy could show where Musgrave's methodology is incorrect - because if the methodology is correct and his numbers are 10^11 out then it seems we may have a problem. I am not a biologist and know too little of the topic - but I am very keen that spurious pseudo-scientific claims by creationists are refuted, but also that the rationalist counter-argument is sound. If the paper is on the talkorigins archive then ideally it should be defensibly correct - at the very least it should not lend succour to the claims of creationists.

[Ringer]

Hang On - this is a science forum and questions like this deserve an answer rather than being dismissed.

 

A paper was put up to refute the anti-abiogenesis argument - it was Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations by Dr Ian Musgrave. JJHLH questioned the figures of Dr Musgrave - I agree with his criticisms, and I must admit the first piece of maths I came across in the paper is also wrong; a basic maths mistake and a basis chemistry error pretty much discredit the paper's conclusions. I have followed this thread keenly - and the quote-mining and disingenuous abuse of science by creationists has been rightly pounced upon; academically and ethically we should treat this paper with the same rigour.

 

Is it possible that one of the posters so vehemently and articulately protesting against the creationist's improbability fallacy could show where Musgrave's methodology is incorrect - because if the methodology is correct and his numbers are 10^11 out then it seems we may have a problem. I am not a biologist and know too little of the topic - but I am very keen that spurious pseudo-scientific claims by creationists are refuted, but also that the rationalist counter-argument is sound. If the paper is on the talkorigins archive then ideally it should be defensibly correct - at the very least it should not lend succour to the claims of creationists.

 

Before I start I will say that my explanation of his numbers could very well be mistaken because I can't find a explanation of his numbers and the paper cited is behind a paywall. But I think that it makes sense if my explanation is what he meant.

 

It seems to me that his 1*10^-6M number was not used as an instantaneous measurement, though the wording makes it seem more probable he pulled it out of his ass, it may have used the rates organic molecules could be introduced, what the cited paper seems to be about, in a given amount of time. Or he could have mistakenly didn't write that it number is not the ocean as a whole. Prebiotic organic chemicals where more likely were held in areas close to shore. The some hypothesize that early organic molecules held in clay, or other things like crystals IIRC, combined to early amino acids. If he were referring to this or just an area were organic molecules would stay fairly static for a period of time allowing for reactions to take place, since organic molecules were fairly stable and easily made in a prebiotic atmosphere, his 1*10^-6M would make more sense to me. More likely is that he was just using that number as an example for how even at a fairly dilute concentration the probability of making amino acid chains is anything but impossible. IIRC you could use the factoral function for the combination of amino acids. So if I just use the 9 essential amino acids I get 9! or 3.6*10^5. Taking that with the number of molecules in his calculation, 1.1*10^42 I get 4.0*10^47 possible starting chains. My math for this is pretty rusty so I may have done it incorrectly but my numbers come out similar, though three orders of magnitude is pretty large. Then again I only used essential amino acids so the numbers could easily be increased. I also don't think I did the combination correctly since it says starting chains and factoral is probably not used for 1 to 1 combination. If my math is off feel free to correct it, though I doubt anyone would shy away from it if I didn't say feel free.

 

tl;dr version: He probably just used that number as an example of how a dilute concentration of amino acids could produce peptide chains fairly easily in a large amount of time. The numbers may not have been factually accurate of the entirety of the ocean, but probably were in select areas.

[JJHLH]

The more I contemplate this the more convinced I am that the greatest phenomenon in the universe isn't a supernova, or a nebula, or a blackhole. It's a humble living cell capable or replicating itself. As amazing as those other phenomena are, they are rather commonplace in the universe. We don't know of course, but it is possible that life may only exist on earth. Looking at the odds, however you want to calculate them, it defies explanation.

 

The next time you are out at night looking up at the stars ponder that for a moment. One thing we can probably agree on; from either a scientific, philosophical, or religious perspective, it really is an amazing thing to be alive.

 

Best regards.

[Moontanman]

The more I contemplate this the more convinced I am that the greatest phenomenon in the universe isn't a supernova, or a nebula, or a blackhole. It's a humble living cell capable or replicating itself. As amazing as those other phenomena are, they are rather commonplace in the universe. We don't know of course, but it is possible that life may only exist on earth. Looking at the odds, however you want to calculate them, it defies explanation.

 

The next time you are out at night looking up at the stars ponder that for a moment. One thing we can probably agree on; from either a scientific, philosophical, or religious perspective, it really is an amazing thing to be alive.

 

Best regards.

 

 

Unless of course you have read this entire thread and seen that odds have nothing to do with it...

[LogicGates]

Mister McDougall, please get out of here and quit cluttering up our science forum with your pathetic attempt to disguise your religious motives. Just a quick glance at your blather and one sees your preposterous, discredited claim that Albert Einstein believed "Intelligent Design". Like all "Intelligent Design" proponents you smother us with Hogwash. Serious posters here put considerable effort into discussions that help us understand reality. Go read a mythology book. BEGONE !!!

 

 

Nevertheless it is an interesting question, asked by many highly intellectual people

 

It was a wordpress article justoverlooked putting link, nothing sinister

 

http://compassioninpolitics.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/nobel-prize-winners-who-believe-in-intelligent-design/

 

This is what the authors personal view on intellent Design is!

 

My Reflections on the Intelligent Design Debate

 

I believe in evolution. I believe in intelligent design. I'm not sure what my opinion is of macro-evolution and I'm pretty sure I'm not a young-earther in the traditional sense, but there are certainly others who share my opinion on both of these issues (See peer reviewed article links & the dissent from darwin as well as the article by Stephen Meyer, which is an incredible article). I believe that textbooks should at least teach the controversy for greater public awareness of the issue. Does intelligent it belong in a science textbook? Does intelligent design belong in the science classroom? I'm not entirely sure. Perhaps its more of a civics, government, or history issue rather than a science one. However, it seems that science looses even more if its not included in a scientific context (i.e. they have to re-clarify and re-explain their approach or position on intelligent design at a later date). The current policy seems to be one of avoidance of conflict and controversy….but thats just an elephant in the room.

 

 

 

Lawsusually need a thinker behind them don't they? DH did not answer the questionbecause he does not know what life is or how to definite Life with any exactitude

 

 

[Ophiolite]

Mister McDougall, please get out of here and quit cluttering up our science forum with your pathetic attempt to disguise your religious motives.

Many of the lurkers on this forum will be at that point in their lives when they consider whether they believe a creationist/ID viewpoint on the origin of life, or accept the scientific hypotheses. They may be attracted to a thread such as this in order to help clarify their thinking. There are two major approaches we can use when a 'believer' promotes their views.

 

1. We can take it as an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the weaknesses in the creationist argument, to explore the beauty and effectiveness of the scientific method, and to explain some of the aspects of the scientific viewpoint.

 

2. We can tell the creationist to get lost.

 

Which of these approaches do you think will be more effective at swaying the view of the undecided lurker?

[Alan McDougall]

Mister McDougall, please get out of here and quit cluttering up our science forum with your pathetic attempt to disguise your religious motives. Just a quick glance at your blather and one sees your preposterous, discredited claim that Albert Einstein believed "Intelligent Design". Like all "Intelligent Design" proponents you smother us with Hogwash. Serious posters here put considerable effort into discussions that help us understand reality. Go read a mythology book. BEGONE !!!

 

OK!! I AM OUT OF HERE, GOD CREATED LIFE! YOU WILL ANSWER TO HIM NOT ME!!

 

 

 

[overtone]

Somewhere in here it's time to repeat a basic fact: Evolutionary theory shows how life could emerge without first beating the long odds of random chance. In Darwinian theory, random or chance events are only one contribution to the process, and improbable events are generally assumed to have happened in much less improbable stages. It is a ratcheting process, that can acheive wildly improbable states one likely and selected event at a time.

 

Darwinian theory shows how the apparently impossible by chance need not depend on such chance.

 

So all those calculations of purely random assortment odds, etc, are irrelevant - right or wrong. And the OP is simply off on the wrong foot to begin with - a confusion, not a question.

Edited December 6, 2012 by overtone

[ydoaPs]

Somewhere in here it's time to repeat a basic fact: Evolutionary theory shows how life could emerge without first beating the long odds of random chance.

 

I think you mean "chemistry".

[dmaiski]

the probability of life evolving is infidesmily small, but to quote The hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy

"Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the drug store, but that's just peanuts to space."

 

 

to put in terms of mathematics:

the P of life evolving may be 10^-10000 per reaction per hour

but

there are 10^10000 planets viable for life to evolve, and each planet dose 10^100 reactions on it per hour, and there are 13billion years for these reactions to have worked, ading up to life having evolved at least (10^110)*1.3 times in the universe

(all figures and numbers are made up)

so the probability of life evolving is pretty much guaranteed

Edited December 13, 2012 by dmaiski

[Ophiolite]

so the probability of life evolving is pretty much guaranteed

I am getting tired of repeating this, but your statement is faulty. Until we have clearly identified and specified, in comprehensive detail, the steps by which life might arise it is impossible to meaningfully assess the odds for or against its occurence. Extrapolating from a sample size of one is foolish. The more I see suggestions to the contrary the more inclined I am to say it is downright dumb. I think I shall be able to resist the temptation for another five instances.