What are the Odds of Life evolving by chance alone?

[EliH]

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.

 

I'n new here having just found this area to discuss this concept. Perhaps there are more recent posts. I will check tomorrow. But for now, to revitalize the topic I would like to add to the latest comments.

 

The number of 10^40,000 itself is missing the parameter of time. As we know it today, the universe in in the area of 14 billion years old. That number should be used when conceptualizing that 10^40,000 represents ~ever~. Not 10^40,000 per hour or per millenia. Ever! So the Hitchhiker reference is immaterial since it doesn't even come close to the component of time.

 

That being said. How does the recent discoveries of the Keppler exoplanets alter the 10^40,000 calculation?

[vincentfromyay]

http://crl.i8.com/Evolution/Dna.html

 

 

 

DNA Molecules and the Odds Against Evolution

Within each cell there is an area called the nucleus which contains the all-important chromosomes. Chromosomes are microscopically small, rod-shaped structures which carry the genes. Within the chromosomes is an even smaller structure called DNA. This is one of the most important chemical substances in the human body -- or in any other living thing. Increasing scientific understanding of DNA molecules has revealed enormous problems for materialism.

 

DNA is a super-molecule which stores coded hereditary information. It consists of two long "chains" of chemical "building blocks" paired together. In humans, the strands of DNA are almost 2 yards long, yet less than a trillionth of an inch thick.

 

In function, DNA is somewhat like a computer program on a floppy disk. It stores and transfers encoded information and instructions. It is said that the DNA of a human stores enough information code to fill 1,000 books -- each with 500 pages of very small, closely-printed type. The DNA code produces a product far more sophisticated than that of any computer. Amazingly, this enormous set of instructions fits with ease within a single cell and routinely directs the formation of entire adult humans, starting with just a single fertilized egg. Even the DNA of a bacterium is highly complex, containing at least 3 million units, all aligned in a very precise, meaningful sequence.

 

DNA and the molecules that surround it form a truly superb mechanism -- a miniaturized marvel. the information is so compactly stored that the amount of DNA necessary to code all the people living on our planet might fit into a space no larger than an asprin tablet!

 

Many scientists are convinced that cells containing such a complex code and such intricate chemistry could never have come into being by pure, undirected chemistry. No matter how chemicals are mixed, they do not create DNA spirals or any intelligent code whatsoever. Only DNA reproduces DNA.

 

Two well known scientists calculated the odds of life forming by natural processes. They estimated that there is less than 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000power that life could have originated by random trials. 10 to the 40,000power is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it!

 

- "...life cannot have had a random beginning...The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the 40,000power, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court....The enormous information content of even the simplest living systems...cannot in our view be generated by what are often called "natural" processes...For life to have originated on the Earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instruction should have been provided for its assembly...There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago."

 

Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe,

Evolution from Space [Aldine House, 33 Welbeck Street, London W1M 8LX:

J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981), p. 148, 24,150,30,31).

 

How can one gain some conception of the size of such a huge number? According to most Evolutionists, the universe is less than 30 billion years old -- and there are fewer than 10 to the 18th Power seconds in 30 billion years. So, even if nature could somehow have produced trillions of genetic code combinations every second for 30 billion years, the probabilities against producing the simplest one-celled animal by trial and error would still be inconceivably immense! In other words, probabilities greatly favor those that believe an intelligent designer was responsible for originating even the simplest DNA molecules.

 

Chemist Dr. Grebe: "That organic evolution could account for the complex forms of life in the past and the present has long since been abandoned by men who grasp the importance of the DNA genetic code."

 

Researcher and mathematician I.L Cohen: "At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt...the implications of the DNA/RNA were obvious and clear....Mathematically speaking, based on probability concepts, there is no possibility that Evolution vs the mechanism that created the approximately 6,000,000 species of plants and animals we recognize today."

 

Evolutionist Michael Denton: "The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle."

 

Famed researcher Sir Fred Hoyle is in agreement with Creationists on this point. He has reportedly said that supposing the first cell originated by chance is like believing "a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeng 747 from the materials therein."

 

Many, if not most, origin-of-life researchers now agree with Hoyle: Life could not have originated by chance or by any known natural processes. many Evolutionists are now searching for some theoretical force within matter which might push matter toward the assembly of greater complexity. Most Creationists believe this is doomed to failure, since it contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

 

It is important to note that the information written on DNA molecules is not produced by any known natural interaction of matter. Matter and molecules have no innate intelligence, allowing self organization into codes. There are no know n physical laws which give molecules a natural tendency to arrange themselves into such coded structures.

 

Like a computer disk, DNA has no intelligence. The complex, purposeful codes of this "master program" could have only originated outside itself. In the case of a computer program, the original codes were put there by an intelligent being, a programmer. Likewise, for DNA, it seems clear that intelligence must have come first, before the existence of DNA. Statistically, the odds are enormously in favor of that theory. DNA bears the marks of intelligent manufacture.

 

Dr Wilder-Smith is an honored scientist who is certainly well-informed on modern biology and biochemistry. What is his considered opinion as to the source of the DNA codes found in each wondrous plant and animal? "...an attempt to explain the formation of the genetic code from the chemical components of DNA...is comparable to the assumption that the text of a book originates from the paper molecules on which the sentences appear, and not from any external source of information." " As a scientist, I am convinced that the pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the workings of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of the cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules of that cell. There is an author which transcends the material and the matter of which these strands are made. The author first of all conceived the information necessary to make a cell, then wrote it down, and then fixed it in a mechanism of reading it and realizing it in practice -- so that the cell builds itself from the information..."

 

One need only look carefully at any living creature to gain some concept of their enormous complexity. If you have a pet, consider the complexities that must be involved -- enabling that "package of matter" to move about, play, remember, show signs of affection, eat, and reproduce!

 

If that is not enough to boggle your mind, imagine being given the task of constructing a similar living pet from carbon, calcium, hydrogen, oxygen, etc. -- the animal's basic constituent parts.

 

If you have ever held a beloved pet in your hands, completely limp and dead, you may have some comprehension of the helplessness of even the most intelligent and sophisticated scientist when it comes to the overwhelming problem of trying to create life.

 

In contrast, the natural world does not have the advantages people bring to the problem. In nature, there are only matter, energy, time, chance and the physical laws -- no guiding force, no purpose, and no goal.

 

Yet, even with all of modern man's accumulated knowledge, advanced tools, and experience, we are still absolutely overwhelmed at the complexities. This is despite the fact that we are certainly not starting from absolute zero in this problem, for there are millions of actual living examples of life to scrutinize.

 

THE INCREDIBLE COMPLEXITY OF MAN

 

All living things are extremely complex, even the tiniest single-celled animals and bacteria. However, none surpasses the overall complexity of the human being. Not only is each person constructed of trillions of molecules and cells, but the human brain alone is filled with billions of cells forming trillions of trillions of connections. The design of the human brain is truly awesome and beyond our understanding. Every cubic inch of the human brain contains at least 100 million nerve cells interconnected by 10 thousand miles of fibers.

 

It has been said that man's 3 pound brain is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the entire universe! Far more complicated than any computer, the human brain is capable of storing and creatively manipulating seemingly infinite amounts of information. Its capabilities and potential stagger the imagination. The more we use it, the better it becomes.

 

The brain capabilities of even the smallest insects are mind-boggling. The tiny speck of a brain found in a little ant, butterfly or bee enable them not only to see, smell, taste and move, but even to fly with great precision. Butterflies routinely navigate enormous distances. Bees and ants carry on complex social organizations, building projects, and communications. These miniature brains put our computers and avionics to shame, in comparison.

 

The marvels of the bodies of both animals and man are evidently endless. Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith makes this thought-provoking and humbling statement:

 

"When one considers that the entire chemical information to construct a man, elephant, frog or an orchid was compressed into two minuscule reproductive cells (sperm and egg nuclei), one can only be astounded. In addition to this, all the information is available on the genes to repair the body (not only to construct it) when it is injured. If one were to request an engineer to accomplish this feat of information miniaturization, one would be considered fit for the psychiatric clinic."

 

It is certainly true that a machine carefully made by a craftsman reflects the existence of it's creator. It would be foolish to suggest that time and chance could make a typewriter or a microwave oven, or that the individual parts could form themselves into these complex mechanisms due to the physical properties of matter. Yet, life is far, far more complex than any man-made machine.

 

The more scientists study life, the more they become deeply impressed. Nature is full of intricate design and beauty. In contrast to man-made objects, which look increasingly crude in finish and detail the closer they are viewed (i.e., through powerful microscopes), the closer life is examined the more complex and wondrous it appears.

 

Planet Earth is filled with myriad forms of life, each with enormous levels of complexity. Materialists believe life in all its amazing forms consist merely of atoms and molecules. They believe these atoms and molecules formed themselves into millions of intricate animals and plants. This view was born out of an earlier, more naive period in science when the extreme complexity of living systems was not understood. Even if nature could build the necessary proteins and enzymes, it is far from producing life. There is an enormous difference between producing a building block and producing a fully operating and serviced 100-story skyscraper from those building blocks. Buildings require builders; programs require programmers.

 

Today, most scientists are convinced that life could never have come into being without some form of highly intelligent and powerful designer.

 

THE BOTTOM LINE on the origin of life

 

- During all recorded human history, there has never been a substantiated case of a living thing being produced from anything other than another living thing.

 

- As yet, evolutionism has not produced a scientifically credible explanation for the origin of such immense complexities as DNA, the human brain, and many elements of the cosmos.

 

- It is highly premature for materialists to claim that all living things evolved into existence, when science has yet to discover how even one protein molecule could actually have come into existence by natural processes.

 

- there is no scientific proof that life did (or ever could) evolve into existence from non-living matter. Further, there is substantial evidence that spontaneous generation is impossible. Only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has even come close to producing this ultra-complex code which is so essential to all known life.

 

However what do your scientific minds have to say about the above?

“Many scientists are convinced that cells containing such a complex code and such intricate chemistry could never have come into being by pure, undirected chemistry.”

How many scientists (approx.) are convinced of this? And how many are not convinced of this?

 

“The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes...”

Are all two thousand required for the very simplest life form?

 

“Evolutionist Michael Denton: ‘The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.’”

I just saw a book by Michael Denton being promoted on a Duane Gish (Institute for Creationist Research) video on YOutube, and have since read on wikipedia that he is now a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, and is not an evolutionist but a proponent of Intelligent Design. Also, as far as I’m aware, the idea that the cell was “thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event” is not a theory taken serious by any proponent of abigenesis (i think that is what is known as a strawman argument).

 

“Many, if not most, origin-of-life researchers now agree with Hoyle.”

How many agree with Hoyle? And how many don’t agree with him?

 

“Most Creationists believe this is doomed to failure, since it contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.”

Could you explain why this contradicts the 2^nd law of thermodynamics?

[Moontanman]

Strawman arguments are those that attempt to attack a particular position or idea by presenting a false ideaas the real thing. In other words, the opposing position is misrepresented by a weaker and easily defeated Strawman argument.? However it is undeniable fact that the simplest living system far outshines the complexity of for, example the most complex flying machine ever created by man, namely the "Spaceshuttle". Even the "simplest" living cell easily does this. Take a good hard scientific look at a cockroach and you will notice it is almost unimaginably more complex than the Spaceshuttler. How long would it take for a really realitively simple object from atom to molocule, to evolve into a Spaceshuttle, given the same enormous time scale and billions of small steps it supposidly took life to come into existence by blnd chance alone?

 

 

Space shuttles do not reproduce and there for cannot evolve, you are the king of strawmen, I salute you and give credit where credit is due, should be an award for the most dishonest post using using strawmen....

http://crl.i8.com/Evolution/Dna.html

 

 

 

DNA Molecules and the Odds Against Evolution

Within each cell there is an area called the nucleus which contains the all-important chromosomes. Chromosomes are microscopically small, rod-shaped structures which carry the genes. Within the chromosomes is an even smaller structure called DNA. This is one of the most important chemical substances in the human body -- or in any other living thing. Increasing scientific understanding of DNA molecules has revealed enormous problems for materialism.

 

DNA is a super-molecule which stores coded hereditary information. It consists of two long "chains" of chemical "building blocks" paired together. In humans, the strands of DNA are almost 2 yards long, yet less than a trillionth of an inch thick.

 

In function, DNA is somewhat like a computer program on a floppy disk. It stores and transfers encoded information and instructions. It is said that the DNA of a human stores enough information code to fill 1,000 books -- each with 500 pages of very small, closely-printed type. The DNA code produces a product far more sophisticated than that of any computer. Amazingly, this enormous set of instructions fits with ease within a single cell and routinely directs the formation of entire adult humans, starting with just a single fertilized egg. Even the DNA of a bacterium is highly complex, containing at least 3 million units, all aligned in a very precise, meaningful sequence.

 

DNA and the molecules that surround it form a truly superb mechanism -- a miniaturized marvel. the information is so compactly stored that the amount of DNA necessary to code all the people living on our planet might fit into a space no larger than an asprin tablet!

 

Many scientists are convinced that cells containing such a complex code and such intricate chemistry could never have come into being by pure, undirected chemistry. No matter how chemicals are mixed, they do not create DNA spirals or any intelligent code whatsoever. Only DNA reproduces DNA.

 

Two well known scientists calculated the odds of life forming by natural processes. They estimated that there is less than 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000power that life could have originated by random trials. 10 to the 40,000power is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it!

 

- "...life cannot have had a random beginning...The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the 40,000power, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court....The enormous information content of even the simplest living systems...cannot in our view be generated by what are often called "natural" processes...For life to have originated on the Earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instruction should have been provided for its assembly...There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago."

 

Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe,

Evolution from Space [Aldine House, 33 Welbeck Street, London W1M 8LX:

J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981), p. 148, 24,150,30,31).

 

How can one gain some conception of the size of such a huge number? According to most Evolutionists, the universe is less than 30 billion years old -- and there are fewer than 10 to the 18th Power seconds in 30 billion years. So, even if nature could somehow have produced trillions of genetic code combinations every second for 30 billion years, the probabilities against producing the simplest one-celled animal by trial and error would still be inconceivably immense! In other words, probabilities greatly favor those that believe an intelligent designer was responsible for originating even the simplest DNA molecules.

 

Chemist Dr. Grebe: "That organic evolution could account for the complex forms of life in the past and the present has long since been abandoned by men who grasp the importance of the DNA genetic code."

 

Researcher and mathematician I.L Cohen: "At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt...the implications of the DNA/RNA were obvious and clear....Mathematically speaking, based on probability concepts, there is no possibility that Evolution vs the mechanism that created the approximately 6,000,000 species of plants and animals we recognize today."

 

Evolutionist Michael Denton: "The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle."

 

Famed researcher Sir Fred Hoyle is in agreement with Creationists on this point. He has reportedly said that supposing the first cell originated by chance is like believing "a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeng 747 from the materials therein."

 

Many, if not most, origin-of-life researchers now agree with Hoyle: Life could not have originated by chance or by any known natural processes. many Evolutionists are now searching for some theoretical force within matter which might push matter toward the assembly of greater complexity. Most Creationists believe this is doomed to failure, since it contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

 

It is important to note that the information written on DNA molecules is not produced by any known natural interaction of matter. Matter and molecules have no innate intelligence, allowing self organization into codes. There are no know n physical laws which give molecules a natural tendency to arrange themselves into such coded structures.

 

Like a computer disk, DNA has no intelligence. The complex, purposeful codes of this "master program" could have only originated outside itself. In the case of a computer program, the original codes were put there by an intelligent being, a programmer. Likewise, for DNA, it seems clear that intelligence must have come first, before the existence of DNA. Statistically, the odds are enormously in favor of that theory. DNA bears the marks of intelligent manufacture.

 

Dr Wilder-Smith is an honored scientist who is certainly well-informed on modern biology and biochemistry. What is his considered opinion as to the source of the DNA codes found in each wondrous plant and animal? "...an attempt to explain the formation of the genetic code from the chemical components of DNA...is comparable to the assumption that the text of a book originates from the paper molecules on which the sentences appear, and not from any external source of information." " As a scientist, I am convinced that the pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the workings of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of the cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules of that cell. There is an author which transcends the material and the matter of which these strands are made. The author first of all conceived the information necessary to make a cell, then wrote it down, and then fixed it in a mechanism of reading it and realizing it in practice -- so that the cell builds itself from the information..."

 

One need only look carefully at any living creature to gain some concept of their enormous complexity. If you have a pet, consider the complexities that must be involved -- enabling that "package of matter" to move about, play, remember, show signs of affection, eat, and reproduce!

 

If that is not enough to boggle your mind, imagine being given the task of constructing a similar living pet from carbon, calcium, hydrogen, oxygen, etc. -- the animal's basic constituent parts.

 

If you have ever held a beloved pet in your hands, completely limp and dead, you may have some comprehension of the helplessness of even the most intelligent and sophisticated scientist when it comes to the overwhelming problem of trying to create life.

 

In contrast, the natural world does not have the advantages people bring to the problem. In nature, there are only matter, energy, time, chance and the physical laws -- no guiding force, no purpose, and no goal.

 

Yet, even with all of modern man's accumulated knowledge, advanced tools, and experience, we are still absolutely overwhelmed at the complexities. This is despite the fact that we are certainly not starting from absolute zero in this problem, for there are millions of actual living examples of life to scrutinize.

 

THE INCREDIBLE COMPLEXITY OF MAN

 

All living things are extremely complex, even the tiniest single-celled animals and bacteria. However, none surpasses the overall complexity of the human being. Not only is each person constructed of trillions of molecules and cells, but the human brain alone is filled with billions of cells forming trillions of trillions of connections. The design of the human brain is truly awesome and beyond our understanding. Every cubic inch of the human brain contains at least 100 million nerve cells interconnected by 10 thousand miles of fibers.

 

It has been said that man's 3 pound brain is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the entire universe! Far more complicated than any computer, the human brain is capable of storing and creatively manipulating seemingly infinite amounts of information. Its capabilities and potential stagger the imagination. The more we use it, the better it becomes.

 

The brain capabilities of even the smallest insects are mind-boggling. The tiny speck of a brain found in a little ant, butterfly or bee enable them not only to see, smell, taste and move, but even to fly with great precision. Butterflies routinely navigate enormous distances. Bees and ants carry on complex social organizations, building projects, and communications. These miniature brains put our computers and avionics to shame, in comparison.

 

The marvels of the bodies of both animals and man are evidently endless. Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith makes this thought-provoking and humbling statement:

 

"When one considers that the entire chemical information to construct a man, elephant, frog or an orchid was compressed into two minuscule reproductive cells (sperm and egg nuclei), one can only be astounded. In addition to this, all the information is available on the genes to repair the body (not only to construct it) when it is injured. If one were to request an engineer to accomplish this feat of information miniaturization, one would be considered fit for the psychiatric clinic."

 

It is certainly true that a machine carefully made by a craftsman reflects the existence of it's creator. It would be foolish to suggest that time and chance could make a typewriter or a microwave oven, or that the individual parts could form themselves into these complex mechanisms due to the physical properties of matter. Yet, life is far, far more complex than any man-made machine.

 

The more scientists study life, the more they become deeply impressed. Nature is full of intricate design and beauty. In contrast to man-made objects, which look increasingly crude in finish and detail the closer they are viewed (i.e., through powerful microscopes), the closer life is examined the more complex and wondrous it appears.

 

Planet Earth is filled with myriad forms of life, each with enormous levels of complexity. Materialists believe life in all its amazing forms consist merely of atoms and molecules. They believe these atoms and molecules formed themselves into millions of intricate animals and plants. This view was born out of an earlier, more naive period in science when the extreme complexity of living systems was not understood. Even if nature could build the necessary proteins and enzymes, it is far from producing life. There is an enormous difference between producing a building block and producing a fully operating and serviced 100-story skyscraper from those building blocks. Buildings require builders; programs require programmers.

 

Today, most scientists are convinced that life could never have come into being without some form of highly intelligent and powerful designer.

 

THE BOTTOM LINE on the origin of life

 

- During all recorded human history, there has never been a substantiated case of a living thing being produced from anything other than another living thing.

 

- As yet, evolutionism has not produced a scientifically credible explanation for the origin of such immense complexities as DNA, the human brain, and many elements of the cosmos.

 

- It is highly premature for materialists to claim that all living things evolved into existence, when science has yet to discover how even one protein molecule could actually have come into existence by natural processes.

 

- there is no scientific proof that life did (or ever could) evolve into existence from non-living matter. Further, there is substantial evidence that spontaneous generation is impossible. Only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has even come close to producing this ultra-complex code which is so essential to all known life.

 

However what do your scientific minds have to say about the above?

 

This first post has so many strawmen as a important part of it's premise destroying them all would take considerable time and research that Mr. McDougall could have easily realized were bogus simply by judicious use of google but one theme he seem to be fond of insinuating if not outright claiming it is information. Whether claiming it could not come about by random chance to asserting no new information could arise with out an IDer to create the information. But thus is a strawman as well and IMHO one of the most used and most inaccurate of all strawmen.

 

THERE IS NO INFORMATION IN DNA... NO CODE... NO INSTRUCTIONS INSERTED BY A SUPREME BEING...NONE!

 

We have named DNA information or a code to make it easier for use to understand since we see patterns easily as part of the evolution of our own minds. Labeling DNA as information or a code just makes it easier to work with due to the way our minds have evolved to work. I hope the powers that be will forgive me for posting this video but it does make the deliema of information in DNA quite clear...

 

[Alan McDougall]

Before we argue about how life came into existence in our universe, please give a good unambiguous, definition/ description of what life really is, and exactly how it differs from the inanimate

[Endy0816]

You are attempting to shift the burden there...

 

 

Only DNA is known to produce DNA.

 

 

This can be proven false by the Retrovirus, which can transcribe RNA to DNA. One commonly known retrovirus is HIV, you may have heard of it.

 

 

To answer your original question, the odds are good. Start simple, increase complexity while producing enough entropy to keep thermodynamics happy. Entirely within the rules as we understand them.

[Greg H.]

Start simple, increase complexity while producing enough entropy to keep thermodynamics happy. Entirely within the rules as we understand them.

And the entropy argument only applies in a closed system anyway, which life on Earth is not.

[Moontanman]

Before we argue about how life came into existence in our universe, please give a good unambiguous, definition/ description of what life really is, and exactly how it differs from the inanimate

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

 

Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.[3][4] Biology is the science concerned with the study of life.

 

 

[overtone]

The odds against a living being coming into being by chance alone, however calculated, are astronomical - it's essentially an impossibility, even if one begins with another, different living being as the source.

 

That's why the Darwinian Theory of Evolution was such a fantastic advance in our comprehension - it provided a mechanism for what we see has happened, an explanation for major features of our world that had gone unexplained for thousands of years.

Edited November 8, 2013 by overtone

[Iggy]

The chances that live evolved are one to one. One wonders what the last 7 pages of discussion are about.

 

Incidentally, I wonder what the chances of flipping a coin a bunch of times are and it landing: heads, tails, tails, tails, heads, tails, heads, heads, tails, tails?

 

Probably pretty small. Maybe one in a thousand. Nevertheless, I just did it and it happened so we might as well deal with it.

[StringJunky]

Iggy, on 09 Nov 2013 - 3:54 PM, said:

The chances that live evolved are one to one. One wonders what the last 7 pages of discussion are about.

That wasn't the question. It was: What are the chances of life evolving? One could be picky and say "Of course, once it has arisen it will evolve" but I think the OP meant it arising in the first place, as per abiogenesis. What you are suggesting, as I read it, is that if I won three lottery jackpots in a row my chances of winning were 1:1. You need to think of the scenario in the question before the fact and not after it.

 

Also, Ophiolite made the salient point that until we have more data we don't have a clue.

 

... 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.

[Francesco]

I'm sure the odds against life are just overwhelming.

We are lucky, but hey, just a couple days ago we discovered that there are billions of earth-like planets "close" to us ("Billions of Earth-Like Planets!").

Maybe life exists there, but we just can't see it yet.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Francesco

[Moontanman]

The question the OP asks is malformed to begin with, there are no odds involved, just chemistry and chemical reactions are deterministic, chemicals do not react by random chance...

[StringJunky]

Moontanman, on 09 Nov 2013 - 5:52 PM, said:Moontanman, on 09 Nov 2013 - 5:52 PM, said:

The question the OP asks is malformed to begin with, there are no odds involved, just chemistry and chemical reactions are deterministic, chemicals do not react by random chance...

That's true but the 'chance' parts are the necessary molecules being in proximity to each other and under conditions that allow them to react.

Edited November 9, 2013 by StringJunky

[mississippichem]

That's true but the 'chance' parts are the necessary molecules being in proximity to each other and under conditions that allow them to react.

That is strictly true. However, it's important not to forget that we must average over a large ensemble of reactant molecules.

 

Let's say that the probability of any A molecule reacting with a B molecule to give a C molecule is very small.

 

If the formation of C is thermodynamically favorable and the reverse reaction of C reverting to A+B is sufficiently slow, then there can be a net build up of C over time. Thermodynamics trumps kinetics in the limit of relatively long time scales.

 

I agree with your post but felt I should add that tidbit. Carry on

[Iggy]

What you are suggesting, as I read it, is that if I won three lottery jackpots in a row my chances of winning were 1:1.

 

after you win three times times in a row, your chances of wining were one in one. After life evolves, the chance of it having evolved is one in one. Are you suggesting we live in a some other time? I'm suggesting it already happened, and that the chance that it happened is therefore incredibly predictable and already known. Are you suggesting otherwise? What year do you think it is?

 

You don't get to say that "heads, tails, tails, tails, heads, tails, heads, heads, tails, tails" is incredibly unlikely after it already happens. Unless you think it didn't happen because it is so unlikely.... You think the coin didn't flip that way. It's one in a thousand, you think it didn't happen?

Edited November 9, 2013 by Iggy

[Moontanman]

There is also the number of reactions actually occurring, It might be highly unlikely that a particular reaction would take place in the right place but when you have a test tube as large as earths oceans with trillions of reactions occurring every second even improbable events become a certainty.

 

Personally IMHO I think life is a certainty given favorable conditions, Gold, in his book "The Deep Hot Biosphere" suggests that life is simply a natural chemical reaction that is apart of planet formation, complex life like us is the true extremophile with most life being much simpler than we see on earth today even in bacteria. Gold suggests that many bodies in our solar system developed life, probably all the terrestrial planets and many of the moons of the giant planets. Any place water and hydrocarbons interact on geological time scales.

 

Some planets change in ways that eliminates such life like Venus and Mercury but others continue to have simple life though out most of their history. Gold suggests that deep inside most moons and planets life can and probably does exist,he even made a case for our own moon...

[Iggy]

What you are suggesting, as I read it, is that if I won three lottery jackpots in a row my chances of winning were 1:1.

Yes, after the outcome, one knows the outcome. "Chance" is therefore no longer definitionally appropriate. What were the chances of something that certainly happens? Believe it or not, that sentence and the question tears itself apart. The chances are one in one.

 

You need to think of the scenario in the question before the fact and not after it.

 

Also, Ophiolite made the salient point that until we have more data we don't have a clue.

Well, that makes sense. Before the fact you might be ignorant of the outcome. After the fact, we aren't.

 

As I understand the question, it is... "if the universe were replayed?... If everything reran itself, what would be the outcome?" Maybe in the first few years someone as intelligent as human couldn't have guessed the chances of life evolving, but here we are after the fact. The odds are therefore already known, even if you or I couldn't have known them then.

[Delta1212]

Yes, after the outcome, one knows the outcome. "Chance" is therefore no longer definitionally appropriate. What were the chances of something that certainly happens? Believe it or not, that sentence and the question tears itself apart. The chances are one in one.

 

 

Well, that makes sense. Before the fact you might be ignorant of the outcome. After the fact, we aren't.

 

As I understand the question, it is... "if the universe were replayed?... If everything reran itself, what would be the outcome?" Maybe in the first few years someone as intelligent as human couldn't have guessed the chances of life evolving, but here we are after the fact. The odds are therefore already known, even if you or I couldn't have known them then.

If I roll a seven in craps, and then ask someone what the odds of that happening were, does "1:1" adequately provide me with the information I was seeking?

[Moontanman]

If I roll a seven in craps, and then ask someone what the odds of that happening were, does "1:1" adequately provide me with the information I was seeking?

 

 

Only if you ask it before you roll it...

[Iggy]

If I roll a seven in craps, and then ask someone what the odds of that happening were, does "1:1" adequately provide me with the information I was seeking?

The past is known. The future is not (at least by any human). The past is for certain cause. The future is for uninformed differences of probability. "the chances that something happened by chance" isn't a properly formed idea, and you only propagate the problem by ignoring the faulty premise. The chances that chance did something that happened are certain. Nothing more needs said.

[Achrelos]

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?

I think that depends on how earnest the undecided is. Personally I have run into two types, those seeking to understand both sides and those looking to validate their own side. I have, along with others who are more educated than myself, lead people to understand evolution. I have also been engaged in a five month long ongoing debate with someone who refutes the theory of evolution with little shame in how she conducts herself. So it really depends, in my opinion, on the person's attitude.

[StringJunky]

One cannot ignore the choices that didn't happen.in ones calculations. so if there is more than one possible outcome then the odds are not 1:1 even after the fact.

Edited November 11, 2013 by StringJunky

[Moontanman]

One cannot ignore the choices that didn't happen.in ones calculations. so if there is more than one possible outcome then the odds are not 1:1 even after the fact.

 

 

As for the OP, I think the question is loaded, it assumes something that is simply not true then asks for an answer based on that deception...

[Delta1212]

The past is known. The future is not (at least by any human). The past is for certain cause. The future is for uninformed differences of probability. "the chances that something happened by chance" isn't a properly formed idea, and you only propagate the problem by ignoring the faulty premise. The chances that chance did something that happened are certain. Nothing more needs said.

The OP is terrible, but the question of how likely life is to appear is still an interesting one that, in itself, doesn't deserve to be dismissed simply because a certain subset of people abuse the hell out of it.

 

What range of conditions can life arise in? What is the average time it takes in optimal vs suboptimal conditions for life to appear? How common are those conditions in the Universe?

 

And then specifically to us: How close to the optimal conditions was early Earth? How long would (did) it take life to evolve in those conditions, and how long would those conditions have existed without life arising? Was life appearing on Earth near guaranteed? A cointoss? A fluke? We know what did happen, but was it the result of the same physical inevitability as the fate of an ice cube flung into a star, or did it require an extraordinary set of circumstances, like a meteor getting struck by lightning just as it crashed into the sole lake capable of sustaining life on the face of the Earth?

 

That's being silly, but still, it's worth asking whether life is something that arises commonly (and whether it arises commonly on the conditions present on early Earth) or whether we're a rare and (from our perspective) lucky accident, even if I don't suspect we'll be able to answer those questions in our lifetimes.

 

Edit: And after writing all that, I think I see what you mean. What are the odds of life evolving vs what are the odds of life evolving by chance aren't necessarily the same question. I flip a coin and it comes up heads. The odds of me getting heads were 50:50, the odds that me getting heads was based on chance alone are not 50:50, as that would mean there is a 50% chance that something manipulated the result (as, e.g., a two headed coin).

Edited November 11, 2013 by Delta1212

[StringJunky]

As for the OP, I think the question is loaded, it assumes something that is simply not true then asks for an answer based on that deception...

We know Alan's position and he's asking from that perspective so I don't think it's deception really. He's basically asking, or is implicit in his question, is: "What is the non-teleological alternative to what I believe?"