What are the Odds of Life evolving by chance alone?

[Moontanman]

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?"

 

 

I disagree, we do know Alan's position and it is not well hidden in an agenda of science denial in nearly everything he writes. The question is a common one among science deniers across every forum I've ever been a member of. He phrasing of the question is straight out of science denier web sites like "Answers in Genesis"...

[overtone]

 

 

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).

That falsely exhaustive pair of choices is exactly the framing being attempted by posters like Alan.

 

We are not faced with a choice between "chance alone" and "purposeful manipulation": freeing us from that choice was the breakthrough of Darwinian theory.

 

So when the question comes up, as it will until the Rapture frees us from such questioners, there is no need to overthink things: the odds of the life we know coming into being ("evolving" or any other term) by chance alone are effectively zero, and that is the answer. Just post "0 - So?" and move on.

[Moontanman]

That falsely exhaustive pair of choices is exactly the framing being attempted by posters like Alan.

 

We are not faced with a choice between "chance alone" and "purposeful manipulation": freeing us from that choice was the breakthrough of Darwinian theory.

 

So when the question comes up, as it will until the Rapture frees us from such questioners, there is no need to overthink things: the odds of the life we know coming into being ("evolving" or any other term) by chance alone are effectively zero, and that is the answer. Just post "0 - So?" and move on.

 

 

 

I have seen the rapture in my dreams... 99% of the population is not easy to look at nekked...

[Iggy]

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.

I suppose that you're probably right.

 

It's just so hard... to even begin to calculate probabilities we'd have to ignore things we know in order to calculate. The largest fact we have to ignore is that the chance life evolves is 100%. How many facts do we have to ignore in order to answer this question the way it was meant to be asked?

 

I don't know... but but I'd be disappointed to ignore them.

 

The chance that the past happens as it happened is, perhaps surprising to you, but nothing so fierce as certain.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Iggy

[Moontanman]

I suppose that you're probably right.

 

It's just so hard... to even begin to calculate probabilities we'd have to ignore things we know in order to calculate. The largest fact we have to ignore is that the chance life evolves is 100%. How many facts do we have to ignore in order to answer this question the way it was meant to be asked?

 

I don't know... but but I'd be disappointed to ignore them.

 

The chance that the past happens as it happened is, perhaps surprising to you, but nothing so fierce as certain.

 

 

The OP makes a priory assumption that is not true, it's like asking have you stopped beating your wife, it's a malformed question with a not so hidden agenda...

You might change it to what are the odds of life developing on any particular planet but as asked it is nothing but a dishonest attempt at pushing an agenda...

[beanieb]

Creation by evolution in theory, is a mathematical possibility.

But it does not explain how or why "lifeless" chemicals.. when in the right conditions, after becoming something randomly complex (yet still lifeless, like a protein structure), can become "alive".

Just consider a live cat vs a cat that just died. In terms of chemical makeup, they are identical, yet they are totally different too.

 

Then after having "life", it did not explain on what kind of external pressures can cause it to upgrade itself, to grow from a unicellular organism, to one that has multiple complex systems that operate as an entire being.

The modes of pressures available for Evolution theory are mainly by random mutation and natural selection.

By these 2 modes alone, if we were to believe it is sufficient, we would not be able to deny that we are also effectively saying "anything when left on its own, will eventually upgrade itself, and that, is the order of the natural world".

 

That thought begs deep questioning as we all know, things naturally decay, instead of becoming more complex in a meaningful way by itself.

[Moontanman]

Creation by evolution in theory, is a mathematical possibility.

But it does not explain how or why "lifeless" chemicals.. when in the right conditions, after becoming something randomly complex (yet still lifeless, like a protein structure), can become "alive".

Just consider a live cat vs a cat that just died. In terms of chemical makeup, they are identical, yet they are totally different too.

Again odds do not figure into it, only certain chemical reactions can occur, Helium is never going to react with oxygen but Carbon reacts with many things, it's no accident that life is composed of the most common molecules in the universe and they react in ways that are not governed by chance...

 

Then after having "life", it did not explain on what kind of external pressures can cause it to upgrade itself, to grow from a unicellular organism, to one that has multiple complex systems that operate as an entire being

The modes of pressures available for Evolution theory are mainly by random mutation and natural selection.

By these 2 modes alone, if we were to believe it is sufficient, we would not be able to deny that we are also effectively saying "anything when left on its own, will eventually upgrade itself, and that, is the order of the natural world".

Those are not the only "modes" do a little bit of research, http://www.talkorigins.org/ would be a good start.

 

That thought begs deep questioning as we all know, things naturally decay, instead of becoming more complex in a meaningful way by itself.

Again not true complexity can indeed arise spontaneously, google is your friend...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

[DevilSolution]

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

 

^ I'm not sure if its been posted before but that gives alot of information on the topic. The jury's still out on this one though.

 

From what i remember RNA would have been the first form of life to have been 'accidentally' created, given the right circumstances....

 

Life to me is as inevitable as the big crunch, its just a numbers game with infinite time.

Edited November 14, 2013 by DevilSolution

[overtone]

 

 

Just consider a live cat vs a cat that just died. In terms of chemical makeup, they are identical, yet they are totally different too.

They are not "identical" in terms of "chemical makeup": chemical makeup includes the organization of the atoms, small complexes of atoms, complex combinations of these smaller complexes of atoms, coordinations and organizations of these complex combinations of these smaller complexes of atoms, and so forth up (and down) the ladder.

 

A living cat is a different organization and coordination pattern than a dead one, and there are several physical and objective and measurable differences of "chemical makeup" in time and space between them, beginning the moment the unrecoverable disruption in the chemical makeup of the live cat occurs (with current technology you can't make a dead cat from scratch, you have to grow a live one first) and increasing over time up to and then past the defined "moment of death" whatever you may choose to fix as that.

[Ophiolite]

What about one that's not dead, but just catatonic?

[Delta1212]

What about one that is both alive and dead at the same time?

[beanieb]

They are not "identical" in terms of "chemical makeup": chemical makeup includes the organization of the atoms, small complexes of atoms, complex combinations of these smaller complexes of atoms, coordinations and organizations of these complex combinations of these smaller complexes of atoms, and so forth up (and down) the ladder.

 

A living cat is a different organization and coordination pattern than a dead one, and there are several physical and objective and measurable differences of "chemical makeup" in time and space between them, beginning the moment the unrecoverable disruption in the chemical makeup of the live cat occurs (with current technology you can't make a dead cat from scratch, you have to grow a live one first) and increasing over time up to and then past the defined "moment of death" whatever you may choose to fix as that.

 

Are we able to define n explain "life" properly and definitively already?

Do we realise up to now, at best we are all only good at trying to argue the odds of the biochemical occuring naturally?

 

We do need to realise from the very start, we have unknowingly pre-assumed any inorganic chemicals having the precise biochemical and physiological structure = life ya?

meaning to say like a computer, with all the circuit boards in place, the previously inorganic structure will now function like a organic one AUTOMATICALLY.

 

Does it really work like that?

sidenote: consider even the computer we know today doesn't run on hardware alone to perform complicated systems, but requires software, which is immaterial.

Thus for an inorganic substance, to distinguish it as life that it can operate on its own, replicate, is determining naturally occuring biochemical structures, a strong enough point to say it can cause life?

Edited November 17, 2013 by beanieb

[Moontanman]

Are we able to define n explain "life" properly and definitively already?

Do we realise up to now, at best we are all only good at trying to argue the odds of the biochemical occuring naturally?

 

We do need to realise from the very start, we have unknowingly pre-assumed any inorganic chemicals having the precise biochemical and physiological structure = life ya?

meaning to say like a computer, with all the circuit boards in place, the previously inorganic structure will now function like a organic one AUTOMATICALLY.

 

Does it really work like that?

sidenote: consider even the computer we know today doesn't run on hardware alone to perform complicated systems, but requires software, which is immaterial.

Thus for an inorganic substance, to distinguish it as life that it can operate on its own, replicate, is determining naturally occuring biochemical structures, a strong enough point to say it can cause life?

 

No beanieb it doesn't work like that and it has been explained why several times at least in this thread i am sure. We do not know what primitive life looked or how complex it had to be before we would call it life but there is no doubt that life has no "software or hardware" at it's most basic level it is chemistry, nothing more, the information fallacy is just that... a fallacy... and the idea that the first life was as complex as even a modern bacteria is also a fallacy as well...

[beanieb]

Moontanman,

May i ask in your personal opinion, how would u distinguish life from non-life??

[overtone]

 

 

We do need to realise from the very start, we have unknowingly pre-assumed any inorganic chemicals having the precise biochemical and physiological structure = life ya?

That is false, blatantly; completely and utterly without basis in reality - false in the "unknowingly", in the "presumed", in the "we", in the "inorganic", in the "chemicals", in the "precise", in the "biochemical", in the "physiological", in the "=", and in the "life".

 

Your basic problem is you don't know enough to recognize what the people working on this matter are thinking about, assuming, etc. You are unfamiliar with even the very basic stuff, such as Darwinian theory.

[Moontanman]

Moontanman,

May i ask in your personal opinion, how would u distinguish life from non-life??

 

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,

 

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

 

Scientific hypotheses about the origins of life can be divided into a number of categories. Many approaches investigate how self-replicating molecules or their components came into existence. On the assumption that life originated spontaneously on Earth, the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments demonstrated that most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can beracemically synthesized in conditions intended to be similar to those of the early Earth. Several mechanisms have been investigated, including lightning and radiation. Other approaches ("metabolism first" hypotheses) focus on understanding howcatalysis in chemical systems in the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.

 

[beanieb]

 

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,

So to paraphrase, we could say the premise to distinguish life from non-life are that these objects could "self decide" to perform processes which otherwise will follow those determined by the natural laws of physics and chemistry ya?

 

So for eg when we consider for the replication process, the cell could "self decide" which code from the DNA to copy (rather than to blindly obey the laws of chemistry, which is mainly by order of reactivity), we would say it does exhibit life too ya?

 

 

Thus if we consider this argument:

1) chemicals originally do not have "life" and always follows physical and chemical laws

2) cells exhibit "life" and can decide which process to perform, despite the physical and chemical laws

 

does evolution have the explanation of the mechanism how lifeless chemicals can eventually evolved to become by itself, "self-deciding"?

Abiogenesis did not explain that but explained about spontaneous replication or synthesis, which still point 1.

 

Thus unless we have the explanation for the mechanism, couldn't we say this argument is sound, and valid?

[Moontanman]

There is no decision making, where do you get that from?

[overtone]

 

 

So to paraphrase, we could say the premise to distinguish life from non-life are that these objects could "self decide" to perform processes which otherwise will follow those determined by the natural laws of physics and chemistry ya?

No. All processes follow the natural laws of physics and chemistry, by presumption, in anything you would paraphrase here. Nothing can decide not to follow the laws of physics or chemistry.

[beanieb]

By the saying things follow physics and chemistry laws, it could be put aptly that things naturally want to take the path of least resistance ya?

Or to choose the path that results in a more stable result with relation to it's environment..

 

When we consider a cell producing things it needs.. those processes are not the result of following the 2 laws..like in the specific aspect that this chemical inside it wants to bond with the other because it can achieve a more stable state..

It does it.. because (by some other unknown mechanism) it requires it..

So in some sense.. this exhibits some kind of "decision making" ability which is strictly not a product of the 2 laws ya?

 

Another point is.. remembering things tend to take the path of least resistance in nature..

Wouldn't it be more natural for the cell to choose death or decay.. as compared to wanting to preserve itself and developing strategies to continue itself?

How does lifeless structures acquire the desire to survive.. especially when it's an uphill challenge against nature...

Does evolutionist have the explanation for this particular area? (this is critical junction when lifeless can become life and so has to be addressed 1st before other things ya?)

 

Sidenote: I don't disagree with overtone that things still follow laws of physics..

Considering an object at rest, tends to stay at rest..unless it is act upon by an external force..

So for the lifeless chemical at rest to take the uphill task to counter nature to become life.. it would (by deduction) have received some external help...

Edited November 20, 2013 by beanieb

[overtone]

 

 

By the saying things follow physics and chemistry laws, it could be put aptly that things naturally want to take the path of least resistance ya?

That's misleading language, if you don't have the concepts clear. And you don't.

 

 

When we consider a cell producing things it needs.. those processes are not the result of following the 2 laws.

Yes, they are.

 

.like in the specific aspect that this chemical inside it wants to bond with the other because it can achieve a more stable state.

The use of that kind of language - what it "wants", "because" it can acheive a goal - has badly confused you. Try using only technically correct language for a while until your thinking has clarified.

 

 

Another point is.. remembering things tend to take the path of least resistance in nature..

Yes.

 

Wouldn't it be more natural for the cell to choose death or decay.. as compared to wanting to preserve itself and developing strategies to continue itself?

No.

 

How does lifeless structures acquire the desire to survive.. especially when it's an uphill challenge against nature...

The best candidate for a theory of abiogenesis so far is Darwinian evolution.

 

Does evolutionist have the explanation for this particular area?

They have a possible one, yes. In fact, they have the only explanation that seems to work, so far.

 

 

So for the lifeless chemical at rest to take the uphill task to counter nature to become life.. it would (by deduction) have received some external help..

No. That possibility does not fit the evidence we have.

[Bill Angel]

So as Yockey says we have to rule out both chance and Self organisation and just accept the origin of life as an axiom as it is unsolvable with in science.

Number of planets in our galaxy that could support life > 10^8 (galaxy contains 4 x 10^11 stars)

 

Number of galaxies in the universe > 5 x10^11

 

And as estimated by the Multiverse view in cosmology:

Number of universes > 10^350

 

I believe that these numbers are sufficiently large that the human mind's grasp of the possible and reproducible might not be up to the challenge of understanding how life originated at least ONCE

in the entire cosmos.

[beanieb]

Hi overtone..

Could you share the details from Darwin's theory of evolution that explained that answers how "lifeless" chemicals, eventually become "life"ones?

(or if there is some error in this question itself, how should it be phrased? And thus we can see or understand better the processl/theory?)

[StringJunky]

beanieb, on 21 Nov 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:beanieb, on 21 Nov 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

Hi overtone..

Could you share the details from Darwin's theory of evolution that explained that answers how "lifeless" chemicals, eventually become "life"ones?

(or if there is some error in this question itself, how should it be phrased? And thus we can see or understand better the processl/theory?)

Evolutionary theory says nothing about how life started, only how it developed over time once it got going. The subject of how life began is the domain of abiogenesis.

 

Scientists don't know know with a high level of confidence the mechanism for the initial stages of the formation from inert molecules to living systems. What we call "life" is a synergistic effect arising from the interactions between a large ensemble of molecules. The transition from 'lifeless' to 'living' is seamless and you can't say it starts at a specific level of inter- molecular complexity ...any demarcation can only be arbitrary. I think you are looking for a clear point of transition and it's not going to happen. It's like asking "when does a pond become a lake?". The boundary of transition is wide and fuzzy.

Edited November 21, 2013 by StringJunky

[overtone]

Hi overtone..

Could you share the details from Darwin's theory of evolution that explained that answers how "lifeless" chemicals, eventually become "life"ones?

Darwin's theory does not include, much less create, "details" - it is a theory, something that organizes details already discovered, and guides research into the unknown.

 

That it is capable of guiding research into abiogenesis, while providing the best organization we have at the moment for what we do know, makes it uniquely valuable in that arena.

 

If you want to know how "lifeless" chemicals become "life" chemicals, I would suggest beginning with the much more accessible examples that surround you now, rather than very compliex events billions of years in the past.

Edited November 21, 2013 by overtone