Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
what if

Abiogenesis.

Recommended Posts

The god of the gaps fallacy is something specific, in logical notation it isn't the conclusion that God done something, it's a specific fallacy which is committed when instead of knowledge someone infers a supernatural agent instead/in place, of an explanation.

 

With intelligent design, strictly speaking if we go with the bare-bones argument, it is only an argument that life is intelligently designed, therefore you could also argue the ID argument for your proposal. 

 

What I don't like is how it's falsely dichotomized as, "it's either science and naturalism we go with or a God of the gaps".

 

That just isn't the case, the features of intelligent design in organisms aren't absences of data, they are actual features of design so to argue life is designed by a designer isn't a God-of-the-gaps fallacy.

 

To actually commit the fallacy you must commit it, what you can't do is say that any argument or inference that contains, "God" is the god-of-the-gaps fallacy, because it isn't. 

 

Think about it this way - if logic is telling us that any conclusion about God is the god-of-the-gaps, then that would mean that NEUTRAL logical notation would be teaching us that no argument can ever contain "God" or the argument is flawed.

 

That is the absurd version of the atheists pseudo-fallacy, the actual GOTG fallacy, specifically means to argue this particular argument;

 

"I heard thunder and I saw the lightning, it was majestic, there is no explanation it can surely only mean that Thor exists."

 

THAT is the GOTG fallacy. 

 

 

 

 

What If: The fact that there are many things unavailable to human knowledge and reasoning, even in mathematics, does not mean that there must be an Intelligent Designer

 

That is correct but we as theists/creationists/IDists are not arguing that argument, we are not saying that because there are gaps in knowledge there must be an intelligent designer, we are saying that because the ID features in life are factual, it is unavoidable that life is designed. This person is committing a strawman if he is saying this is the only reason people argue ID.

 

Also, where knowledge is found, this doesn't replace a designer either. For example figuring out that a combustion engine runs without the need for the designer to ever be present in the system doesn't mean it isn't designed. In the same way finding out how gravity works might be perfectly congruent with design, especially if there is clear teleology that can be inferred. If anything it is a smart design to have us walk on a sphere, because we can never reach the edge. 

 

So finding out knowledge doesn't preclude a designer and often it actually evidences the precondition of intelligibility in the universe.

 

 

 

The fact that there are many things unavailable to human knowledge and reasoning, even in mathematics, does not mean that there must be an Intelligent Designer

 

Does this look like a gap in knowledge to you;

 

Contingency planning.

Specified Complexity.

Function. (if required)

Goals.

Viability.

Solutions to obscure problems innate to the design. (example; wheelspin in cars, is solved by the invention of a differential)

Correct materials.

Information

Information storage density

Directed energy (if energy is required)

Aesthetics and symmetry.

 

(these aren't guesses, they all exist in things all people agree are designed, and we find them all in life.)

 

Nice and convincing list..

 

You might have thrown in Irreducible Complexity and Symbiotic Relationships for good measure, But that might have been overkill..LOL

 

 

 

"Darwin's evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of scientific and social progress.....The secular myths of evolution have had a damaging effect on scientific research, leading to distortion, to needless controversy, and to gross misuse of science....I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling."

 

(Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Mike the Wiz. It is not a GOTG fallacy. Life requires specific complex information. Life exhibits elements of design. Information and Design both are known to have intelligent causation. It is "Inference to the Best Explanation."

 

Yes indeed..

 

Not to mention overcoming the problem of a few scientific LAWS thrown in for good measure..

 

(1) Biogenesis = Life CANNOT come from dead matter..

 

(2) Cause and Effect = UNIVERSAL Law of Causality

 

(3) SLOT / Entropy = Unstoppable slow heat death of the universe!

 

(4) FLOT / Conservation of Energy = NO FREE LUNCH!

 

Sender / Receiver REQUIREMENT for Instrumentality (Information Science)

 

It is indeed Science vs Religion.. But Creationists represent scientific knowledge while Accidentalists represent a religious paradigm that requires a massively huge amount of faith in order to believe.. Not to mention requiring Special Pleading of at least ONE mulligan to allow for the violation of Scientific LAWS!! (While they dishonestly assert that they represent "Science") This isnt Golf.LOL..

 

 

"Meanwhile, their [evolutionists] unproven theories will continue to be accepted by the learned and the illiterate alike as absolute truth, and will be defended with a frantic intolerance that has a parallel only in the bigotry of the darkest Middle Ages. If one does not accept evolution as an infallible dogma, implicitly and without question, one is regarded as an unenlightened ignoramus or is merely ignored as an obscurantist or a naive, uncritical fundamentalist."

 

(Dr. Alfred Rehwinkel)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(1) Biogenesis = Life CANNOT come from dead matter..

Not a real law.

 

(3) SLOT / Entropy = Unstoppable slow heat death of the universe!

 

(4) FLOT / Conservation of Energy = NO FREE LUNCH!

Where/how have any of the laws of thermodynamics been violated by life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes indeed..

 

Not to mention overcoming the problem of a few scientific LAWS thrown in for good measure..

 

(1) Biogenesis = Life CANNOT come from dead matter..

there is no scientific law anywhere that says life cannot come from nonlife.

 

the law of biogenesis says that life comes from life.

every observation science has made in regards to the above supports it (biogenesis).

science has not witnessed any event that says life comes from non life.

in this situation, biogenesis can indeed be considered a scientific law, but it DOES NOT say abiogenesis is impossible.

 

about information:

i'm quite sure that most scientists are well aware of this situation.

with that in mind, then why are they concerned with getting the right elements to come together?

getting the correct elements in the correct proportions will not answer the information question.

 

it certainly does appear as if SOMETHING was trying to get it right in regards to the earliest stages of life.

viruses with their RNA core, then prokaryotes with their HGT, then eukaryotyes with their "tagged" transposons.

epigenetics only serves to make this situation even more complex because it appears that it arrived at the same time as DNA based life and co-evolved with it.

this is probably where and why the information bit comes into play, because it takes information to determine which genes to activate and when.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just being dogmatic here, but the reason why "science" will never be able to discover the origin of life is because life did not originate via a "process of physics and chemistry." So, there is no there there for science to examine.

 

Like it or not, there is a spiritual component to the universe. Until scientists recognize and deal with that truth all they are doing is trying to do science with half their brains tied behind their backs. It's self-handicapping. What a waste of precious brain power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just being dogmatic here, but the reason why "science" will never be able to discover the origin of life is because life did not originate via a "process of physics and chemistry." So, there is no there there for science to examine.

 

Like it or not, there is a spiritual component to the universe. Until scientists recognize and deal with that truth all they are doing is trying to do science with half their brains tied behind their backs. It's self-handicapping. What a waste of precious brain power.

There are certainly limits to science.

 

Science is an outstanding source of proximate answers, but fails when it comes to ultimate solutions.  IMHO, it will never learn either the origin of the universe, nor of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Mike the Wiz. It is not a GOTG fallacy. Life requires specific complex information. Life exhibits elements of design. Information and Design both are known to have intelligent causation. It is "Inference to the Best Explanation." 

A few days ago, I ran across an article that the universe may be composed of neither mass nor energy, but information.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I agree with Mike the Wiz. It is not a GOTG fallacy. Life requires specific complex information. Life exhibits elements of design. Information and Design both are known to have intelligent causation. It is "Inference to the Best Explanation."

A few days ago, I ran across an article that the universe may be composed of neither mass nor energy, but information.

 

this is certainly a possibility for atoms.

these things only fit together in certain ways.

i can see how this fitting, or bonding, can be seen as "information" or language.

i offered this same conjecture about a month ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Life according to God and the Bible was not designed. Rather as abiogeneis states--life only comes from life! God says He is the life giver! I agree that biology was created but not life. The Bible infers that life is a non-physical (spirit).

Information does not exist without it's antecedant v=ause life. Intellligent life at that. Intelligent living beings create information. So information is caused by intelligence and can not exist outside of a mental state.

All code is made of matter which is often used to represent information in the physical realm. We associate information to code. In view of the fact there are more than 5000 languages code can evoke whatever information we wish to associate to it. Nevertheless information is the same in all intelligent beings.

 

 

Gneiss girl, on 27 Sept 2017 - 11:42 PM, said:

I agree with Mike the Wiz. It is not a GOTG fallacy. Life requires specific complex information. Life exhibits elements of design. Information and Design both are known to have intelligent causation. It is "Inference to the Best Explanation."
A few days ago, I ran across an article that the universe may be composed of neither mass nor energy, but information.

this is certainly a possibility for atoms.
these things only fit together in certain ways.
i can see how this fitting, or bonding, can be seen as "information" or language.
i offered this same conjecture about a month ago.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just being dogmatic here, but the reason why "science" will never be able to discover the origin of life is because life did not originate via a "process of physics and chemistry." So, there is no there there for science to examine.

 

Like it or not, there is a spiritual component to the universe. Until scientists recognize and deal with that truth all they are doing is trying to do science with half their brains tied behind their backs. It's self-handicapping. What a waste of precious brain power.

There are certainly limits to science.

 

Science is an outstanding source of proximate answers, but fails when it comes to ultimate solutions.  IMHO, it will never learn either the origin of the universe, nor of life.

 

 

They can come up with explanatory models. And academics try hard on that one. What we can see at the moment are that those models are quite flawed. They do highlight the problems with Materialist Origins as in big bang, abiogenesis and Darwinian Evolution. 

 

But even a workable model won't have certainty of being the real deal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can come up with explanatory models. And academics try hard on that one. What we can see at the moment are that those models are quite flawed. They do highlight the problems with Materialist Origins as in big bang, abiogenesis and Darwinian Evolution. 

 

But even a workable model won't have certainty of being the real deal.

sure they can.

like the many worlds in one scenario, where a coin toss is magically transformed from a 50/50 chance to a certainty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sure they can.

like the many worlds in one scenario, where a coin toss is magically transformed from a 50/50 chance to a certainty.

 

A single coin toss is never changed from 50/50. What you are referring to is the idea that given an infinite number of chances the probability of getting a heads (or tails) at least once in this infinite string of events becomes 1.

 

The basic idea is that if you toss a coin one time the probability of getting a heads is 50%. If you toss a coin two times the probability of getting heads at least once becomes 75% (HH, HT, TH, TT). Three tosses gives you 87.5%. The probability of getting at least one heads goes higher and higher the more you toss the coin.

 

You can actually represent this with a formula/function:   P(at least one heads in X tosses) = 1 - (0.5)x    

 

The higher X goes (number of tosses) the lower the 0.5 term goes, and the closer to 1 the probability becomes as you are subtracting a lower and lower number from one. For example 0.52 is 0.25  (1 - 0.25 = 0.75)  and  0.53 is 0.125  (1 - 0.125 = 0.875). When you take the limit of X at infinity (essentially make X infinity) the 0.5x term becomes zero, and thus the probability becomes exactly 100%.

 

I should note that infinity is not a number but a concept. So putting in any real number for X, no matter how high, will not get you to 100%.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A single coin toss is never changed from 50/50. What you are referring to is the idea that given an infinite number of chances the probability of getting a heads (or tails) at least once in this infinite string of events becomes 1.

there are a couple of problems though:

the most obvious of which is does it (MWO) actually apply to reality.

 

i'm almost positive abiogenesis has been "attempted" numerous times both by nature and science.

 

we also must face the very real posibility, that abiogenesis is impossible.

a restart scenario seems impossible in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A single coin toss is never changed from 50/50. What you are referring to is the idea that given an infinite number of chances the probability of getting a heads (or tails) at least once in this infinite string of events becomes 1.

there are a couple of problems though:

the most obvious of which is does it (MWO) actually apply to reality.

 

i'm almost positive abiogenesis has been "attempted" numerous times both by nature and science.

 

we also must face the very real posibility, that abiogenesis is impossible.

a restart scenario seems impossible in my opinion.

 

I assume MWO is referring to the multiverse idea? As I understand it the mathematics works, but there is no positive evidence for it either. There are many conceptions of the multiverse, and reality may be one of them, a combination of them, or none at all. One idea is that our universe was 'birthed' from another universe, and analogous to an umbilical chord you could find a signature of this 'birth' in the CMB (cosmic microwave background radiation). Scientists have looked but have not found anything resembling such.

 

Another idea is based off of 'if string theory is true' (notice the "if"), and involves a particle known as the graviton. The graviton would be responsible for the phenomena of gravity similar to how a photon is responsible for light. In string theory a graviton would be what is called a closed string and therefore able to escape the universe it is in and go to a different universe. Despite that most modern physicists believe that gravitons exist due to theories of particle physics (not string theory itself), not only have we not found gravitons from other universes (not sure how you would determine that), but we have not yet confirmed the existence of the graviton through direct observation.

 

One interesting thing about the probability of abiogenesis, well not exactly abiogenesis but related, is the Fermi paradox. In summary the galaxy is so old with so many stars/planets that could house life that we should expect the entire galaxy to be seeded with intelligent life, even if there was only one intelligent civilization that mastered interstellar travel to a level that we can reasonable conceive of based on our understanding of physics and engineering. However, we have no verifiable empirical evidence that aliens exist. People have proposed various solutions to the paradox ranging from the fact that we've only really been able to search in a small section of the galaxy to aliens have already visited Earth in the past or even now undetected. How it relates to abiogenesis is that one proposed solution is that despite all the potential planets out there, abiogenesis (or multi-cellular life, or intelligent life) is so high a barrier that it is essentially a fluke that any planet has life at all. Just thought you might find that interesting.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume MWO is referring to the multiverse idea?

yes.

As I understand it the mathematics works, but there is no positive evidence for it either.

the funny thing about math is, it works in theory.

we can prove mathematically that the projectile will always hit its target

we can prove mathematically that light and radio waves can make it from one end of the universe to the other.

and, with just a little slight of hand, we can prove over unity devices actually exist.

these are important points to remember.

"in theory" or "according to the math", doesn't have a one to one correlation to reality.

the mandelbrot set of fractals are another example.

we can solve its equations and plot points all day long, but a mandelbrot fractal can never exist in reality.

One idea is that our universe was 'birthed' from another universe, . . .

 

Another idea is based off of 'if string theory is true' (notice the "if"), . . .

here again. we start with pre existing conditions.

we must start with exactly nothing

One interesting thing about the probability of abiogenesis, well not exactly abiogenesis but related, is the Fermi paradox. In summary the galaxy is so old with so many stars/planets that could house life that we should expect the entire galaxy to be seeded with intelligent life, even if there was only one intelligent civilization that mastered interstellar travel to a level that we can reasonable conceive of based on our understanding of physics and engineering. However, we have no verifiable empirical evidence that aliens exist. People have proposed various solutions to the paradox ranging from the fact that we've only really been able to search in a small section of the galaxy to aliens have already visited Earth in the past or even now undetected. How it relates to abiogenesis is that one proposed solution is that despite all the potential planets out there, abiogenesis (or multi-cellular life, or intelligent life) is so high a barrier that it is essentially a fluke that any planet has life at all. Just thought you might find that interesting.

another problem is that all of our efforts to contact these beings will most likely fail, simply because of the vast amount of time it takes for signals to traverse the distance.

 

unless a civilization is very close, we have no hope of contacting them.

all of our efforts hasn't even left our own galaxy yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Goku:The higher X goes (number of tosses) the lower the 0.5 term goes, and the closer to 1 the probability becomes as you are subtracting a lower and lower number from one. For example 0.52 is 0.25  (1 - 0.25 = 0.75)  and  0.53 is 0.125  (1 - 0.125 = 0.875).

 

So would six attempts be 98.4%? But no matter how many you half it by as you explained, it will still be below 100%.

 

It seems to me, what I gather from your posts is that you are saying that an abiogenesis is unlikely. I may have misunderstood you, from my own position it seemed to me "What If" was suggesting massive numbers mean abiogenesis could have happened, because of the possible mathematical attempts, but then you were basically saying that a 1 in 1 would require infinite attempts. 

 

So what we're really saying though is, "to make getting one heads 1 in 1, you need to do it a helluvalot of times." But with abiogenesis, correct me if I am wrong but the problem to solve if it is possible, isn't making it 1 in 1 but in fact giving the number of attempts needed. So then if abiogenesis was possible but it's probability was 1 in 500, what we would actually need to see is 500 attempts for it to happen, on average.

 

See what I mean? So I think the coin-example is something else. With abiogenesis they calculate a number which basically means there isn't enough time and isn't enough planets for it to happen in the available time, when they use the protein as an example, just on it's own, I am rusty now but I think they just multiply the chance of each amino acid being homochiral, so 1 in 2 X 2100. (or some such thing)

 

I know you can sometimes play the advocate to an extent. Your belief is obviously an abiogenesis fluke perhaps only happened the once then? Or perhaps you personally believe it happened but are just not sure yourself how.

 

(There isn't any arguing in this post as you can see I am just asking out of interest.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I think I misunderstood that a bit, I guess a coin is a fair comparison in that you will always have the combination of, "TTTTT" no matter how many combinations. It seems to me no matter how many you add you can always say; "TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT" is one combination, even if the string is infinite, you would just have infinite "T"s wouldn't you? 

 

(I confess this isn't my area of study)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from my own position it seemed to me "What If" was suggesting massive numbers mean abiogenesis could have happened, because of the possible mathematical attempts, but then you were basically saying that a 1 in 1 would require infinite attempts.

i don't really look at the probabilities, because that isn't the problem.

the problem is the problem itself.

the failure of science to duplicate life isn't one of probabilities or massive numbers, but of the complexity of the problem.

this in itself pretty much shows that abiogenesis WASN'T some kind of simple accumulation.

it could very well be that we are asking the impossible.

science has no plausible scenario, they just don't know.

i could understand this if we didn't have a functioning specimen.

but we do, and it had to happen somehow.

 

 

So what we're really saying though is, "to make getting one heads 1 in 1, you need to do it a helluvalot of times." But with abiogenesis, correct me if I am wrong but the problem to solve if it is possible, isn't making it 1 in 1 but in fact giving the number of attempts needed. So then if abiogenesis was possible but it's probability was 1 in 500, what we would actually need to see is 500 attempts for it to happen, on average.

 

See what I mean? So I think the coin-example is something else. With abiogenesis they calculate a number which basically means there isn't enough time and isn't enough planets for it to happen in the available time, when they use the protein as an example, just on it's own, I am rusty now but I think they just multiply the chance of each amino acid being homochiral, so 1 in 2 X 2100. (or some such thing)

 

I know you can sometimes play the advocate to an extent. Your belief is obviously an abiogenesis fluke perhaps only happened the once then? Or perhaps you personally believe it happened but are just not sure yourself how.

 

(There isn't any arguing in this post as you can see I am just asking out of interest.)

i'm of the firm opinion probabilities are irrelevant in regards to evolution.

 

the MWO scenario gives false impressions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

what If: i don't really look at the probabilities, because that isn't the problem.

the problem is the problem itself.

the failure of science to duplicate life isn't one of probabilities or massive numbers, but of the complexity of the problem.

this in itself pretty much shows that abiogenesis WASN'T some kind of simple accumulation

 

Yes I agree that it wasn't a simple accumulation, (because it didn't happen, would be my answer), however in respect to Goku believing it did, I am just entertaining the notion on that level, I am not actually trying to ascertain whether it happened.

 

In the same way in the other thread Goku spotted something we Christians should have spotted. This doesn't mean that because he gave a Christian defence that he is a Christian, he was just playing advocate.

 

So I am only talking about this hypothetically, like this; "okay let us just say for argument's sake abiogenesis is a matter of probability, the assembling of a protein for example".

 

Sometimes we have to do that in order to discuss things. From Goku's perspective abiogenesis is true so I am just exploring that. I can be interested in what other people think and respect their efforts to put thought into what they believe without taking their position.

 

 

 

 

Captain Obvious: science has no plausible scenario, they just don't know.

i could understand this if we didn't have a functioning specimen.

but we do, and it had to happen somehow.

 

 

:P;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"in theory" or "according to the math", doesn't have a one to one correlation to reality.

 

I agree completely.

 

here again. we start with pre existing conditions.

we must start with exactly nothing

 

I was just looking at the empirical side of if a multiverse exists or not, which would relate to a possible infinity of worlds for which abiogenesis may be realized (depending on what type of multiverse exists). I was not trying to say that a multiverse would explain away the question of why there is something rather than nothing. To reiterate, there are several potential ways to empirically confirm a multiverse but none have succeeded yet.

 

another problem is that all of our efforts to contact these beings will most likely fail, simply because of the vast amount of time it takes for signals to traverse the distance.

 

unless a civilization is very close, we have no hope of contacting them.

all of our efforts hasn't even left our own galaxy yet.

 

Indeed. There are many proposed solutions to the Fermi paradox. Forget leaving the galaxy; we've only covered a small fraction of our own galaxy in any comprehensive search for aliens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So would six attempts be 98.4%? But no matter how many you half it by as you explained, it will still be below 100%.

 

Yes, that is correct.

 

It seems to me, what I gather from your posts is that you are saying that an abiogenesis is unlikely. I may have misunderstood you, from my own position it seemed to me "What If" was suggesting massive numbers mean abiogenesis could have happened, because of the possible mathematical attempts, but then you were basically saying that a 1 in 1 would require infinite attempts. 

 

So what we're really saying though is, "to make getting one heads 1 in 1, you need to do it a helluvalot of times." But with abiogenesis, correct me if I am wrong but the problem to solve if it is possible, isn't making it 1 in 1 but in fact giving the number of attempts needed. So then if abiogenesis was possible but it's probability was 1 in 500, what we would actually need to see is 500 attempts for it to happen, on average.

 

See what I mean? So I think the coin-example is something else. With abiogenesis they calculate a number which basically means there isn't enough time and isn't enough planets for it to happen in the available time, when they use the protein as an example, just on it's own, I am rusty now but I think they just multiply the chance of each amino acid being homochiral, so 1 in 2 X 2100. (or some such thing)

 

I know you can sometimes play the advocate to an extent. Your belief is obviously an abiogenesis fluke perhaps only happened the once then? Or perhaps you personally believe it happened but are just not sure yourself how.

 

(There isn't any arguing in this post as you can see I am just asking out of interest.)

"What If" was alluding to a biologist (forget his name) that looked at abiogenesis, and concluded that the probability is so low that it requires a drastic explanation. What this biologist proposed was that we may live in a multiverse with an infinite number of universes, and thus an infinite number of chances for abiogenesis to occur. With an infinite number of chances the probability of abiogenesis happening on at least one world would be inevitable, with Earth being one such location. Thus you can explain a natural origin for life on Earth even with extremely low probabilities of near zero with this idea. There seems to be confusion on how this works mathematically. I'm no math genius or anything, but I understand the basic concepts involved, so I gave a shot at explaining it.

 

I am not as pessimistic as this biologist; I think life is everywhere in the universe; it may be "rare" in a sense, but with so many stars/planets/galaxies even rare events can be numerous. As an illustration our galaxy is estimated to have 100 billion stars (this is the low-end estimate, and the real number is certainly higher, but certain places in the galaxy wouldn't be suitable for life anyway), and there is estimated to be 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. Even if we are only talking about a fraction of a percent of star systems with life, we'd still be looking at millions of planets/moons with life. I don't see abiogenesis as a fluke at all, but I can't rule out that it is a fluke either.

 

One thing that is so striking to me is how many exo-planets we've found and how many of them could be Earth-like (i.e. in the habitable zone around their star with a size and mass consistent with a terrestrial world), and how the basic building blocks of life from carbon chains to amino acids - and of course water, seem to be everywhere. I know you don't buy the main-stream time-scale of billions of years, but another striking thing for me is how quickly in geological time life formed on Earth once the Earth cooled from the formation process. If we assume the abiogenesis process on Earth was normal, rather than a fluke, it would suggest that on average any Earth-like world with a stable enough environment for a few hundred million years (a short time overall) would have microscopic life.

 

See what I mean? So I think the coin-example is something else. With abiogenesis they calculate a number which basically means there isn't enough time and isn't enough planets for it to happen in the available time, when they use the protein as an example, just on it's own, I am rusty now but I think they just multiply the chance of each amino acid being homochiral, so 1 in 2 X 2100. (or some such thing)

 

I know you can sometimes play the advocate to an extent. Your belief is obviously an abiogenesis fluke perhaps only happened the once then? Or perhaps you personally believe it happened but are just not sure yourself how.

 

(There isn't any arguing in this post as you can see I am just asking out of interest.)

 

 

I guess it depends on which protein, but as an example if you look at a protein that is 100 amino acids long, where each of the 20 amino acids has an equal chance of being picked up at any point, you are looking at a probability of 1 in 20100, which is more than the estimated number of atoms in the observable universe. And that was assuming all the amino acids were the same chirality in this chemical soup. In essence you can look at any protein or something and come up with a probability that would suggest it is all but impossible to form naturally.

 

I think these probabilities are misapplied. As has been discussed on the forum before, during the abiogenesis process there would have been selection going on. So while the initial sequences were in essence random, any 'interesting' sequence could have an increased propagation rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So would six attempts be 98.4%? But no matter how many you half it by as you explained, it will still be below 100%.

 

Yes, that is correct.

 

It seems to me, what I gather from your posts is that you are saying that an abiogenesis is unlikely. I may have misunderstood you, from my own position it seemed to me "What If" was suggesting massive numbers mean abiogenesis could have happened, because of the possible mathematical attempts, but then you were basically saying that a 1 in 1 would require infinite attempts.

 

So what we're really saying though is, "to make getting one heads 1 in 1, you need to do it a helluvalot of times." But with abiogenesis, correct me if I am wrong but the problem to solve if it is possible, isn't making it 1 in 1 but in fact giving the number of attempts needed. So then if abiogenesis was possible but it's probability was 1 in 500, what we would actually need to see is 500 attempts for it to happen, on average.

 

See what I mean? So I think the coin-example is something else. With abiogenesis they calculate a number which basically means there isn't enough time and isn't enough planets for it to happen in the available time, when they use the protein as an example, just on it's own, I am rusty now but I think they just multiply the chance of each amino acid being homochiral, so 1 in 2 X 2100. (or some such thing)

 

I know you can sometimes play the advocate to an extent. Your belief is obviously an abiogenesis fluke perhaps only happened the once then? Or perhaps you personally believe it happened but are just not sure yourself how.

 

(There isn't any arguing in this post as you can see I am just asking out of interest.)

 

"What If" was alluding to a biologist (forget his name) that looked at abiogenesis, and concluded that the probability is so low that it requires a drastic explanation. What this biologist proposed was that we may live in a multiverse with an infinite number of universes, and thus an infinite number of chances for abiogenesis to occur. With an infinite number of chances the probability of abiogenesis happening on at least one world would be inevitable, with Earth being one such location. Thus you can explain a natural origin for life on Earth even with extremely low probabilities of near zero with this idea. There seems to be confusion on how this works mathematically. I'm no math genius or anything, but I understand the basic concepts involved, so I gave a shot at explaining it.

 

I am not as pessimistic as this biologist; I think life is everywhere in the universe; it may be "rare" in a sense, but with so many stars/planets/galaxies even rare events can be numerous. As an illustration our galaxy is estimated to have 100 billion stars (this is the low-end estimate, and the real number is certainly higher, but certain places in the galaxy wouldn't be suitable for life anyway), and there is estimated to be 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. Even if we are only talking about a fraction of a percent of star systems with life, we'd still be looking at millions of planets/moons with life. I don't see abiogenesis as a fluke at all, but I can't rule out that it is a fluke either.

 

One thing that is so striking to me is how many exo-planets we've found and how many of them could be Earth-like (i.e. in the habitable zone around their star with a size and mass consistent with a terrestrial world), and how the basic building blocks of life from carbon chains to amino acids - and of course water, seem to be everywhere. I know you don't buy the main-stream time-scale of billions of years, but another striking thing for me is how quickly in geological time life formed on Earth once the Earth cooled from the formation process. If we assume the abiogenesis process on Earth was normal, rather than a fluke, it would suggest that on average any Earth-like world with a stable enough environment for a few hundred million years (a short time overall) would have microscopic life.

 

See what I mean? So I think the coin-example is something else. With abiogenesis they calculate a number which basically means there isn't enough time and isn't enough planets for it to happen in the available time, when they use the protein as an example, just on it's own, I am rusty now but I think they just multiply the chance of each amino acid being homochiral, so 1 in 2 X 2100. (or some such thing)

I know you can sometimes play the advocate to an extent. Your belief is obviously an abiogenesis fluke perhaps only happened the once then? Or perhaps you personally believe it happened but are just not sure yourself how.

 

(There isn't any arguing in this post as you can see I am just asking out of interest.)

 

I guess it depends on which protein, but as an example if you look at a protein that is 100 amino acids long, where each of the 20 amino acids has an equal chance of being picked up at any point, you are looking at a probability of 1 in 20100, which is more than the estimated number of atoms in the observable universe. And that was assuming all the amino acids were the same chirality in this chemical soup. In essence you can look at any protein or something and come up with a probability that would suggest it is all but impossible to form naturally.

 

I think these probabilities are misapplied. As has been discussed on the forum before, during the abiogenesis process there would have been selection going on. So while the initial sequences were in essence random, any 'interesting' sequence could have an increased propagation rate.

"I am not as pessimistic as this biologist"

 

Oh sir.. You understate your optimism by a factor of 10>50000th power..

 

You not only believe in Abiogenesis you ALSO believe in the MYO Microbes to Microbiologists Myth... AND for good measure, as if that weren't enough, we can throw in 100 MILLION Year Old TRex Red Blood Cells and Collagen to boot!!! A Trifecta from hell if there ever was one... Are you sure you dont want to consider changing teams and joining the right side of history? Or is your hatred if God so overpowering that it forces you to remain on the south side of the truth for eternity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

what If: i don't really look at the probabilities, because that isn't the problem.the problem is the problem itself.the failure of science to duplicate life isn't one of probabilities or massive numbers, but of the complexity of the problem.this in itself pretty much shows that abiogenesis WASN'T some kind of simple accumulation

 

Yes I agree that it wasn't a simple accumulation, (because it didn't happen, would be my answer), however in respect to Goku believing it did, I am just entertaining the notion on that level, I am not actually trying to ascertain whether it happened.

 

In the same way in the other thread Goku spotted something we Christians should have spotted. This doesn't mean that because he gave a Christian defence that he is a Christian, he was just playing advocate.

 

So I am only talking about this hypothetically, like this; "okay let us just say for argument's sake abiogenesis is a matter of probability, the assembling of a protein for example".

 

Sometimes we have to do that in order to discuss things. From Goku's perspective abiogenesis is true so I am just exploring that. I can be interested in what other people think and respect their efforts to put thought into what they believe without taking their position.

 

 

 

 

Captain Obvious: science has no plausible scenario, they just don't know.i could understand this if we didn't have a functioning specimen.but we do, and it had to happen somehow.

 

 

:P;)

 

"In the same way in the other thread Goku spotted something we Christians should have spotted"

 

Really? What was that? I must have missed it..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Goku: I think these probabilities are misapplied. As has been discussed on the forum before, during the abiogenesis process there would have been selection going on. So while the initial sequences were in essence random, any 'interesting' sequence could have an increased propagation rate.

 

I don't know, that's always struck me as putting the cart before the horse, with factual selection, in real lifeforms, we can measure and show that to be something real in that there is differential reproduction of alleles which we would agree is factual, but with abiogenesis I think you have to take it by faith that all of the factors involved were true. I don't see how there could be a natural selection of amino acids for example. In a situation where there is no replication yet, would would be the, "advantage" so to speak, to assembling a protein? All of the base parts of a cell, living before the cell came about, or in some simple primordial version, aren't living, replicating things.

 

I find it hard to take it seriously enough to even understand the explanation. Surely anyone can imaginatively create some condition whereby the favoured parts were selected, AFTER THE FACT, but for me that's force-fitting a piece from another jigsaw puzzle, into this other, particular puzzle.

 

Surely you admit it is conjectural, of 100%. There is no way to test such a scenario, since as you can see, there aren't any cells being created except by lifeforms. The primordial pre-cellular parts themselves are conjectured to have existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course technically it's possible if we eternally flip coins that one combination of flips will be forever, "TTTTTTTTTT". Physically there isn't any force preventing this, but note how little reason that gives us to believe it would happen?

 

It's inevitable that we would get a heads, but this shows a technical possibility. Of course in real life technically possible things are usually vacuous truths. It is meaningless that technically in an infinite system we could flip endlessly, and get a tails, because we know that in physical reality, the only reason you would get endless "T"s was if it was a rigged game, where there was tails on both sides of the coin.

 

This is why I myself would never believe in an abiogenesis because of numbers.

 

I also think there is a conflation of two separate things, which can be separated by acute logic. People tend to think that because it is physically, "possible" get a protein, or chemically possible for a synthase or kinesin motor to exist, that this means it is physically possible that they will arise naturally, because it is physically possible for them to be constructed physically.

 

To highlight my point, would we believe that because physically it is possible to construct a car from the parts that exist in nature, that therefore a car can somehow be naturally constructed?

 

Obviously evolutionists can't use the reproduction-excuse, if we are talking about abiogenesis, because at this stage there was no reproduction. (I am not accusing you of this Goku, I know you are not as dim witted as some of the evolutionists that would argue that reproduction is something which means we can't compare specified complexity with life's.)

 

So all I am saying is that because it is physically possible for a protein to exist, or DNA, I think people then jump to the conclusion that it is then possible to construct it naturally. The only way that will happen is if a chemist does it, and even those experts are limited in what they can achieve, even when they are putting these things together deliberately. How much less capable is the hand-of-chance? (A,B,C level logic, IOW).

 

Let's take something extremely simple, which is a standard male and female jst connector, for an application you have in your bag. In a billion years those connectors will never be randomly plugged in, even though it is possible for them to be plugged in. Even something that simple and basic, requires teleology. How much more so does something as meticulously constructed, as a cell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms