# Probability and life by Chance Alone

## Recommended Posts

Well, you need context for your odds. Are those odds saying that there is a [imath]\frac{1}{10^{41000}}[/imath] chance of life occurring ever, or do they refer to per planet, or per year, or per planet per year?

For example, suppose I calculated the odds per planet per year. The more planets there are, and the more years they exist for, the more likely it is that life will eventually arise.

So we have to examine just what our odds are saying.

Time is irrelevant, and so is space. Probabilities remain constant, so if there is a 1/10^41,000 chance on earth that would mean it would be a 1/10^41,000 chance anywhere in the universe.

Time means absolutely nothing. If you roll a six sided dice now and rolled the die for 1 million years non stop, the chance of you rolling any number will always be 1/6, if you walked to the ends of the universe and then rolled the die the chances of you rolling any number would still be 1/6.

You really misunderstanding probability here. I would suggest you take a look at this article it explains gives a good example to help you understand this. It also gives a good argument for why live would still be formed by chance.

Why is Talk Origins the go to site for you guys. I understand probabilities perfectly.

• Replies 163
• Created

#### Popular Days

Why is Talk Origins the go to site for you guys. I understand probabilities perfectly.

I used it since it gave a very nice explanation of the material being discussed, and gave a good explanation of the problem at hand.

No, you don't. The context of any statistic is INCREDIBLY important. In this context without knowing the time and location of that statistic it is impossible to decided how many trails would occur, and with out the number of trials it is impossible to calculate the expected value, which is what is important here. You can say an event has a very low probability of occurring, but if the number of trials is high enough the expected value will show this. That is why I feel in this case it is better to look at this statistic.

Edited by DJBruce
##### Share on other sites

Time is irrelevant, and so is space. Probabilities remain constant, so if there is a 1/10^41,000 chance on earth that would mean it would be a 1/10^41,000 chance anywhere in the universe.

Why? Situations on Earth are different from situations elsewhere.

Time means absolutely nothing. If you roll a six sided dice now and rolled the die for 1 million years non stop, the chance of you rolling any number will always be 1/6, if you walked to the ends of the universe and then rolled the die the chances of you rolling any number would still be 1/6.

Right. But if I want a 6, and I roll the die a million times, chances are I'll get 6 at least once.

My point is that saying something like "the chance is 1/100000000" is meaningless without clarification. Is that a chance that life will occur on one planet over billions of years, or that life will emerge in the universe at all? Or what?

##### Share on other sites

I would also like to add that the probability of $10^{-41000}$ is the probability that you will obtain all the 20000 enzymes in one trial. This is inconstant with the theory abiogenesis, which believes that the evolution of life occurred in steps not all at once. So in my opinion that number is somewhat of a flawed one.

##### Share on other sites

Right. But if I want a 6, and I roll the die a million times, chances are I'll get 6 at least once.

That's a chance of $1 - (\frac{5}{6})^{1,000,000} \approx 1 - 10^{-159}$, to be exact. It is the chance of not getting no 6's a million times in a row, and it is about 159 digits of 9's after the decimal.

I read it, and I understood the claims. A flat universe is theoretically eternal (not the same as infinite) into the future, but it is not infinite in the past and is not infinite with respect to mass. Only the models that provide for infinite mass at the time of the event we are considering can influence outcomes. Please reread my posts where I made both of those distinctions.

The shape of the universe has no effect on the time, nor was that what I was talking about for this model (infinite time into the future is kind of useless anyways due to entropy). No, I was talking about infinite space, like with the flat Euclidean space that you learned in school, endless in all directions. Which together with a constant matter density means infinite matter. Which means infinite chances to make life.

The ability to invent independent models alone does not improve probability of past events.

Why does that matter? The past events in question are unknown, and we simply estimate which we believe is the most likely scenario. The past events happened for sure, but what happened? Our estimates of the probability of various scenarios having happened does change with new knowledge or understanding. The more ways for something to have happened the likelier it is to have happened and so the likelier we think that it did happen.

This is why we consider evidence during a trial -- we're not trying to change the past but to determine what it was.

##### Share on other sites

Time is irrelevant, and so is space. Probabilities remain constant, so if there is a 1/10^41,000 chance on earth that would mean it would be a 1/10^41,000 chance anywhere in the universe.

Time means absolutely nothing. If you roll a six sided dice now and rolled the die for 1 million years non stop, the chance of you rolling any number will always be 1/6, if you walked to the ends of the universe and then rolled the die the chances of you rolling any number would still be 1/6.

Why is Talk Origins the go to site for you guys. I understand probabilities perfectly.

You are exactly correct Emilio, no matter how many times you roll the dice the odds are the same... The number of rolls do not matter nor does the time over which you roll the dice. However, your odds of 1/10^41,000 are a bit long, statistically the odds of life developing on the Earth are 1:1, 100% , we know of only one planet capable of supporting life and that one planet has life so the odds are 1:1. Statistically I don't see how you could come up with any other conclusion... So going by your own logic all Earth like planets will have life which is exactly what I would predict as well, great minds do indeed think alike

##### Share on other sites

As for order rising from chaos. It was show in the famous Urey-Miller experiment that the Earth's early atmosphere was suitable for chemical evolution to make complex amino acids. This represents a system going form a state of less order to more order.

Before you jump on the idea that The Urey-Miller experiment did not approriately repsent the conditions present in Earth's early atmosphere.

Press Release From the University of Waterloo

The new study indicates that up to 40 percent of the early atmosphere was hydrogen, implying a more favourable climate for the production of pre-biotic organic compounds like amino acids, and ultimately, life...

"I didn't expect this result when we began the study," said Tian, a doctoral student in CU-Boulder's Astrobiology Center at LASP and chief author of the paper. "If Earth's atmosphere was hydrogen-rich as we have shown, organic compounds could easily have been produced."

...

"I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again," Toon said. "In this new scenario, organics can be produced efficiently in the early atmosphere, leading us back to the organic-rich soup-in-the-ocean concept."

Here is their abstract "A Hydrogen-Rich Early Earth Atmosphere", I am trying to find a copy of their paper that doesn't require a subscription.

##### Share on other sites

As for order rising from chaos. It was show in the famous Urey-Miller experiment that the Earth's early atmosphere was suitable for chemical evolution to make complex amino acids. This represents a system going form a state of less order to more order.

Before you jump on the idea that The Urey-Miller experiment did not approriately repsent the conditions present in Earth's early atmosphere.

Press Release From the University of Waterloo

Here is their abstract "A Hydrogen-Rich Early Earth Atmosphere", I am trying to find a copy of their paper that doesn't require a subscription.

I've followed the waffling back and forth on the Early Earth's atmosphere since i was a kid, about 40 years now since i became interested, everything from ammonia, CO, oxides of nitrogen, methane to just plain nitrogen. I always thought the idea of an extensive hydrogen atmosphere made sense, (nothing like the gas giants of course) a few psi partial pressure would be significant. I've seen figures of a many millions years of methane and ammonia, hydrogen should last a couple million at least The earth has a fairly deep gravity well and hydrogen wouldn't just leap off the earth in a few hours like gas escaping from an airlock. I'd love to read that paper if you can find a free read....

##### Share on other sites

As for order rising from chaos. It was show in the famous Urey-Miller experiment that the Earth's early atmosphere was suitable for chemical evolution to make complex amino acids. This represents a system going form a state of less order to more order.

How does that translate to order from chaos though? What is more ordered, an atmosphere of methane, ammonia, etc., or one that contains all those simple molecules and then some other molecules as well? What I see there is complexity from simplicity. I think "order" and "chaos" are a poor choice of words because in this situation they can be ambiguous.

##### Share on other sites

Here Moon I found it: Here is their publication in its entirety.

"A Hydrogen-Rich Early Earth Atmosphere"

How does that translate to order from chaos though? What is more ordered, an atmosphere of methane, ammonia, etc., or one that contains all those simple molecules and then some other molecules as well? What I see there is complexity from simplicity. I think "order" and "chaos" are a poor choice of words because in this situation they can be ambiguous.

Very true, and in hindsight I would agree that my wording was not the best. However, I feel like that could be said for the use of "order" and "chaos" through out this thread. In my response I was simply keeping with the common use of those words. It would have been better though if I had said complexity from simplicity.

Edited by DJBruce
##### Share on other sites

Here Moon I found it: Here is their publication in its entirety.

"A Hydrogen-Rich Early Earth Atmosphere"

Very true, and in hindsight I would agree that my wording was not the best. However, I feel like that could be said for the use of "order" and "chaos" through out this thread. In my response I was simply keeping with the common use of those words. It would have been better though if I had said complexity from simplicity.

Great article Bruce, thanks for finding it, I am guilty of misusing chaos and order as well but i think my point of chemical evolution from simple to complex driven by available energy is valid. I have been working on the idea of a terrestrial planet with a hydrogen atmosphere, maybe twice the diameter of the Earth, there used to be a site called alien planet maker or something like that where you could plug in the parameters and it would tell you what the conditions on the planet would be like, gravity, how long the atmosphere would last, plate tectonics duration, maximum mountain height, and basic stuff like that. I can't find it anymore does any one know what happened to it or if there is another site similar to it?

##### Share on other sites

Thermal entropy indeed requires and outside source of thermal order (energy), molecular entropy requires an outside source of molecular order (coherent ordered systems), and information entropy requires an outside source of information. There is no indication that thermal energy is able to generate molecular or informational order.

So where is the information coming from when a complex crystal forms from a solution? Or, say, a snowflake?
##### Share on other sites

Why? Situations on Earth are different from situations elsewhere.

People seem to be forgetting that it is theorized that earth's early atmosphere was a harsh, and not suitable for life, that earths early environment was a reducing atmosphere. This is one of the reason for these astronomical odds, not to mention the occurrence of life from non life. Which according to physics as we know them is a supernatural feat in itself.

Right. But if I want a 6, and I roll the die a million times, chances are I'll get 6 at least once.

That s because those odds though low are, not improbable, these odds can be beaten. You have to remember that probabilities have no memory, so attempts do not "accumulate" after each attempt the odds of you making the next attempt always revert back to 1/x(Or in this case 1/10^41,000) Odds can become so great that you can make attempts at them for a trillion, trillion years and still not beat those odds, it is then that they are deemed impossible.

My point is that saying something like "the chance is 1/100000000" is meaningless without clarification. Is that a chance that life will occur on one planet over billions of years, or that life will emerge in the universe at all? Or what?

This would be the situation for all time and space.

You are exactly correct Emilio, no matter how many times you roll the dice the odds are the same... The number of rolls do not matter nor does the time over which you roll the dice. However, your odds of 1/10^41,000 are a bit long, statistically the odds of life developing on the Earth are 1:1, 100% , we know of only one planet capable of supporting life and that one planet has life so the odds are 1:1. Statistically I don't see how you could come up with any other conclusion... So going by your own logic all Earth like planets will have life which is exactly what I would predict as well, great minds do indeed think alike

You are forgetting of the reducing atmosphere of early earth, which was not suitable for life.

Edited by Emilio Primo
##### Share on other sites

People seem to be forgetting that it is theorized that earth's early atmosphere was a harsh, and not suitable for life, that earths early environment was a reducing atmosphere. This is one of the reason for these astronomical odds, not to mention the occurrence of life from non life. Which according to physics as we know them is a supernatural feat in itself.

oh contrare mon ami, the reducing atmosphere of the early Earth was perfectly suitable for life, maybe not for you but life is quite happy in a reducing atmosphere, evolution would change that atmosphere and allow complex life to evolve but a reducing atmosphere is no barrier to life in fact life could not come about in a oxidizing atmosphere ...

That s because those odds though low are, not improbable, these odds can be beaten. You have to remember that probabilities have no memory, so attempts do not "accumulate" after each attempt the odds of you making the next attempt always revert back to 1/x(Or in this case 1/10^41,000) Odds can become so great that you can make attempts at them for a trillion, trillion years and still not beat those odds, it is then that they are deemed impossible.

I agree, the odds do not improve with each roll of the dice but many rolls insure that all possibilities will occur, if you by a lottery ticket your chances of winning are no better than any other ticket but none the less some one is far more likely to win than any particular one, but since the real odds are 1:1 I see no reason to consider the odds as a problem.

This would be the situation for all time and space.

Again this is true, you do not seem to have a really good grasp of statistics...

You are forgetting of the reducing atmosphere of early earth, which was not suitable for life.

As I pointed out at the beginning of this post you do not seem to have a good grasp of the requirements for life either...

##### Share on other sites

In one article they talk about resources on the order of 10^40 to 10^50 to generate a protein by chance but they never tell you the protein's total ratio of workable to non-workable combinations is on the order of 1 in 10^168 and less so they are short resources by a factor of ~10^120. Likewise the other articles conceal the actual challenges behind attractive sounding speculations. They are designed to fool the uncritical thinker into believing that they have done a proper scientific and mathematical analysis when in reality it is nothing more that imagination. It is nearly meaningless that one can generate some amino acids since the acids cannot self assemble into functional components. If anybody here believes that the articles provide anything compelling and does think that life by chance alone is realistic, please bring the article again so we can take it point by point. Skeptic and Cap'n are at least on the right track to recognize that the real challenge for life by chance alone is to bring in resources to shore up the odds.

Those who think that order can come from disorder without a source of even higher order continue to ignore a fundamental reality of the physical laws of our universe. Deterministic processes provide efficient mechanisms to capture and conserve entropy (but not create new order) when a random process imports that preexisting order. This is how crystals are formed without decreasing net entropy. The water cycle on earth is a good example of a reversible cycle that never accumulates net molecular entropy. So far as I know crystals do not accumulate any information and thus do not reduce information entropy at all.

Those who attempt to eliminate the long odds of life by chance alone by noting that "life happened" therefore the overall probability had to be close to 1 are conflating all the ways life from non-life could have occurred, including chance alone, necessity alone, chance and necessity, and seeding/design. This post is about chance alone. Perhaps later we can discuss the more realistic possibilities in another thread.

With respect to the estimated odds of life from non-life at less than 1 in 10^41000, That number is the combinatorial probability of a minimal set of all the known precursor systems being generated and brought together in no particular sequence or time frame by random processes. The analysis did not include the odds that a biologically active system could then be assembled from these components so the odds are in reality much much lower than even this number. Cap'n points out that through repeated tries one can improve the odds so one must include the "tries" or probabilistic resources in the analysis. The observable universe contains about 10^81 protons and is bout 15 billion years old. From this we get fewer than 10^142 total macro events having ever occurred in the observable universe. The earth has far far fewer resources available than this and thus we are thousands of orders of magnitude short of the resources required.

Skeptic wishes to bring in more resources by hypothesizing an infinite universe with infinite mass. Trouble is that most infinite universe scenarios are contradicted by observation, the ones that are not contradicted are pure speculation since they enjoy no evidence for the part of the speculation that allows for an infinite past universe. An equally significant issue is that these additional resources, if they do exist, cannot influence the probability of life from non-life on earth. This is the point Emilio Primo properly makes. It is significant because entropy laws preclude extraordinarily low probability events from occurring that exceed the availability of the resources to allow them to occur. To counter Emilio's argument one would have to show that the law of entropy is false.

##### Share on other sites

People seem to be forgetting that it is theorized that earth's early atmosphere was a harsh, and not suitable for life, that earths early environment was a reducing atmosphere. This is one of the reason for these astronomical odds, not to mention the occurrence of life from non life. Which according to physics as we know them is a supernatural feat in itself.

This is completely and utterly false! Did you read my previous post? I am assuming not because if you had you would know that this statement is completely wrong. So go scroll up the page read the peer-reviewed published article I posted, and then show me how your statement makes any sense what so ever.

BTW, what does physics have anything to do with abiogenesis? As far as I know there is no physic's theorem that says life from non life is impossible.

That s because those odds though low are, not improbable, these odds can be beaten. You have to remember that probabilities have no memory, so attempts do not "accumulate" after each attempt the odds of you making the next attempt always revert back to 1/x(Or in this case 1/10^41,000) Odds can become so great that you can make attempts at them for a trillion, trillion years and still not beat those odds, it is then that they are deemed impossible.

You realize that yet again your statistic means absloutely nothing without any context. Also although the odds you give are low they are not impossible. In fact its is possible that it could occur on the first, or the second, or the third trial. It is good to know that just because something has a low probability of occurring does not mean that it cannot occur early in the trials.

You are forgetting of the reducing atmosphere of early earth, which was not suitable for life.

Again you are completely off base here. See my earlier response.

##### Share on other sites

This is completely and utterly false! Did you read my previous post? I am assuming not because if you had you would know that this statement is completely wrong. So go scroll up the page read the peer-reviewed published article I posted, and then show me how your statement makes any sense what so ever.

A couple of peer reviewed articles does not change the argument much. There is evidence suggesting a range of early atmospheres and nothing definitive. But even if we stipulate that all required amino acids were plentiful the primary issues have nothing to do with availability of amino acids so it changes nothing.

BTW, what does physics have anything to do with abiogenesis? As far as I know there is no physic's theorem that says life from non life is impossible.

I would hope not. At one time life did not exist and now it does. The question is how? Physics does help us with this question though by eliminating explanations that lack causal adequacy. Life by chance alone is eliminated by the physical constraints of probability and entropy.

You realize that yet again your statistic means absloutely nothing without any context. Also although the odds you give are low they are not impossible. In fact its is possible that it could occur on the first, or the second, or the third trial. It is good to know that just because something has a low probability of occurring does not mean that it cannot occur early in the trials.

Your statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the laws of entropy and what it means to have improbable events occur that generate low entropy systems from higher entropy systems. It may be true that improbable events that are entropy neutral occur (though I am skeptical even of this) however improbable events that generate low entropy without an external source would overturn the physical law. Are you suggesting that these laws are incorrect?

##### Share on other sites

In one article they talk about resources on the order of 10^40 to 10^50 to generate a protein by chance but they never tell you the protein's total ratio of workable to non-workable combinations is on the order of 1 in 10^168 and less so they are short resources by a factor of ~10^120. Likewise the other articles conceal the actual challenges behind attractive sounding speculations. They are designed to fool the uncritical thinker into believing that they have done a proper scientific and mathematical analysis when in reality it is nothing more that imagination. It is nearly meaningless that one can generate some amino acids since the acids cannot self assemble into functional components. If anybody here believes that the articles provide anything compelling and does think that life by chance alone is realistic, please bring the article again so we can take it point by point. Skeptic and Cap'n are at least on the right track to recognize that the real challenge for life by chance alone is to bring in resources to shore up the odds.

Those who think that order can come from disorder without a source of even higher order continue to ignore a fundamental reality of the physical laws of our universe. Deterministic processes provide efficient mechanisms to capture and conserve entropy (but not create new order) when a random process imports that preexisting order. This is how crystals are formed without decreasing net entropy. The water cycle on earth is a good example of a reversible cycle that never accumulates net molecular entropy. So far as I know crystals do not accumulate any information and thus do not reduce information entropy at all.

Those who attempt to eliminate the long odds of life by chance alone by noting that "life happened" therefore the overall probability had to be close to 1 are conflating all the ways life from non-life could have occurred, including chance alone, necessity alone, chance and necessity, and seeding/design. This post is about chance alone. Perhaps later we can discuss the more realistic possibilities in another thread.

With respect to the estimated odds of life from non-life at less than 1 in 10^41000, That number is the combinatorial probability of a minimal set of all the known precursor systems being generated and brought together in no particular sequence or time frame by random processes. The analysis did not include the odds that a biologically active system could then be assembled from these components so the odds are in reality much much lower than even this number. Cap'n points out that through repeated tries one can improve the odds so one must include the "tries" or probabilistic resources in the analysis. The observable universe contains about 10^81 protons and is bout 15 billion years old. From this we get fewer than 10^142 total macro events having ever occurred in the observable universe. The earth has far far fewer resources available than this and thus we are thousands of orders of magnitude short of the resources required.

Skeptic wishes to bring in more resources by hypothesizing an infinite universe with infinite mass. Trouble is that most infinite universe scenarios are contradicted by observation, the ones that are not contradicted are pure speculation since they enjoy no evidence for the part of the speculation that allows for an infinite past universe. An equally significant issue is that these additional resources, if they do exist, cannot influence the probability of life from non-life on earth. This is the point Emilio Primo properly makes. It is significant because entropy laws preclude extraordinarily low probability events from occurring that exceed the availability of the resources to allow them to occur. To counter Emilio's argument one would have to show that the law of entropy is false.

So cypress even though you told me you didn't want to discuss reality and that I should start my own thread if i wanted to discuss how things really work all you really wanted to do was assert your own off base version of reality, not discuss the probabilities out of context as you tried to claim. As i said earlier your contention of the odds is totally bogus. read the following closely, its how statistics and odds really work, not the bogus assertions you are trying to back because they support your world view of creationism.

If you buy a lottery ticket, in a lottery where the odds are 1,000,000 to 1 and 1,000,000 tickets are sold your odds of winning is 1,000,000 to 1 but the odds that some one will will is 1 to 1, even on one planet your odds, if they were real which they are not, would not be some outrageous number because it is totally disingenuous to say that each variable is only tried once, the truth is that over the course of millions of years the number of tries out weighs the long odds, just like millions of lottery tickets being sold on the early Earth millions if not billions of "tickets' were being sold every second for millions of years so even very long odds events will take place many times.

the absolute truth is that your assertion that the odds are long to begin with is simply not true, a source of energy does drive the simple toward the complex with no outside creator influence, now don't bullshit me and say a creator "God" is not what you are asserting because we all know that is exactly what you are asserting and the assertion has been shown to be unnecessary so many times it begins to look just like the bogus odds of 1/10^41,000,000, 000 or what ever it was.... You contention needs to be backed up, you made it now back it up don't try to make us follow some bullshit special conditions that only occur in your own personal universe, show the evidence from this reality....

Your statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the laws of entropy and what it means to have improbable events occur that generate low entropy systems from higher entropy systems. It may be true that improbable events that are entropy neutral occur (though I am skeptical even of this) however improbable events that generate low entropy without an external source would overturn the physical law. Are you suggesting that these laws are incorrect?

You are the one displaying a fundamental lack understanding cypress, your failure to see that doesn't make you correct, as I said earlier you made the claims now give us some evidence or stop making the assertion!

##### Share on other sites

You are exactly correct Emilio, no matter how many times you roll the dice the odds are the same... The number of rolls do not matter nor does the time over which you roll the dice. However, your odds of 1/10^41,000 are a bit long, statistically the odds of life developing on the Earth are 1:1, 100% , we know of only one planet capable of supporting life and that one planet has life so the odds are 1:1. Statistically I don't see how you could come up with any other conclusion... So going by your own logic all Earth like planets will have life which is exactly what I would predict as well, great minds do indeed think alike

No, he's not correct. We are interested in outcomes, which means that the number of trials matters. More volume in which to have more trials, and more time over which to have more trials both increase the expected number of outcomes. It is the reason why one roll of a six-sided die gives an expected result of 1/6, but with a billion rolls you will expect to get 166,666,667 sixes coming up. Emilio is making the argument that the number is still 1/6.

As to the long odds, you are correct. The calculations here are the equivalent of saying that the odds of rolling a six are one in a million, because you roll numbers and one million is a number. It is flawed because it is counting results that are not physically possible — the outcomes of chemistry are not random. If you combine a bunch of oxygen and hydrogen and add a spark, you will not get equal amounts of all possible combinations of oxygen and hydrogen — you will get a bunch of water, and perhaps a few other molecules. Similarly, any calculation of all possible combinations of atoms to get a protein or an amino acid is flawed, since certain combinations are not energetically favored and will, for that or some other reason, never happen. They cannot be included in the calculation.

##### Share on other sites

oh contrare mon ami, the reducing atmosphere of the early Earth was perfectly suitable for life, maybe not for you but life is quite happy in a reducing atmosphere, evolution would change that atmosphere and allow complex life to evolve but a reducing atmosphere is no barrier to life in fact life could not come about in a oxidizing atmosphere ...

Exactly...

In order to produce AND sustain life the early earth's environment had to go from a "reducing atmosphere" to a "oxidizing" one rather abruptly. Biological chemicals(amino acids, ect) could only form in a "reducing atmosphere" but then when these chemicals are formed the atmosphere would then have to shift to an "oxidizing" atmosphere instantaneously or the new life forms would die from lack of oxygen.

This is so because amino acids cannot form in an "oxidizing atmosphere" the oxygen would destroy them before they had a chance to develop. But then once life DID form oxygen was needed immediately. DO you see the dilemma?

I agree, the odds do not improve with each roll of the dice but many rolls insure that all possibilities will occur, if you by a lottery ticket your chances of winning are no better than any other ticket but none the less some one is far more likely to win than any particular one, but since the real odds are 1:1 I see no reason to consider the odds as a problem.

These are not the true odds. You are speculating that life coming about by chance had favorable odds, but this is incorrect.

Again this is true, you do not seem to have a really good grasp of statistics...

I understand statistics, I am just trying to get the point across that nothing can change probabilities. Oh wait there is something that can, a miracle.

Edited by Emilio Primo
##### Share on other sites

So cypress even though you told me you didn't want to discuss reality and that I should start my own thread if i wanted to discuss how things really work all you really wanted to do was assert your own off base version of reality, not discuss the probabilities out of context as you tried to claim. As i said earlier your contention of the odds is totally bogus. read the following closely, its how statistics and odds really work, not the bogus assertions you are trying to back because they support your world view of creationism.

I have a worldview that is open minded about how life arose from non-life. I do note that at this time the evidence points more strongly to intervention from a mind but I would like to think there is a natural explanation that is consistent with the evidence and has a causally adequate explanation.

Now let's see if I am off base about probability.

If you buy a lottery ticket, in a lottery where the odds are 1,000,000 to 1 and 1,000,000 tickets are sold your odds of winning is 1,000,000 to 1 but the odds that some one will will is 1 to 1,

Only if the physics of the lottery game were set up to guarantee a winner (a net sum game) would this be true. Life by chance alone is not a net sum game. One error on your part, false analogy. One indication that it is you who is off base.

even on one planet your odds, if they were real which they are not, would not be some outrageous number because it is totally disingenuous to say that each variable is only tried once, the truth is that over the course of millions of years the number of tries out weighs the long odds, just like millions of lottery tickets being sold on the early Earth millions if not billions of "tickets' were being sold every second for millions of years so even very long odds events will take place many times.

I agree with your statement that each variable can be tried repeatedly. This is why I talked about probabilistic resources. These resources among other things, include the number of opportunities to achieve intermediate and final outcomes. I included this factor and discussed it thoroughly. Now two indications that you are off base, you are not doing well with your argument.

the absolute truth is that your assertion that the odds are long to begin with is simply not true, a source of energy does drive the simple toward the complex with no outside creator influence,

Were this correct and the "absolute truth" you claim it is then you would be able to offer a real observed example of these truths. First off, the long odds. Please offer a more realistic scenario in contrast to my "false" (which I take to mean unrealistic, since I agree that life did not happen by chance alone) scenario involving generation of the minimal set of functional components of life followed by random assembly of these components that does not involve deterministic assembly since this is a chance only discussion. Second provide a real example where energy without any source of molecular order does drive simple molecular order to more complex (lower entropy) molecular order. Please keep in mind that deterministic processes are generally isentropic. I predict you will fail on both counts.

now don't bullshit me and say a creator "God" is not what you are asserting because we all know that is exactly what you are asserting

I addressed this above where I note that the current evidence indicates an intelligent agent (a mind) was involved. I do note however that the evidence does not allow us to determine the character of this agent so describing it as some "God" seems unwarranted.

and the assertion has been shown to be unnecessary so many times it begins to look just like the bogus odds of 1/10^41,000,000, 000 or what ever it was....

It is quite impossible to show that a particular contributing cause for the universe is unnecessary when one cannot show how it actually or even could have formed without this cause. Please start a new thread on this if you disagree and I will be happy to show you your error there too.

You contention needs to be backed up, you made it now back it up don't try to make us follow some bullshit special conditions that only occur in your own personal universe, show the evidence from this reality....

My contention is that life from non-life by chance alone is not a reasonable position. I have backed it up by refuting the areas you and others claim I have made errors. In your case especially, the errors are on you. I do however appreciate the challenges and the discussion.

The evidence from this reality is that events do not violate the laws of entropy. Our observations and uniform experience confirms this. In addition, observation and uniform experience confirms that probabilistic resources that do not act on an event cannot influence the outcome. I am standing on firm ground here. Those who dispute these offer speculations as opposed to observation and experience.

Finally, Hoyle's analysis provides the best case hypothetical scenario for life from non-life by chance alone. Nobody has offered a better one with improved odds.

You are the one displaying a fundamental lack understanding cypress, your failure to see that doesn't make you correct, as I said earlier you made the claims now give us some evidence or stop making the assertion!

The evidence for my claim that life from non-life by chance alone is not a reasonable position is before us. Please don't change my claim into something it is not. I have no intention here of making the claim that some "God" had to have created life.

##### Share on other sites

A couple of peer reviewed articles does not change the argument much. There is evidence suggesting a range of early atmospheres and nothing definitive. But even if we stipulate that all required amino acids were plentiful the primary issues have nothing to do with availability of amino acids so it changes nothing.

Why's that?

As swansont has explained, if I start with the necessary precursors to what I want, I have significantly improved odds of creating what I want, compared with starting with completely random molecules.

Your statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the laws of entropy and what it means to have improbable events occur that generate low entropy systems from higher entropy systems. It may be true that improbable events that are entropy neutral occur (though I am skeptical even of this) however improbable events that generate low entropy without an external source would overturn the physical law. Are you suggesting that these laws are incorrect?

Ahem.

Entropy increases in a closed system. Earth, or even any lifeform, is not a closed system. Many interactions occur between objects on Earth's surface, and between Earth and other astronomical bodies. (Like sunlight.)

Entropy is allowed to increase in a test-tube in my lab if I'm allowed to interfere with the test-tube as much as I want. But the global entropy of the entire system will increase, yes.

Exactly...

In order to produce AND sustain life the early earth's environment had to go from a "reducing atmosphere" to a "oxidizing" one rather abruptly. Biological chemicals(amino acids, ect) could only form in a "reducing atmosphere" but then when these chemicals are formed the atmosphere would then have to shift to an "oxidizing" atmosphere instantaneously or the new life forms would die from lack of oxygen.

This is so because amino acids cannot form in an "oxidizing atmosphere" the oxygen would destroy them before they had a chance to develop. But then once life DID form oxygen was needed immediately. DO you see the dilemma?

Interestingly, many models of abiogenesis focus on undersea vents rich in organic compounds. No atmosphere required.

And who says the first life forms were dependent on oxygen? Quite a few modern life forms aren't.

I understand statistics, I am just trying to get the point across that nothing can change probabilities. Oh wait there is something that can, a miracle.

Or a change in the conditions of the experiment.

##### Share on other sites

No, he's not correct. We are interested in outcomes, which means that the number of trials matters. More volume in which to have more trials, and more time over which to have more trials both increase the expected number of outcomes. It is the reason why one roll of a six-sided die gives an expected result of 1/6, but with a billion rolls you will expect to get 166,666,667 sixes coming up. Emilio is making the argument that the number is still 1/6.

Wrong.

My argument is that regardless of how many people you have rolling the die 1/6 is the probable outcome for EACH INDIVIDUAL. Which is a fact.

##### Share on other sites

Wrong.

My argument is that regardless of how many people you have rolling the die 1/6 is the probable outcome for EACH INDIVIDUAL. Which is a fact.

It is. But your argument is completely irrelevant to the question at hand. We are interested in outcomes, which means that the number of trials matters.

##### Share on other sites

Exactly...

In order to produce AND sustain life the early earth's environment had to go from a "reducing atmosphere" to a "oxidizing" one rather abruptly. Biological chemicals(amino acids, ect) could only form in a "reducing atmosphere" but then when these chemicals are formed the atmosphere would then have to shift to an "oxidizing" atmosphere instantaneously or the new life forms would die from lack of oxygen.

Again you display an amazing lack of understanding the true details of what life and evolution is and how it works, there was no abrupt change to oxygen, it took many millions of years and complex life did not evolve until there was oxygen, not the other way around. Read this closely, write it down, this is an important point, life did not and does not require oxygen...

This is so because amino acids cannot form in an "oxidizing atmosphere" the oxygen would destroy them before they had a chance to develop. But then once life DID form oxygen was needed immediately. DO you see the dilemma?

This is totally not true, life did and does quite well with out oxygen, the first life forms, in fact most life forms do not use oxygen, it took literally billions of years before life evolved that needed oxygen.

These are not the true odds. You are speculating that life coming about by chance had favorable odds, but this is incorrect.

No you are incorrect and making the claims here, you need to show this is true and you cannot. You need to show life did not have favorable odds, so far all you have shown is a profound misunderstanding of life, evolution, physics, statistics, and reality.

I understand statistics, I am just trying to get the point across that nothing can change probabilities. Oh wait there is something that can, a miracle.

You are simply deep in a large river in Egypt , if you want to believe in miracles feel free to do so but do not try to prove their existence with no evidence but that belief.

## Create an account

Register a new account