himoura Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 (edited) Theory of Variance and the Existence of Life on Earth By Shawn Michael Ahearn Copyright 08/18/2011 The idea that life on Earth exists as a result of chance is absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable. I will use a few analogies to further explain this statement. Take the game of Poker for example. Every good Poker player knows that you can't win every game. Good Poker players are those who can minimize their losses in periods of downswing and maximize profit in periods of upswing. By downswing and upswing I mean periods in which a player can experience great losing or winning streaks. A good Poker player is defined as one who can average more wins than losses, thus creating a net gain. A card game like Poker is very chaotic and unpredictable. Some of the best players in the world will tell you that they have gone on losing streaks that can last a month or longer. Imagine that for a moment if you will. Imagine your one of the greatest Poker players in the world and you go on a losing streak that lasts for over a month. No matter how good the player may be scenarios keep falling on the table that simply make it impossible to win. In the poker world we call this "variance", and the unwinnable hands "bad beats". As painful as this sounds it happens a lot more than one would think. Now let's relate the plight of our planet to a game of poker. Let us say that the Earth's ability to support life is tantamount to winning in Poker. So basically the Earth has been on a winning streak for almost 4.5 billion years. In other words our Earth has never suffered a "bad beat". That is absolutely ridiculous. If life is the result of chance then losing is inevitable. The odds do not support such a massive winning streak. Chance will always lean towards chaos and not towards order. I have heard a theory that basically states that the odds of life coming into existence by accident are not that unreasonable if you stretch the time line out far enough. It basically states that given a long enough time line it will eventually happen. This is wrong for three very specific reasons. § The aftermath of an explosion has never produced order, only chaos. § We have no knowledge of what transpired before the big bang. What we do know is that explosions do not occur randomly for no reason; something has to set them off. § The idea that the Earth can somehow maintain the conditions necessary to support life for 4.5 billion years as a result of "good luck" is completely unacceptable. We know the full time line of our universe is around 13 billion years because of Hubble's red shift measurements. This means the time line can only be stretched so far, it is finite. Let's just say for arguments sake that life did come into existence by chance (although cosmologically speaking this is impossible). We now have life on planet Earth and a time line of around 4.5 billion years. I would postulate that a time line of 4.5 billion years is more than adequate to support the odds of something happening that would ruin the Earths ability to support life permanently. The odds of any number of scenarios that would make life on Earth permanently unsustainable are great; far greater than life not only existing as a result of chance, but perpetuating itself completely unassisted. So far this has never happened. This Earth has never experienced a catastrophe so great that its ability to support life has been completely compromised. Even in the greatest cataclysms of our past some small vestiges of life survive. To say that our planets ability to continue to support life as a consequence of good luck just seems outlandish. The odds do not support such a notion. The time line is 4.5 billion years. Take the Time Line Theory and apply it in the inverse and you will see that the odds are much more likely that an event will transpire that will make life on planet Earth permanently unsustainable. Why has this not happened yet? Below I have listed a few guidelines that I feel help support this idea. § Our Universe is chaotic by nature and not orderly § Chance will always favor chaos over order § Order can only be created and exists as a result of its circumstances § When compared, the odds of any number of scenarios that could permanently destroy our planets ability to support life far exceed the odds of nothing happening If you look at the other systems in our universe what do you find? Complete chaos. You have entire galaxies that are spinning inevitably into super massive black holes or into each other. You will find planets whose elliptical orbits are so exaggerated they are literally scorched by their sun every time they pass. The set of conditions that must be met in order for a planet to support life are truly staggering. A planet must be a certain distance from its sun. It has to have water. It must have a moon type satellite to pull the tides. It has to be a certain size. It has to have the right atmosphere. The list goes on and on and on. But yet science would have us believe that we just got really lucky and that luck continues to provide us with the perfect conditions to support life to this very day. This explanation does not make sense when looked at through the lens of the very simple poker analogy I mentioned earlier. Nothing in our vast universe is that lucky. It just doesn't work that way. Eventually something will happen to make conditions on Earth completely unsustainable. We still cannot even explain the existence of the moon. Without our moon life could not exist on earth. What are the odds a chunk of rock exactly the right size would come to orbit our Earth in just such an ideal way? The odds are solidly against it. Now compound that along with all of the other, "million to one" type situations that had to take place in order for our ecosystem to exist as it has for 4.5 billion years. You will see that the idea of life existing on Earth as a result of chance just doesn't hold water at all. If you have any further doubts a few rounds of poker will satisfy them very quickly. When I was in high school biology class we had a project where we were instructed to build an ecosystem with a variety of different species and plants. It was a pretty difficult project. We cut the glass ourselves and caulked the pieces together with silicone. We had running water and soil for the plants. We also had a light and would periodically feed the life inside the system. One thing we all realized very quickly is that if we did not maintain this system ourselves it would quickly fall apart. Has anyone ever built a completely self-sustaining ecosystem devoid of any maintenance? If they have then think about what an accomplishment that would be. Yet we are expected to believe that our perfect ecosystem, our perfect earth, has been providing us with an environment ideal for supporting life for at least 4.5 billion years as a result of a "cosmic roll of the dice"? This notion is simply preposterous and unacceptable. The planet has of course experienced events that make life difficult to be sure, but it always seems to bounce back. No matter how devastating the event our Earth somehow finds a way to not only recover, but continue maintaining conditions that are ideal for supporting life. In the terms of the Poker analogy, the Earth never goes bust. I would also postulate that if life is discovered in other systems on other planets this theory will only be exacerbated. If life could happen just as a sheer coincidence then what are the odds of it happening again? What are the odds of another planet just like our own sustaining life in similar fashion for 4.5 billion years? Many scientists now believe there has to be life elsewhere in the universe because of the sheer number of systems and galaxies. If that is true then the odds continue to increase exponentially. Other systems will be experiencing impossible "winning streaks" just like our own. Edited August 22, 2011 by himoura Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 This is speculative material. Moved to speculations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
himoura Posted August 22, 2011 Author Share Posted August 22, 2011 This is speculative material. Moved to speculations. thats bull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 thats bull So who says life occurred by chance and that only by chance has it been able to persist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 (edited) If life is the result of chance then losing is inevitable. I think that this statement needs some supporting evidence. I think a good argument could be made almost the completely other way, considering the very wide variety of harsh environments life has been found on this planet -- from the bottom of the ocean, to hot spring geysers. And, I think that there is good reason to believe that there are at least microscopic life elsewhere in the solar system (Mars and Europa). I think that a statement about if life is the result of chance, then winning is inevitable, isn't that hard to believe because life has shown itself to be pretty darn adaptable. thats bull It speculation because as near as I can tell, it is all opinion. Support some of the statements with scientifically verified facts. You make way too many statements in the form of an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy. Just because you think "The idea that the Earth can somehow maintain the conditions necessary to support life for 4.5 billion years as a result of "good luck" is completely unacceptable" doesn't make it so. You need to show facts that show why it is unacceptable. Nature is under no obligation to be acceptable to you or me or anyone. Edited August 23, 2011 by Bignose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 thats bull Yes. We do in fact like to keep all the bull in speculations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 (edited) himoura, § The aftermath of an explosion has never produced order, only chaos. An explosion is not what the standard model proposes. A rapid expansion of the original condition is what the standard model proposes. And is your proposal based upon the standard cosmological model? If not then there would be almost infinite other possibilities. § We have no knowledge of what transpired before the big bang. What we do know is that explosions do not occur randomly for no reason; something has to set them off. Your complaint seems to be solely based upon the standard model. That's cool but can your proposal stand alone without complaint and on its own merits? § Order can only be created and exists as a result of its circumstances This is a statement, but how can circumstances create order? If you believe in theistic creation then there are no circumstances involved, solely the will of a creator. If you are talking about evolution, then circumstances concerning the environment can randomly select the survival of the fittest living entities. But maybe this is contrary to your proposal? How the first life on Earth came to be, is recognized as an unknown. But as conditions change, life accordingly evolves. The fittest survive and those that cannot adapt die out. My guess is that 99% or more of all the species that have every lived on this Earth have perished because of changing conditions. § When compared, the odds of any number of scenarios that could permanently destroy our planet's ability to support life far exceed the odds of nothing happening Once life gets established in countess forms as it did on Earth, it would seemingly take a monumental catastrophe to wipe it all out. According to my belief and current evolutionary theory, such a monumental catastrophe has not occurred since the beginning of life here on Earth. Maybe not monumental, but many great catastrophes have happened since that time. If life could happen just as a sheer coincidence then what are the odds of it happening again? What are the odds of another planet just like our own sustaining life in similar fashion for 4.5 billion years? Many scientists now believe there has to be life elsewhere in the universe because of the sheer number of systems and galaxies. If that is true then the odds continue to increase exponentially. Other systems will be experiencing impossible "winning streaks" just like our own. Of course the odds of life happening again in the same way and form are close to zero. Using your own line of thought, it may have been only a winning streak that enabled life to get started, but once started life on Earth accordingly had the evolutionary capacity and resilience to continue which was supported by natural selection. It is certainly a wonder that life evolved/ got started in the first place, but less of a wonder that it survived the countless catastrophes that it had to endure thereafter -- IMHO. Edited August 23, 2011 by pantheory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
himoura Posted August 23, 2011 Author Share Posted August 23, 2011 (edited) I think that this statement needs some supporting evidence. I think a good argument could be made almost the completely other way, considering the very wide variety of harsh environments life has been found on this planet -- from the bottom of the ocean, to hot spring geysers. And, I think that there is good reason to believe that there are at least microscopic life elsewhere in the solar system (Mars and Europa). I think that a statement about if life is the result of chance, then winning is inevitable, isn't that hard to believe because life has shown itself to be pretty darn adaptable. It speculation because as near as I can tell, it is all opinion. Support some of the statements with scientifically verified facts. You make way too many statements in the form of an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy. Just because you think "The idea that the Earth can somehow maintain the conditions necessary to support life for 4.5 billion years as a result of "good luck" is completely unacceptable" doesn't make it so. You need to show facts that show why it is unacceptable. Nature is under no obligation to be acceptable to you or me or anyone. I have more evidence to back up my claims then anything else thats ever been researched. i have the hand histories of billions upon billions of poker games. thats whats so funny about people like you jumping on here and just saying this is speculative and dismissing it. variance is real. trends are real. it can be easily quatified and measured. i literally have loads upon loads of data to pull from. you guys can disagree all you want but as far as i can tell... this idea has never been explored by science. we all just assume this earth and the life upon it happened by chance. wow really? no one really looks at that and says... "what exactly are the odds of something like this happening?" so despite the fact you are offering zero evidence outside the fact that the earth is here i am just supposed to swallow that pill? no questioning at all? to my knowledge no one has ever taken the time line theory and applied it in the inverse. no thanks Yes. We do in fact like to keep all the bull in speculations i think you mean to say.. .anything you dont agree with goes in speculative. i have plenty of evidence and data supporting my claim. more then any other subject that has ever been researched. billions of hand histories. i totally expected this. i just didnt expect a mod to move this into speculative. thats garbage. by that definition every theory that has ever been proposed is speculative. himoura, An explosion is not what the standard model proposes. A rapid expansion of the original condition is what the standard model proposes. And is your proposal based upon the standard cosmological model? If not then there would be almost infinite other possibilities. Your complaint seems to be solely based upon the standard model. That's cool but can your proposal stand alone without complaint and on its own merits? This is a statement, but how can circumstances create order? If you believe in theistic creation then there are no circumstances involved, solely the will of a creator. If you are talking about evolution, then circumstances concerning the environment can randomly select the survival of the fittest living entities. But maybe this is contrary to your proposal? How the first life on Earth came to be, is recognized as an unknown. But as conditions change, life accordingly evolves. The fittest survive and those that cannot adapt die out. My guess is that 99% or more of all the species that have every lived on this Earth have perished because of changing conditions. Once life gets established in countess forms as it did on Earth, it would seemingly take a monumental catastrophe to wipe it all out. According to my belief and current evolutionary theory, such a monumental catastrophe has not occurred since the beginning of life here on Earth. Maybe not monumental, but many great catastrophes have happened since that time. Of course the odds of life happening again in the same way and form are close to zero. Using your own line of thought, it may have been only a winning streak that enabled life to get started, but once started life on Earth accordingly had the evolutionary capacity and resilience to continue which was supported by natural selection. It is certainly a wonder that life evolved/ got started in the first place, but less of a wonder that it survived the countless catastrophes that it had to endure thereafter -- IMHO. i never said circumstances can create order. you are just flat wrong in almost everything you said. i will explain quickly why you are wrong in your last statement about the odds of life existing to begin with... before the big bang... is NOTHING. there is no timeline because there is no fourth dimension. we dont even know if randomness exists before the bang. whatever happened before the bang happened outside the laws of physics so technically you cant even comment on it. we have no way to even theorize about it. So who says life occurred by chance and that only by chance has it been able to persist? pretty much every text book i have ever read that isnt religious @bignose I have listed tons of facts and evidence ur just choosing to ignore it all. Edited August 23, 2011 by himoura Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzzwood Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 The evidence we are looking for is how those poker game results can be linked to the existance of life. Don't give us your theory again, we want FACTS. Things everyone can reproduce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
himoura Posted August 23, 2011 Author Share Posted August 23, 2011 @pantheory It's called the "process" of evolution for a reason. It's a "process". It's not sentient and it does not have a will. But if ur gonna stand here in front of the world and say it does then congratulations. U just invented yourself a god. I am not saying evolution isn't possible. I am saying it's not possible to have happened as a result of chance. The only reason science even holds onto this stupid idea of accidental life is because there is no alternative. Well that's not good enough anymore. The evidence we are looking for is how those poker game results can be linked to the existance of life. Don't give us your theory again, we want FACTS. Things everyone can reproduce. Simple. For any outcome in poker there are odds that dictate the likelyhood of those outcomes. Our universe is no different. If u believe our system exists as a result of chance then there are odds that will dictate every possible outcome. There ya go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 i think you mean to say.. .anything you dont agree with goes in speculative. i have plenty of evidence and data supporting my claim. more then any other subject that has ever been researched. billions of hand histories. Let's see the data then. "Speculations" does not mean "wrong". It means that the things you propose are not inline with mainstream science. They may be one day. Just not now. I would've moved Einstein to speculations had he been proposing relativity here before it had been accepted. However, Einstein would've had equations and data to back his assertions. i totally expected this. i just didnt expect a mod to move this into speculative. thats garbage. by that definition every theory that has ever been proposed is speculative. 1. Then why waste your time? 2. I'm not a moderator (My only "mod powers" are moving threads to different sub-forums), though I'm sure a real mod will be posting a note soon about your attitude. 3. So you do agree that... A) your material is speculative. B) it belongs in speculations C) you are sorry about your attitude D) Im accepting your apology in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
himoura Posted August 23, 2011 Author Share Posted August 23, 2011 (edited) Randomness is just that. Randomness. There isnt one type of randomness for a card game and another for the universe. There is just randomness. That's why the poker analogy is completely applicable. If u feel u need mathematical proof of randomness then study quantum mechanics or go play some cards. The idea of the Earth colliding with another planet to form the moon is an excellent example. There are odds that dictate the chances of that happening the same as odds in a poker game dictate the probability of getting a royal flush. The only difference here is the actual value of the odds themselves. The problem with the "we just got really lucky" idea is that it stops after getting the flush and says... "see it can happen". The problem with that is the game keeps going. Just cuz u got lucky and got a royal flush doesn't mean the game is over. U have to keep playing and braving all of the "bad luck" scenarios. Science doesn't even consider all the multitudes of possibilities that could screw up that very small victory. Let's see the data then. "Speculations" does not mean "wrong". It means that the things you propose are not inline with mainstream science. They may be one day. Just not now. I would've moved Einstein to speculations had he been proposing relativity here before it had been accepted. However, Einstein would've had equations and data to back his assertions. 1. Then why waste your time? 2. I'm not a moderator (My only "mod powers" are moving threads to different sub-forums), though I'm sure a real mod will be posting a note soon about your attitude. 3. So you do agree that... A) your material is speculative. B) it belongs in speculations C) you are sorry about your attitude D) Im accepting your apology in advance. Wrong again. I have tons of evidence and data. I have billions of poker hand histories and quantum mechanics. I haven't violated any forum rules. There is nothing wrong with my attitude. Why should I try to upload thousands and thousands of HH's to prove variance and trends when all this has already been proven? Why should I link to articles in quantum mechanics that relate to randomness? All this has already been done and proven long ago. I mean honestly go look it up for yourself. Trends exist. It's science. It's fact. Odds and randomness and trends are not in question here. If u dont agree with my analogy then that's fine but the data I'm usin is readily available and not in dispute. It's only the application of this data which is being disputed. Eventually it will become obvious that this application is logical and correct. Besides if I could just link to a more credible authority that would put ur mind at ease then it wouldn't be a new theory now would it? This is a new application of existing, proven science.. The work has already been done... I just pushed it in an obvious direction. Edited August 23, 2011 by himoura Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realitycheck Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 I would suggest that you are going about it wrong. Once life has a toehold, there are just too many ways for it to maintain its condition or improve upon it. You would have to essentially completely destroy/remove the atmosphere to achieve total annihilation, and even then, there is no guarantee, organisms can find sustenance in the ground. The destructive ability of the world was essentially rendered lame once life achieved a toehold. There are just too many variables enabling its continued existence. o On the other hand, I believe you could easily make a case for life's ability to assemble itself from scratch in a number of potential conditions. The one constant existing in our universe is the potential for organization. Formless matter organizes itself into atoms, which fuse themselves into larger and larger, more complicated atoms, which organize themselves into the basic precursors of life, developing into larger and more complicated life forms, which eventually progress to organizing and creating their own life forms, where we are today. Where you say that life is a miracle and driven, I would contend that it is fixed into an equation, rife for a number of potential circumstances. Sure, you can say that life is a miracle and driven, because the universe was geared for it. o I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Bost sides essentially saying the same thing, one side just calls it a law and the other side calls it a will, nevertheless, it adds up to the same thing, albeit with the will substantially reduced down to size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
himoura Posted August 23, 2011 Author Share Posted August 23, 2011 I honestly don't see how u can believe that when there is virtually zero evidence to back up that claim and literally mounds of it that would suggest just the opposite. how do u explain mars? I would strongly disagree with the notion that once life is set into motion it is difficult to destroy it. That's why I gave the ecosystem analogy. No one should ever have to maintain an ecosystem if what u are saying is true. It should find a way to survive on it's own. What you are proposing violates the second law of thermodynamics. If matter is constantly organizing itself into more complex forms then how come everything around us is constantly in a state of decay? So it becomes more complex as it's dying and falling apart? I kinda agree with the last part if what ur saying though. I am not saying miracles took place just that it's not chance and we can't explain it. What's wrong with saying "I don't know why". It just feels like science wants to pretend like we have it all figured out. It becomes a matter of pride and when that happens we all find our selves subscribing to things we know are not true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 "The aftermath of an explosion has never produced order, only chaos." Just plain wrong. The big bang, which can reasonably, if inaccurately, be described as an explosion, eventually gave rise to us. At the very best that assertion is begging the question. "We have no knowledge of what transpired before the big bang. What we do know is that explosions do not occur randomly for no reason; something has to set them off." That's self contradictory. If we don't know what happened before the big bang then we don't know if something had to set it off. "The idea that the Earth can somehow maintain the conditions necessary to support life for 4.5 billion years as a result of "good luck" is completely unacceptable." It is widely accepted. So, all three bullet points on which the "theory" is based are logical fallacies. Speculation is a rather flattering description here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
himoura Posted August 23, 2011 Author Share Posted August 23, 2011 How is it wrong? Has an explosion ever produced order outside of the big bang? Nope. So basically there is zero evidence to sugges an explosion can create life There is no contradiction here u are reading the statement wrong. What we do know is that explosions must be caused. What we do not know is what happened before the bang. We can only theorize based upon what we know. The idea that the earth was flat was once widely accepted also. gg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 ! Moderator Note Please remember our rules and be civil in the discussions. This personal attack and insulting attitude is unacceptable.The "speculation" forum is not some punishment limbo, it's the place we use for discussions about non-mainstream science. Your thread is non mainstream. Whether you can substantiate your claims or not is a different issue - this is YOUR job here in the thread, to bring forth the evidence and support your assertion. But until mainstream science accepts this idea, it shall remain outside the mainstream science threads.Please do not derail this thread by arguing about moderation decisions. We welcome you on this forum and wish you enjoy it, but you should read our rules and follow them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 Theory of Variance and the Existence of Life on Earth By Shawn Michael Ahearn Copyright 08/18/2011 The idea that life on Earth exists as a result of chance is absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable. Chance was not a part of life developing on the earth. natural chemical reaction account for life on the earth quite nicely. I will use a few analogies to further explain this statement. Take the game of Poker for example. Every good Poker player knows that you can't win every game. Good Poker players are those who can minimize their losses in periods of downswing and maximize profit in periods of upswing. By downswing and upswing I mean periods in which a player can experience great losing or winning streaks. A good Poker player is defined as one who can average more wins than losses, thus creating a net gain. A card game like Poker is very chaotic and unpredictable. Some of the best players in the world will tell you that they have gone on losing streaks that can last a month or longer. Imagine that for a moment if you will. Imagine your one of the greatest Poker players in the world and you go on a losing streak that lasts for over a month. No matter how good the player may be scenarios keep falling on the table that simply make it impossible to win. In the poker world we call this "variance", and the unwinnable hands "bad beats". As painful as this sounds it happens a lot more than one would think. A totally false anology. Now let's relate the plight of our planet to a game of poker. Let us say that the Earth's ability to support life is tantamount to winning in Poker. So basically the Earth has been on a winning streak for almost 4.5 billion years. In other words our Earth has never suffered a "bad beat". That is absolutely ridiculous. If life is the result of chance then losing is inevitable. The odds do not support such a massive winning streak. Chance will always lean towards chaos and not towards order. I have heard a theory that basically states that the odds of life coming into existence by accident are not that unreasonable if you stretch the time line out far enough. It basically states that given a long enough time line it will eventually happen. This is wrong for three very specific reasons. another false analogy § The aftermath of an explosion has never produced order, only chaos. Not true, explosions are often used to create order. § We have no knowledge of what transpired before the big bang. What we do know is that explosions do not occur randomly for no reason; something has to set them off. Again not true, a lightning strike is an explosion and it is natural. § The idea that the Earth can somehow maintain the conditions necessary to support life for 4.5 billion years as a result of "good luck" is completely unacceptable. Who says it is totally good luck? Life adapts, it changes and evolves, luck is not involved at all... We know the full time line of our universe is around 13 billion years because of Hubble's red shift measurements. This means the time line can only be stretched so far, it is finite. Let's just say for arguments sake that life did come into existence by chance (although cosmologically speaking this is impossible). We now have life on planet Earth and a time line of around 4.5 billion years. I would postulate that a time line of 4.5 billion years is more than adequate to support the odds of something happening that would ruin the Earths ability to support life permanently. The odds of any number of scenarios that would make life on Earth permanently unsustainable are great; far greater than life not only existing as a result of chance, but perpetuating itself completely unassisted. So far this has never happened. This Earth has never experienced a catastrophe so great that its ability to support life has been completely compromised. Even in the greatest cataclysms of our past some small vestiges of life survive. To say that our planets ability to continue to support life as a consequence of good luck just seems outlandish. The odds do not support such a notion. The time line is 4.5 billion years. Take the Time Line Theory and apply it in the inverse and you will see that the odds are much more likely that an event will transpire that will make life on planet Earth permanently unsustainable. Why has this not happened yet? Eventually an event will take place that will make the earth totally lifeless, just because it has not happened yet doesn't mean it won't. Below I have listed a few guidelines that I feel help support this idea. § Our Universe is chaotic by nature and not orderly Not true the universe is very much an orderly place. § Chance will always favor chaos over order Not true, order arises from chaos quite easily, see chaos theory, look it up on google. § Order can only be created and exists as a result of its circumstances This doesn't make any sense what so ever, please elaborate. § When compared, the odds of any number of scenarios that could permanently destroy our planets ability to support life far exceed the odds of nothing happening Something will eventually happen it's inevitable but not necessarily immediate. If you look at the other systems in our universe what do you find? Complete chaos. You have entire galaxies that are spinning inevitably into super massive black holes or into each other. You will find planets whose elliptical orbits are so exaggerated they are literally scorched by their sun every time they pass. The set of conditions that must be met in order for a planet to support life are truly staggering. A planet must be a certain distance from its sun. It has to have water. It must have a moon type satellite to pull the tides. It has to be a certain size. It has to have the right atmosphere. The list goes on and on and on. But yet science would have us believe that we just got really lucky and that luck continues to provide us with the perfect conditions to support life to this very day. This explanation does not make sense when looked at through the lens of the very simple poker analogy I mentioned earlier. Nothing in our vast universe is that lucky. It just doesn't work that way. Eventually something will happen to make conditions on Earth completely unsustainable. We still cannot even explain the existence of the moon. Without our moon life could not exist on earth. What are the odds a chunk of rock exactly the right size would come to orbit our Earth in just such an ideal way? The odds are solidly against it. Now compound that along with all of the other, "million to one" type situations that had to take place in order for our ecosystem to exist as it has for 4.5 billion years. You will see that the idea of life existing on Earth as a result of chance just doesn't hold water at all. If you have any further doubts a few rounds of poker will satisfy them very quickly. Again the game of poker is a false idea, life and the earth is not shear chance but a reasonable expectation of the laws of the universe, not chance. When I was in high school biology class we had a project where we were instructed to build an ecosystem with a variety of different species and plants. It was a pretty difficult project. We cut the glass ourselves and caulked the pieces together with silicone. We had running water and soil for the plants. We also had a light and would periodically feed the life inside the system. One thing we all realized very quickly is that if we did not maintain this system ourselves it would quickly fall apart. Has anyone ever built a completely self-sustaining ecosystem devoid of any maintenance? If they have then think about what an accomplishment that would be. Yet we are expected to believe that our perfect ecosystem, our perfect earth, has been providing us with an environment ideal for supporting life for at least 4.5 billion years as a result of a "cosmic roll of the dice"? This notion is simply preposterous and unacceptable. The planet has of course experienced events that make life difficult to be sure, but it always seems to bounce back. No matter how devastating the event our Earth somehow finds a way to not only recover, but continue maintaining conditions that are ideal for supporting life. In the terms of the Poker analogy, the Earth never goes bust. The earth never goes bust because life cheats, it changes the conditions to favor it's own existence, only by cheating at poker could you come close to showing it as a mirror of life. I think i see why you think this way, you think of life as the complex life you see around you but life on earth was quite simple for more than 3 billion years of it's existence, simple life is much harder to eradicate than complex life. Simple life can survive almost anything, there are life forms that live in ice and that live at temps far above the boiling point of water. complex life did not evolve until conditions on the earth had settled down quite a bit from the beginning. I would also postulate that if life is discovered in other systems on other planets this theory will only be exacerbated. If life could happen just as a sheer coincidence then what are the odds of it happening again? What are the odds of another planet just like our own sustaining life in similar fashion for 4.5 billion years? Many scientists now believe there has to be life elsewhere in the universe because of the sheer number of systems and galaxies. If that is true then the odds continue to increase exponentially. Other systems will be experiencing impossible "winning streaks" just like our own. Your entire idea is based on a false premise, who is to say whether or not the universe came to be from chance? There could very well be an infinite number of universes such as ours and life did not come to be by chance but by natural chemical reactions of natural chemicals, life did not advance by chance either but by natural selection and Mars may or may not have life, we don't know but there is some evidence is still exists there as for the rest of the planets life if it exists there did not come about by chance either but via natural reactions due to chemistry. I don't understand where you get this idea that only by chance did life come into existence. You are constructing a strawman argument, science says no such thing even if some individual scientists might say it doesn't make them right. What are the odds of life? 100% of course, we are here! your claims are not even speculation they are totally wrong... It is now suspected that large planetary collisions are quite common in the beginning of planetary systems and large moons are not a billion to one event but probably quite common, all four of the inner planets show signs of giant impacts like the one that formed the moon, it just didn't form a moon on those bodies but had other results but forming a large moon is not as big an accident as you claim and once life started (that was after the large planetary impacts had stopped) it would take a huge impact of an object at least 300 miles in diameter to completely sterilize the earth, no such large objects still intersect with the orbit of the earth. You seem to imply such impacts happen routinely but they stopped nearly 4 billion years ago. so many strawmen in this discussion i cannot address them all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 "How is it wrong?" By being observably false "Has an explosion ever produced order outside of the big bang?" Who cares? Once is enough. " Nope." Yep, once; and we are part of it. "So basically there is zero evidence to sugges an explosion can create life" apart from all the life you see that arose from the BB. You are saying that because something happened once it is rare and because it is rare it couldn't have happened. that's patently absurd. Do you see the flaw in this? You are unique. The probability of your existence is essentially zero. Therefore you don't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 Just a note here, there seems to be a misunderstanding of what "The Big Bang" actually is, as opposed to what it may sound like. The Big Bang is NOT an explosion, it is, with lack of better term, a rapid expansion. It isn't even remotely similar to explosion, not in the least because of the simple fact that it did not explode "into" anything. Please stop calling it an explosion. http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
himoura Posted August 23, 2011 Author Share Posted August 23, 2011 (edited) @moontanman So natural chemical reactions can easily account for the existence of complex ecosystems and life forms. I thought we were discussing science not alchemy. If it's that easy then prove it. Oh wait u cant. The poker analogy is not false. There are no laws of the universe before the big bang. That area of history lies outside the laws of physics I have read chaos theory and it doesnt state that chaos creates order. I think your reading into it wrong and asserting your own ideology. There is no point in commenting on the rest. Natural chemical reactions do not create complex life and ecosystems. If u can show me one example of a natural chemical reaction creating one protein found within one molecule of DNA I'll shut up... saavy? @John cuthbar U just made my point for me. Ur type of thinking is exactly why I made this theory. U should go try ur hand in poker and see if u still feel the same You are saying that something extremely rare happened and nothing can ever happen to destroy it or knock it out of balance. That's what is truly absurd. It's not just "one" rare event either it's an incalculable number of extremely rare circumstances that aligned perfectly to give us our system. Edited August 23, 2011 by himoura Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realitycheck Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 (edited) I agree, poor choice of words. All of the quark gluon plasma was ... funneled in from that great supercollider in the sky. Edited August 24, 2011 by Realitycheck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 (edited) I'm beginning to wonder if Himoura is not able to understand the reasons he's wrong or if he's a troll. I mean, he keeps banging on about poker, which is a game of skill, as if it's like drawing a lottery ticket. ( I'm a lousy player, but I think I'd beat someone who thought it was just a game of chance) He started off with a bunch of bullet points that simply were not true. He got all angsty when his speculation got moved to speculation. I predict an assertion sometime soon that we are all "part of some conspiracy to stop the people finding out the truth" BTW re. "You are saying that something extremely rare happened and nothing can ever happen to destroy it or knock it out of balance. " Nope, I didn't. Now, please either apologise for misrepresenting me or show where I actually said that. Edited August 23, 2011 by John Cuthber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 If u can show me one example of a natural chemical reaction creating one protein found within one molecule of DNA I'll shut up... saavy? I always like to help when I can http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/100500E4C9404405/2/3H0RXDrfyZc This series can answer every question you asked, easy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
himoura Posted August 23, 2011 Author Share Posted August 23, 2011 "So basically there is zero evidence to sugges an explosion can create life" apart from all the life you see that arose from the BB. You are saying that because something happened once it is rare and because it is rare it couldn't have happened. that's patently absurd. are you happy? you are speaking in the singular. its all good.. .disparage my character.. call me names. if i cared i wouldn't have posted to begin with. @mooeypie who cares what you call it... explosion.. inflation. what caused it? what powered it? no one knows. from now on i will say "before the big inflation". does that make you happy? I always like to help when I can http://www.youtube.c...5/2/3H0RXDrfyZc This series can answer every question you asked, easy... wrong, wrong and more wrong. i watched it fully. i thought 4:00 was very interesting. i guess time will tell then. If a researcher can put together a stew that can create a molecule of DNA on its own with zero assistance then you will be right and i will concede. so far this just hasnt happened. creating one base in the DNA strand by accident is a far cry from creating life. Here is a quote from the guy that discovered DNA just to give you some perspective. think you got me? u missed by a long shot kid. "To produce this miracle of molecular construction all the cell need do is to string together the amino acids (which make up the polypeptide chain) in the correct order. This is a complicated biochemical process, a molecular assembly line, using instructions in the form of a nucleic acid tape (the so-called messenger RNA). Here we need only ask, how many possible proteins are there? If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare of an event would that be? This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything, rather less than the average length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 20200, that is a one followed by 260 zeros! This number is quite beyond our everyday comprehension. For comparison, consider the number of fundamental particles (atoms, speaking loosely) in the entire visible universe, not just in our own galaxy with its 1011 stars, but in all the billions of galaxies, out to the limits of observable space. This number, which is estimated to be 1080, is quite paltry by comparison to 10260. Moreover, we have only considered a polypeptide chain of a rather modest length. Had we considered longer ones as well, the figure would have been even more immense." Francis Crick, [Crick received a Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA.] Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature (1981), pp 51-52. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now