Object Lesson on the Impossibility of Abiogenesis

[Split Rock]

Oh, man -- this gets better by the minute.

Talking with scientists always makes me have to repeat myself n[sup]n[/sup] times.

Did ... you ... read ... the ... OP ... carefully?

They is mo calmbinashins in 256 proteens then they is secinds in the unyverse.

(Sorry, but this gets old.)

I was responding to this post of yours:

Try working with a deck with 256 different cards now, and hopefully you'll see the impossibility of abiogenesis occurring in a universe that's been around for "only" 13.8 billion years.

Did you write that or not??

 

[ChetSinger]

Not every combination produces a living cell, but many, many combinations do -- how many nobody knows. Also, chemical reactions are not really like shuffled cards: one reaction can make others more or less likely, and replicating molecules can completely skew the odds.

Basically, it's safe to ignore anyone who claims to be able to calculate how probable it would be for life to form.

I do agree with you that since there are so many variables it's pretty much impossible to calculate odds of cell formation.

But we're not really estimating degrees of likelihood, are we? Isn't it more like degrees of extreme unlikelihood?

 

[Strathos]

Once you've written down that the first card will be, say, the 3 of clubs, there are only 51 cards left to choose from. Keeping it at 52 for each step would 'allow' guesses like Ace of spades, ace of spades, ace of spades.... which is not a potential outcome.

Unless you're a magician.

 

[ChetSinger]

-duplicate

 

[KWCrazy]

What are the odds of the first card being the Ace of Spades? 1 in 52
So I turn the first card up and, behold, it is the Ace of Spades.
Now ... what are the odds that the next card is the 4 of Clubs? 1 in 51
So I turn the second card up and, behold, it is the 4 of Clubs.
Now ... what are the odds that the next card is the 7 of Diamonds? 1 in 50
So I turn the third card up and, behold, it is the 7 of Diamonds.
Etc.

However, what are the odds that the first is an ace of spades AND the second is a 4 of clubs AND the third is the 7 of diamonds etc? You're talking about a version of intelligent design, where the correct cards are retained each time. That couldn't happen because there wasn't any living thing to "select" which was in the right place until the sequence was perfected.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Here's a nice little object lesson to demonstrate the impossibility of abiogenesis occurring.

Write 10[sup]50[/sup] on a board.

This is the number mathematicians say is the limit of probability of something happening.

Anything after that is considered mathematically improbable.

Now take a deck of cards and shuffle them, and write down on a piece of paper what order you think the cards are going to turn up.

What are the odds that you wrote the correct order?

1/52!

That's one in the factorial of 52, or 1 in 52 x 51 x 50 x etc, all the way down to x1.

Now explain that, for the simplest of life to have occurred, 256 proteins would have had to have come together in the correct order, or abiogenesis is a bust.

That is almost five decks of cards.

The odds have now gone from 1/52! to 1/256!.

Or 1 in 256 x 255 x 254 x etc.

Since the limit of probability of something occurring is 1/10[sup]50[/sup], we can easily see that probability laws dictate that abiogenesis is improbable.

And consider this:

Scientists believe the universe is 14.7 billion years old.

That would be 463,579,200,000,000,000 or 463.5792 quadrillion seconds.

But 256! goes off the scale.

This means that, had the proteins started trying to come together in the correct order since time started -- and they didn't, since life has only been around for some 3.8 billion years, according to scientists -- there are not nearly enough seconds in existence to cover the probability of abiogenesis occurring.

So we're not dealing with just "mathematically improbable," we're dealing with "physically impossible."

AV, take 1 million decks of cards. Lay out the cards one by one in a line. The odds that those specific cards were laid out in that specific order is much longer odds. But it happened.

There is no proof that it "requires 256 proteins to come together in the correct order". That may be our best understanding, but it doesn't mean it is true.

There is no proof that the proteins wouldn't be predisposed to link in certain orders due to environment. So your 256! fails.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

I do agree with you that since there are so many variables it's pretty much impossible to calculate odds of cell formation.

But we're not really estimating degrees of likelihood, are we? Isn't it more like degrees of extreme unlikelihood?

No, because without all the information, you don't know if it's unlikely or not.

 

[Davian]

 

[ChetSinger]

No, because without all the information, you don't know if it's unlikely or not.

Given our current knowledge of biology, sure, we can estimate that it's extremely unlikely. And that agrees with both our intuition and our observations. We don't expect cells to form in nature, and we don't see them doing it.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Given our current knowledge of biology, sure, we can estimate that it's extremely unlikely. And that agrees with both our intuition and our observations. We don't expect cells to form in nature, and we don't see them doing it.

Intuition counts for nothing. Intuition says something can't exist in two different places at once. We know that is not true.

We can't estimate odds unless you know all the factors involved and their probabilities. We don't have this information so we can't estimate odds.

Cells are constantly formed in nature. You are composed of cells.

 

[ChetSinger]

...Cells are constantly formed in nature. You are composed of cells.

This thread is about abiogenesis, not cellular reproduction.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no proof that the proteins wouldn't be predisposed to link in certain orders due to environment. So your 256! fails.

No proof = fails?

Then congratulations ... you just failed gravity & evolution.

Proof is for alcohol.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No proof = fails?

Then congratulations ... you just failed gravity & evolution.

Proof is for alcohol.

My card challenge still stands, AV

 

[AV1611VET]

My card challenge still stands, AV

I think your card challenge belongs in a thread all its own, Sarah.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think your card challenge belongs in a thread all its own, Sarah.

Will you actually do it? It is completely within your power to try. I make the best challenge; no background in much of anything required, one can easily look up what cards are in a Royal Flush online. Anyone with a deck of cards can do this.

 

[AV1611VET]

Will you actually do it? It is completely within your power to try. I make the best challenge; no background in much of anything required, one can easily look up what cards are in a Royal Flush online. Anyone with a deck of cards can do this.

It's your challenge, Sarah, not mine.

Gitter done!

 

[Split Rock]

No proof = fails?

Then congratulations ... you just failed gravity & evolution.

Proof is for alcohol.

And mathematics!

 

[AV1611VET]

And mathematics!

I don't drink ... and never have ... but I don't understand why a label on alcohol that says 40% is actually 80%.

Unless ... you know ... there's science behind it.

 

[crjmurray]

I don't drink ... and never have ... but I don't understand why a label on alcohol that says 40% is actually 80%.

Unless ... you know ... there's science behind it.

It seems you have a really strange habit of talking about subjects you have no knowledge of. For example, the above post. Proof does not mean alcohol. Another example, this thread. Which was all started because I mentioned card shuffling in another thread to refute the VERY POINT you are trying to make here.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I don't drink ... and never have ... but I don't understand why a label on alcohol that says 40% is actually 80%.

Unless ... you know ... there's science behind it.

As they say, there's the right way, the wrong way, and the navy way.

[The term proof] "originated in the 16th century, when payments to British sailors included rations of rum.[2] To ensure that the rum had not been watered down, it was "proved" by dousing gunpowder with it and then testing to see if the gunpowder would ignite. If it did not, then the rum contained too much water and was considered to be "under proof".[3] Gunpowder would not burn in rum that contained less than 57.15% ABV. Therefore, rum that contained this percentage of alcohol was defined to have "100° (one hundred degrees) proof"."

So at that time, 'proof' was 7/4 of the alcohol content by volume (ABV).

Using our American know-how, we simplified that to twice. So that 40% ABV is 80° proof.