Object Lesson on the Impossibility of Abiogenesis

[AV1611VET]

[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"."

Far out!

I didn't know that.

Thanks, saltes!

 

[lesliedellow]

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

I am trained as a mathematician, and they don't say any such thing. Like the rest of us, they just say that something is improbable, highly improbable, extremely improbable or hugely improbable.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am trained as a mathematician, and they don't say any such thing. Like the rest of us, they just say that something is improbable, highly improbable, extremely improbable or hugely improbable.

Did you read the OP?

Does your mathematician training tell you that 256! would comprise more seconds than the universe has been in existence?

If so, I would call 10[sup]50[/sup] "improbable," and 256! "impossible."

 

[lesliedellow]

If so, I would call 10[sup]50[/sup] "improbable," and 256! "impossible."

You can call it what you like.

 

[crjmurray]

Anyone know of an actual mathematician using this 10^50 as an example of impossibility?

 

[Zosimus]

This is an amusing thread. I enjoyed reading it.

However, I can't hang with the numbers. 256 proteins have to line up?

I could have sworn that life was mostly about DNA/RNA. Neither of these are made from proteins or even amino acids. They're made from nucleotides.

The smallest viroid contains 220 nucleobase pairs. Since there are 4 possible base pairs, the chance of that viroid just falling together by chance would be 1 in 4^220 or 1 in 10^132.

Of course this assumes that the nucleotides are just sitting around in the right combinations ready to be assembled. As far as I know, nucleotides don't even occur naturally outside of a living cell. Plus even if the viroid did self-assemble, it would require something to infect in order to reproduce.

The odds do seem vanishingly remote. Of course, abiogenesis apologists will hasten to the defense. They might claim, for example, that there could have been a smaller self-replicating RNA than the smallest viroid that we have found so far.

The amusing thing is that the same people who will not hesitate to speculate that x might have existed or might have occurred are the same ones who shout the loudest in other threads that you must have evidence to assert things.

Did abiogenesis occur? I don't know. I don't think anyone knows. I don't think anyone even can know.

That's why they call me agnostic.

 

[AV1611VET]

Anyone know of an actual mathematician using this 10^50 as an example of impossibility?

Don't you mean "improbability"?

 

[VirOptimus]

Probabilities are hard to understand and even harder to use correctly.

 

[AirPo]

Don't you mean "improbability"?

As has already been pointed out, somewhere in the thread it changed from "improbability"to "impossibility."

I was responding to this post of yours:



Did you write that or not??

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 read the OP?

Does your mathematician training tell you that 256! would comprise more seconds than the universe has been in existence?

If so, I would call 10[sup]50[/sup] "improbable," and 256! "impossible."

 

[Split Rock]

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.

100 Proof is the same as 50%. You are conflating different systems. The former is hardly "scientific."

 

[Split Rock]

Did you read the OP?

Does your mathematician training tell you that 256! would comprise more seconds than the universe has been in existence?

If so, I would call 10[sup]50[/sup] "improbable," and 256! "impossible."

You also call Christianity a non-religion. In any case, the entire 256! estimate is flawed from the start, as I tried to explain to you.

 

[AV1611VET]

As has already been pointed out, somewhere in the thread it changed from "improbability"to "impossibility."

That's right.

It changed to "impossibility" when I factored in 256!.

In other words, my point is:

If 10[sup]50[/sup] is considered "improbable;" then 256! should be considered "impossible."

BUT, since it isn't considered "impossible" because, after all, where there's a decimal place, there's a chance, I added the further point that, even at the rate of attempting to combine at one per second, there still aren't enough seconds in the universe for it to occur.

If you think I'm wrong, then give me something that happened in history 256! seconds ago.

Just as it's impossible for me to have put gas in my car 75 years ago, it's impossible for 256 proteins to have come together in the right order in 13.8 billion years.

 

[AV1611VET]

You also call Christianity a non-religion. In any case, the entire 256! estimate is flawed from the start, as I tried to explain to you.

It's not an estimate.

It is a probability.

If you think it's flawed, then I'll write 256 symbols on a piece of paper, and you take a deck of 256 cards with each of those symbols, shuffle them thoroughly, then place them face down and turn up the cards one by one until you get a deck that has the cards in the same order as what I wrote down.

I'll give you 13.8 billion years to do it, and I say you won't be able to do it in time.

 

[crjmurray]

That's right.

It changed to "impossibility" when I factored in 256!.

In other words, my point is:

If 10[sup]50[/sup] is considered "improbable;" then 256! should be considered "impossible."

BUT, since it isn't considered "impossible" because, after all, where there's a decimal place, there's a chance, I added the further point that, even at the rate of attempting to combine at one per second, there still aren't enough seconds in the universe for it to occur.

If you think I'm wrong, then give me something that happened in history 256! seconds ago.

Just as it's impossible for me to have put gas in my car 75 years ago, it's impossible for 256 proteins to have come together in the right order in 13.8 billion years.

Premise is flawed. 10^50 is not considered a limit to improbability.

 

[Loudmouth]

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?

The same as the odds that the first is 4C, second is 9H, and the third is KS.

The problem is that creationists don't understand how probabilities work. Almost every occurrence in the world is so improbable as to be impossible. However, the forward arrow of time means that something has to happen, and those somethings are very often highly improbable events. Once that something happens, the odds of it happening are 1 in 1, BECAUSE IT HAPPENED.

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.

You can do the experiment on your own with playing cards. Deal yourself a 5 card poker hand. Draw one card at a time, and only keep the cards that improve your hand. You will find that with enough iterations you will have a straight flush or 4 of a kind.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Do we see deities creating life in nature?

 

[ChetSinger]

Do we see deities creating life in nature?

Not any more. God's creative work has been finished.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not any more. God's creative work has been finished.

When did we ever?

 

[Split Rock]

It's not an estimate.

It is a probability.

If you think it's flawed, then I'll write 256 symbols on a piece of paper, and you take a deck of 256 cards with each of those symbols, shuffle them thoroughly, then place them face down and turn up the cards one by one until you get a deck that has the cards in the same order as what I wrote down.

I'll give you 13.8 billion years to do it, and I say you won't be able to do it in time.

It is flawed from its initial assumptions.
If the premise the calculation is based on is flawed, then the rest is flawed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Premise is flawed. 10^50 is not considered a limit to improbability.

Says who?

Mathematicians have said that any event with odds of 10 to the 50th power or over is impossible even within the entire time frame of the supposed billions of years popularly assigned for the age of the universe.

The odds of an average protein molecule coming into existence by chance is 10 to the 65th power. That's just one protein molecule! Even the simplest cell is composed of millions of them.

SOURCE

I'll admit that here, the author of the article uses the word "impossible," whereas I use the word "improbable."

But the point is, it appears to be a matter of he-said/she-said.

I say it's improbable, others says it's improbable, others says it's impossible, some say it's a flawed premise -- pick one and go with it.