Object Lesson on the Impossibility of Abiogenesis

dysert · Mar 26, 2015

DerelictJunction said:
Yes. However, I don't understand how that analogy applies to the discussion we are having here.

Implying that I am ignorant doesn't really help. You used the analogy. So, you should be able to easily explain the point you are trying to make.

I did not intend to imply that you are ignorant. I apologize if you took it that way. I was simply asking the question.

What I meant when I used the expression (which Loudmouth has opined about) was that the pro-abiogenesis folks are getting all wrapped around the axle with the details of whether the probability is 1e50 or 1e70, etc. Meanwhile, the big picture is that whatever the actual probability is, it's clearly tiny enough to be deemed extremely unlikely.

Perhaps I should have gone with the trees/forest metaphor

DerelictJunction · Mar 26, 2015

dysert said:
I did not intend to imply that you are ignorant. I apologize if you took it that way. I was simply asking the question.

What I meant when I used the expression (which Loudmouth has opined about) was that the pro-abiogenesis folks are getting all wrapped around the axle with the details of whether the probability is 1e50 or 1e70, etc. Meanwhile, the big picture is that whatever the actual probability is, it's clearly tiny enough to be deemed extremely unlikely.

Perhaps I should have gone with the trees/forest metaphor

Perhaps. However, I don't think that would apply either.
The pro-abiogenesis folks are concerned that the probability quoted is not an accurate representation of the chances that the right combination of chemicals would occur to produce a rudimentary life form.

The point of their concern deals with the nature of chemistry. The probability that a particular chemical combinations occurs is based on certain factors:
1. Existence of the chemicals
2. Proximity of the chemicals
3. Concentration of the chemicals
4. Temperature.
5. Reactivity of the chemicals
6. Proximity of the chemicals to a potential catalyst.
7. Motion of the chemicals.
.
.
.

None of those factors were even mentioned, yet the probability of the result of chemical reactions was put forth as if it had to be a single chemical reaction, happening all at once.

This lack of concern for these factors that affect the combining of chemicals, leads me to believe the probability calculation was not thought out very well at all.

Loudmouth · Mar 26, 2015

dysert said:
I did not intend to imply that you are ignorant. I apologize if you took it that way. I was simply asking the question.

What I meant when I used the expression (which Loudmouth has opined about) was that the pro-abiogenesis folks are getting all wrapped around the axle with the details of whether the probability is 1e50 or 1e70, etc.

I could care less about the probability of a specific protein coming about from a random mixture of amino acids.

What I keep asking is how these probabilities that creationists keep throwing about have anything to do with abiogenesis. If they can't show that a single protein is required, then why give us probabilities for 256 proteins?

Meanwhile, the big picture is that whatever the actual probability is, it's clearly tiny enough to be deemed extremely unlikely.

So far, it is extremely irrelevant.

ThinkForYourself · Mar 26, 2015

TX_CO_Matt said:
The problems with Abiogenesis goes beyond the statistical probability of it. Abiogenesis is not so much a theory, but the scientific study of the beginning of life.

So, you know the chemical composition of all the environments on earth 4 billion years ago.

As well, you know the exact parameters involved in abiogenesis, and can accurately calculate the probability of each.

Sorry, I don't believe you.

ThinkForYourself · Mar 26, 2015

dysert said:
This is pretty funny. I've read about half the posts so far. The "pro-abiogenesis" folks are fiddling with trying to come up with conditional probabilities while Rome is burning.

dysert, you would need to know the chemical composition of all the environments on earth 4 billion years ago.

As well, you would need to know the exact parameters involved in abiogenesis, and be able to accurately calculate the probability of each.

No one has this information, so it is ridiculous for anyone to claim they know the probability of abiogenesis.

ThinkForYourself · Mar 26, 2015

dysert said:
...Meanwhile, the big picture is that whatever the actual probability is, it's clearly tiny enough to be deemed extremely unlikely.

Neither you, nor anyone else, knows what the probabilities are. So to claim they are "deemed extremely unlikely" is a product of your imagination, and has no basis in reality.

ChetSinger · Mar 26, 2015

DerelictJunction said:
Perhaps. However, I don't think that would apply either.
The pro-abiogenesis folks are concerned that the probability quoted is not an accurate representation of the chances that the right combination of chemicals would occur to produce a rudimentary life form.

The point of their concern deals with the nature of chemistry. The probability that a particular chemical combinations occurs is based on certain factors:
1. Existence of the chemicals
2. Proximity of the chemicals
3. Concentration of the chemicals
4. Temperature.
5. Reactivity of the chemicals
6. Proximity of the chemicals to a potential catalyst.
7. Motion of the chemicals.
.
.
.

None of those factors were even mentioned, yet the probability of the result of chemical reactions was put forth as if it had to be a single chemical reaction, happening all at once.

This lack of concern for these factors that affect the combining of chemicals, leads me to believe the probability calculation was not thought out very well at all.

I think that's a valid point.

But from what I've read, when probabilistic kinds of abiogenesis exercises are attempted the factors above are typically deemed to be "not an impediment". That is, the existence of the chemicals is assumed, the proper temperature and pH are assumed, the existence of the necessary catalysts are assumed, etc.

In those exercises, any attempt to add these factors into the equations would make abiogenesis even more unlikely. Is that what you've seen, and do you agree?

Loudmouth · Mar 26, 2015

ChetSinger said:
I think that's a valid point.

But from what I've read, when probabilistic kinds of abiogenesis exercises are attempted the factors above are typically deemed to be "not an impediment".

It is not an impediment because you can't show that a single protein is necessary for abiogenesis.

That is, the existence of the chemicals is assumed, the proper temperature and pH are assumed, the existence of the necessary catalysts are assumed, etc.

The calculations in the opening post assume the same things.

DerelictJunction · Mar 26, 2015

ChetSinger said:
I think that's a valid point.

But from what I've read, when probabilistic kinds of abiogenesis exercises are attempted the factors above are typically deemed to be "not an impediment". That is, the existence of the chemicals is assumed, the proper temperature and pH are assumed, the existence of the necessary catalysts are assumed, etc.

In those exercises, any attempt to add these factors into the equations would make abiogenesis even more unlikely. Is that what you've seen, and do you agree?

I have never seen a probabilistic abiogenesis exercise that included any of these factors.
Do you know of one and can you provide a link to it?

ChetSinger · Mar 26, 2015

DerelictJunction said:
I have never seen a probabilistic abiogenesis exercise that included any of these factors.
Do you know of one and can you provide a link to it?

I suppose I wasn't speaking clearly: I've rarely seen one either.

They all seem to assume that none of the factors you mentioned reduce the likelihood of abiogenesis. So if they are included, they will do nothing but reduce the likelihood of abiogenesis even further.

ThinkForYourself · Mar 26, 2015

ChetSinger said:
...
They all seem to assume that none of the factors you mentioned reduce the likelihood of abiogenesis.

Anyone can assume anything they want. Until its been demonstrated scientifically, or in some other empirical fashion, it doesn't mean anything.

ChetSinger said:
So if they are included, they will do nothing but reduce the likelihood of abiogenesis even further.

I assume that knowing those factors will increase the probability 10 ^ 70.

So now we can agree that abiogenesis is very likely.

DerelictJunction · Mar 26, 2015

ChetSinger said:
I suppose I wasn't speaking clearly: I've rarely seen one either.

They all seem to assume that none of the factors you mentioned reduce the likelihood of abiogenesis. So if they are included, they will do nothing but reduce the likelihood of abiogenesis even further.

That's an interesting conclusion on your part.

I have never seen those factors mentioned at all, much less listed in an assumption prior to performing the probability calculation. Shouldn't they have spelled out the factors they were ignoring before making the calculation? How can you conclude that the people performing the calculation even knew those things might be a factor?
Also, you apparently haven't considered that the absence of the factors may be a means to "fudge" the calculation toward higher improbability.

On top of that, the calculations are always performed as if the chemical reaction was a whole bunch of separate chemicals that suddenly become working DNA. That's a bit of a reach since that is not the way organic chemistry works at all.

ChetSinger · Mar 26, 2015

DerelictJunction said:
I have never seen those factors mentioned at all, much less listed in an assumption prior to performing the probability calculation. Shouldn't they have spelled out the factors they were ignoring before making the calculation? How can you conclude that the people performing the calculation even knew those things might be a factor?

Most of the ones I've seen are combinatorial exercises only. All physical factors are assumed to be ideal. You don't need to mention temperature, for example, if you assume temperature is ideal for abiogenesis to occur, do you?

DerelictJunction said:
Also, you apparently haven't considered that the absence of the factors may be a means to "fudge" the calculation toward higher improbability.

Are we still not on the same page? Considering a factor to be ideal for abiogenesis fudges it to higher probability.

DerelictJunction said:
On top of that, the calculations are always performed as if the chemical reaction was a whole bunch of separate chemicals that suddenly become working DNA. That's a bit of a reach since that is not the way organic chemistry works at all.

That can be valid point. Every such exercise must be evaluated on its own.

DerelictJunction · Mar 26, 2015

ChetSinger said:
Most of the ones I've seen are combinatorial exercises only. All physical factors are assumed to be ideal. You don't need to mention temperature, for example, if you assume temperature is ideal for abiogenesis to occur, do you?

Are we still not on the same page? Considering a factor to be ideal for abiogenesis fudges it to higher probability.

The fact that none of the abiogenesis probability papers mention those factors at all, gives me the impression that they may not even have known about them.

That can be valid point. Every such exercise must be evaluated on its own.

I guess, but none that I have seen even go beyond the probability that 1 set of chemicals will combine to form the DNA. What about the vastness of the area where abiogenesis could occur, the multiple quadrillion chemical reactions occurring in that area, and the half-billion years that the Earth existed before there is any indication of life on the planet?
How many possible attempts could have occurred during that time over that vast area?

ChetSinger · Mar 26, 2015

DerelictJunction said:
The fact that none of the abiogenesis probability papers mention those factors at all, gives me the impression that they may not even have known about them.

Jonathan Sarfati used to do stuff like that, and he's a physical chemist with a PhD, so he clearly knows those things. But once again, leaving physical factors out and assuming them to be ideal only helps abiogenesis.

DerelictJunction said:
I guess, but none that I have seen even go beyond the probability that 1 set of chemicals will combine to form the DNA. What about the vastness of the area where abiogenesis could occur, the multiple quadrillion chemical reactions occurring in that area, and the half-billion years that the Earth existed before there is any indication of life on the planet?
How many possible attempts could have occurred during that time over that vast area?

That kind of thing can be done on the back of an envelope. Let's calculate the assemblage of a particular 100-stage protein, assuming that only the 20 amino acids we want are nearby.

The chances are 20^100, or about 1.2x10^130.

Those are pretty crappy odds.

Taking into account the size (10^82 atoms) and duration (10^17 seconds) of the universe, and assuming that the entire universe is made up of our 20 amino acids busily mixing at a rate of 10^3 per second, we would divide our result by each of these factors.

1.2x10^130 / 10^102, or about 1.2x10^18.

The odds did get much less unfavorable.

Loudmouth · Mar 26, 2015

DerelictJunction said:
The fact that none of the abiogenesis probability papers mention those factors at all, gives me the impression that they may not even have known about them.
I guess, but none that I have seen even go beyond the probability that 1 set of chemicals will combine to form the DNA. What about the vastness of the area where abiogenesis could occur, the multiple quadrillion chemical reactions occurring in that area, and the half-billion years that the Earth existed before there is any indication of life on the planet?
How many possible attempts could have occurred during that time over that vast area?

You are also being Earth-centric in your views. There is no reason why life had to appear on Earth. Your calculations need to include all of the planets in the universe that have the same conditions.

Loudmouth · Mar 26, 2015

ChetSinger said:
Jonathan Sarfati used to do stuff like that, and he's a physical chemist with a PhD, so he clearly knows those things.

Sarfati is a con man.

That kind of thing can be done on the back of an envelope. Let's calculate the assemblage of a particular 100-stage protein, assuming that only the 20 amino acids we want are nearby.

Why? If abiogenesis doesn't need a single protein, then this calculation would be irrelevant.

Strathos · Mar 26, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Sarfati is a con man.

On the other hand, he's the only creationist who can legitimately say "checkmate, atheists!"

Steve Petersen · Mar 28, 2015

The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: April 1998

mzungu · Mar 30, 2015

What are the odds of a sperm succeeding and you being born and surviving to end up winning the lottery twice in three months? ( http://abcnews.go.com/US/york-man-finds-29-million-winning-lotto-ticket/story?id=25268850)

Abiogenesis =

Object Lesson on the Impossibility of Abiogenesis

Member

DerelictJunction

Guest

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

DerelictJunction

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

DerelictJunction

Guest

Well-Known Member

DerelictJunction

Guest

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

No one important

Senior Veteran

INVICTUS

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency