Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God

[True_Blue]

I believe life is the product of intelligent design, not random chance. There are irreconcilable problems with evolution at every discrete stage, from Big Bang to the development of the human brain. In my personal view, the most compelling evidence against evolution is the low probability of the first cell evolving from chance (abiogenesis). It’s so damaging that there should be countless articles on the topic and whole research centers devoted to it, and yet there is not. The Institute of Creation Research estimated the probability as 1 / (1*10^4,478,296). Evolutionists have tried to rebut ICR’s study by making de minimis assumptions without running the resulting numbers. For example, Dr. Frank Drake simply put the probability at 100% and moved on. In this study, I adopt every reasonable assumption an evolutionist could make that I am aware of, and run the model to calculate the probability. My result is that the probability of a single cell evolving under extremely favorable assumptions is less than 1 / (1*10^7500), making evolution impossible under reasonably and unreasonably conceivable circumstances. If there are only three possibilities for the origin of life—chance, aliens, and God, this study removes 2 of the 3 possibilities and proves the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt.

Favorable Assumptions

In this study, I make extremely favorable assumptions in favor of evolution. I assume perfect unities of time and space—perhaps a single infinitesimally small spec where all these pieces of something intermingle at lightning speed. It does no good for half a life form to coalesce when the other half is 5 feet away. TalkOrigins added fictitious bacteria precursors called "replicating polymers," "hypercycles," and "protobionts" to give more intermediate steps between random and a self-sufficient cell. I have added 15 intermediate steps to make it easier for evolution. Also, the smallest discovered cell (phytoplasma) is comprised of about 33 billion atoms. NASA’s smallest theoretically conceivable exobiological cell would have about 260 million atoms ((6.022E23 atoms/mole) * (1 mole/ 18 grams of H2O) * (1 gram/cm^3) * (.00002 cm)^3 = 267,644,444 H2O molecules per bacteria). To be phenomenally generous, I’ve reduce the number of atoms, or parts, to a mere 50,000. To eliminate the complexity of biochemistry, which is intensely damaging to evolution and results in numbers closer to the ICR figure, I assume “parts of anything,” which could be binary code for sentient software, plasma on the surface of a sun, subatomic particles, etc. rather than atoms, sugars, amino acids, proteins, DNA, etc. I also give each part a 50% chance of creating a favorable reaction each time they interact with each other. In real life, hydrocarbon reactions like to form CO2 and H2O, not long-chain hydrocarbons like sugar, amino acids, and proteins. That’s why evolutionists are so intent on finding evidence for a non-oxygen atmosphere 2 billion years ago, despite evidence that ranges from very sketchy to non-existent. But my 50% favorable reaction assumption resolves this debate, such as it is, in favor of evolution. Another highly favorable assumption is that when the atoms coalesce to form a cell, the cell becomes alive. The reality is not Frankenstein’s monster—life forms don’t become alive by being shocked with electricity. They have an ineffable quality that science does not yet understand, a kind of biological software, but which I disregard in this analysis. Also, chemical catalysts are not alive—we have to keep ourselves in reality rather than coming up with…unusual…definitions of life. Regardless, those precursors themselves would have more than 50,000 parts, and that assumption is given to evolutionists.

So, assuming 50,000 parts combining in a specific way to result in life, which can be anything from subatomic particles to computer bits to atoms, and assuming interactions with 50% favorable results, and assuming that every unit can combine in parallel to increase the odds of success, the probability can be modeled as follows:
P(E1) * P(E2) * P(E3) * ... * P(E25000) = 1/ 1.78^7526.
P(E1) * P(E2) * P(E3) * ... * P(E12500)= 1/ 1.33^3763
P(E1) * P(E2) * P(E3) * ... * P(E6250)= 1/ 3.65^1882
P(E1) * P(E2) * P(E3) * ... * P(E3125)= 1/ 1.91^941
P(E1) * P(E2) * P(E3) * ... * P(E1563)= 1/ 3.09^471
P(E1) * P(E2) * P(E3) * ... * P(E781)= 1/ 7.86^236
P(E1) * P(E2) * P(E3) * ... * P(E390)= 1/ 3.96^118
P(E1) * P(E2) * P(E3) * ... * P(E195)= 1/ 1.99^59
P(E1) * P(E2) * P(E3) * ... * P(E98)= 1/ 3.15^30
P(E1) * P(E2) * P(E3) * ... * P(E49)= 1/ 1.77^15
P(E1) * P(E2) * P(E3) * ... * P(E24)= 1/ 5.9^8
P(E1) * P(E2) * P(E3) * ... * P(E12)= 1/ 24,400
P(E1) * P(E2) * P(E3) * ... * P(E6)= 1/156
P(E1) * P(E2) * P(E3)= 1/8
P(E1) * P(E2)= 1/4
P(E1)= ½
Adding up those numbers is beyond my computer power, so arbitrarily, let’s cut the probability drastically and call it 1 chance in 10^7500. The ICR article I linked above says the highest standard of impossibility in scientific literature by which a event is considered totally impossible to occur is 1 chance in 10^150. Conclusion: non-guided evolution is impossible. If you disagree, I invite you to share your conclusions, but I respectfully ask you to run the math and provide me with your number.

What about Aliens?

Assuming that aliens seeded our planet or made evolution happen begs the question of how the aliens themselves came to be. Keep in mind that there are less than 10^100 subatomic particles in the entire universe out to 14 billion light years. If you believe in parallel universes, string theory, and interuniversal travel, let’s add in a trillion trillion extra universes (10^24), and let’s assume each universe has a density of 1 g/cm^3 (our universe has a density of (9.9 × 10-30 g/cm^3) with interacting subatomic particles, such that the interaction could create any kind of arbitrary alien life form imaginable (with 50,000 parts or more). That increases the number of parts available to interact to about 10^154. So subtract 154 from my number above. Let’s give such alien life forms a trillion trillion years to form and give each particle a million interactions per year. Subtract 30. Let’s assume that a million combinations of those 50,000 parts would result in a functional life form. Subtract 6. 7500-154-30-6 = 7310. 1 / (1*10^7310) is still impossible.

What if God guided evolution?

That is essentially a theological debate with a different set of logical rules. The Bible doesn’t say God created us with evolution, and a lot of atheists have pointed out the fallacy of that argument on recent threads (e.g. when did original sin happen?). If you choose to believe in God, it’s helpful to pick an established, internally coherent and consistent religion that can reasonably claim to have received messages from God. Christianity is such a religion. Here's a recent thread of mine regarding affirmative proof of God and Jesus Christ. Many Christians today have heard from God. I know at least two people who have heard his audible voice. I can introduce you to such people who I’m sure you’ll find credible.

My meager ability to reason tells me that even a simple shovel couldn't form from random chance--how would such a marvelous bacteria form? I can only give credit to God.

 

[Cabal]

I don't think this argument works. If you applied the exact same thing to say, atoms in a crystal (let's leave the "life" aspect aside for now, we're still collections of particles), it falls flat. Say you have a crystal of 10^18 atoms, the odds of one atom being in the correct location alone is 1/10^18, never mind when you multiply up all the probabilities for all the other atoms being in their correct spots.

And yet, crystals obviously crystallise, we can observe it. This "order from disorder" arises from maximising the entropy of the system, which is why I think this argument falls flat - if you take the probabilistic approach to entropy, a system HAS TO condense into a final state, the one which maximises the entropy, in the crystal's case. If you examine the actual odds for the crystal forming, they're within the range that some ID propenents (arbitrarily) say indicates "design" - and yet the odds of any other outcome occuring are even more astronomically small. That's why I find the miniscule probability argument kinda moot, personally - yes, it's incredibly unlikely if you crunch the numbers, but given how entropy works (probabilistically) there's no other way things could have occurred.

Also, I have to ask this of everyone who touts a "proof" for God - why exactly do you believe God can be "proved?" Surely if God were empiricially proved that would make it illogical in any belief system to reject God, removing any element of free will and choice, which is of course what God is all about. I believe the only "proof" of God is personal experience, which is fine, but as for scientific - I think a conclusive scientific proof of God will never be found.

 

[Blayz]

I believe life is the product of intelligent design, not random chance.

I believe fundamentalist Christianity should be outlawed. If only beliefs just cam true eh?

Ooh, I forgot to work the word "proof" in there. Oh well, maybe next time.

There are irreconcilable problems with evolution at every discrete stage, from Big Bang to the development of the human brain.

Well there are certainly irreconcilable differences between your warped view of the sciences and any kind of reality. How many times do you people have to be told that these are separate theories? Evolution does not require nor does it rely on any current models of early cosmology or abiogenesis.

In my personal view, the most compelling evidence against evolution is the low probability of the first cell evolving from chance

Hold the press! True Blue has expressed incredulity! quick, reality, conform to his extra-ordinarily limited imagination and cognitive ability!

It’s so damaging that there should be countless articles on the topic and whole research centers devoted to it, and yet there is not. The Institute of Creation Research estimated the probability as 1 / (1*10^4,478,296).

I wouldn't trust the ICR to tie a bow, let alone determine the probability for something that noone claims to understand.

I had to delete most of the rest, I kept throwing up in my mouth as I read it. I'll just say...and yes, I know its pointless, I know it's been said many times before, I'll bet True Blue doesn't even see actual words here, its like just a blank space, but I'll say it any way

abiogenesis =/= evolution

My meager ability to reason

On that we agree.

And finally, even if some kind of miracle occurred and you somehow made sense and refuted evolution, that doesn't make your triple headed hydra god real. It's a false dichotomy no matter how bad your logic.

 

[Psudopod]

I think you need to go away and study polymer chemistry for a start. Long-chain hydrocarbons form very easily in a number of ways. In fact, a study of chemisty, reaction rates and free engergy would be useful for you to understand reactions taking place. Reactions aren't just a matter of luck and random chance - they happen because of the stucture of the compounds involved, and the conditions they are involved in.

You talk about Talk origins adding in fictional precuresers. I'm not an expert in that field but I'm fairly sure replicating polymers exist (DNA and RNA) and protobiots do exist. I think the problem with your maths is you are assuming the formation of the cell by each component making its way to the right place.

 

[Cabal]

As a followup to my previous post:

I'm pretty sure multiplying the probabilities together is not a representative way of describing, say, aminos being formed from primordial chemicals - multiplication of probabilities, iirc, implies that the probability of particle 1 being in location 1 is completely unrelated to the probability of particle n being in location n, which sounds like the odds being described are those of all the required particles "falling into place" through sheer chance (and as any scientist will tell you, most of the things people think arise from sheer chance usually don't, cf. oh, i dunno, ToE)

Whereas if actual chemistry is involved I imagine the odds will start to fall as the probabilities combine in a much more complicated way, as particles in chemical reactions, chemical bonds etc can't be treated as having independent probabilities because they're linked to many other particles.

Also, in what piece of work did Drake set the probability of DNA arising to 100%? I only ask because if it's related to Drake's equation, then that isn't taken particularly seriously by most scientists anyway and is mostly conjecture, see linky below:

http://xkcd.com/384/

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

True Blue wrote

I am not going to comment on everything, but there are a few things worth noting.

I believe life is the product of intelligent design, not random chance.

Why when random change works quite fine for hospital super bugs, or are you saying god is designing these bugs so that they can kill our weak and infirm.

There are irreconcilable problems with evolution at every discrete stage.

Give us the list and we will discuss them one by one.

Big Bang

Since when was the big bang incorporated into the theory of evolution; now you are showing your ignorance. If you are going to discuss evolution, I suggest you learn what it is first.

In my personal view, the most compelling evidence against evolution is the low probability of the first cell evolving from chance (abiogenesis).

Again this is not evolution, if you want to discuss abiogenesis, start a thread and ask the question “what are the chances of abiogenesis occurring in the universe.

Favorable Assumptions

This section on statistics is total nonsense

Take the following

Number of stars in the universe ~5 x 10^22

Number of planets in the universe assuming each star has one ~5 x 10^22

Age of the universe ~ 1.4 x 10^10 years 4.4 X 10^17 seconds

It only takes an instant In time for the right conditions to occur so lets put a figure on it, say 1 X 10^1000 of a second


So the number of chances of life occurring in the universe to this point in time is

5 x 10^22 * 4.4 X10^17 * 1 X 10^1000 = ~2 X 10^1040

Divide this by you calculation for it to have occurred one

2 X 10^1040/1 X 10^150 = ~1 X 10^900 time

Life has started at least 1 X 10^900 times in the universe to date.


Now I do not believe my calculations for a minute, but the same is true of AIGs calculations.

i.e. TOTAL BULLS---

The question you need to ask yourself is. If the simplest life forms cannot be created randomly in our universe, how can a super super deity be created randomly.

Your logic is flawed

If you want to be taken seriously calculate the chances of said deity coming spontaneously into being.

 

[TheManeki]

..the most compelling evidence against evolution is the low probability of the first cell evolving from chance (abiogenesis).

As others have pointed out, evolution does not deal with the origin of life. It deals with speciation. Now that we've gotten that little matter out of the way, let's talk chemistry.

It looks like you're trying to make a purely probabilistic argument in an area where pure probability is not applicable. If chemistry was purely random chance, it would be fairly useless, and I'd be looking for a job in another field. Fortunately, chemistry is far from random.

Why do chemicals react? The simplest answer is that the product of the reaction has greater stability than the individual reactants, and this limits your possibilities -- reactions that generate molecules that are less stable than the starting molecules will not proceed. The second factor that constrains the possibilities is that atoms will only fit together in certain ways to make molecules, much like puzzle pieces will only fit together certain ways. For your back-of-the-envelope calculations to be applicable, they will need to account for these limitations.

 

[Logic_Fault]

I believe life is the product of intelligent design, not random chance.

Good for you. Believe anything you like, just don't expect others to believe it without evidence.

There are irreconcilable problems with evolution at every discrete stage, from Big Bang to the development of the human brain.

And this is where I stop reading...

If you're going to rant and rave about how evolution is wrong you should probably know both what it actually is and what it is not first.

 

[Vene]

I believe life is the product of intelligent design, not random chance.

Natural selection=/=chance Chemical reactions=/=chance

There are irreconcilable problems with evolution at every discrete stage, from Big Bang to the development of the human brain.

That's nice. Too bad that the big bang isn't evolution.

In my personal view, the most compelling evidence against evolution is the low probability of the first cell evolving from chance (abiogenesis).

What is it with creationists and chance? The first cell formed from chemical reactions, chemical reactions are not chance. There's a whole field devoted to understanding these reactions. You may have heard of it, it's called chemistry. Tell me, how much organic chemistry and biochemistry have you studied? Or are you just a layman making an argument from incredulity? I know you run a biotech company (weird, you don't think evolution is valid, but you have no problem making money from people using evolutionary principles), but that doesn't mean you know anything about the science being done.

It’s so damaging that there should be countless articles on the topic and whole research centers devoted to it, and yet there is not. The Institute of Creation Research estimated the probability as 1 / (1*10^4,478,296).

And yet, both in your post and in the link no math was demonstrated. I want to see the equations used. Dembski looks like (from the article) that he is assuming that one reaction is as likely as the other. We know this isn't true. If I mix hydrobromic acid and ethene together I will get bromoethane from it every single time. It won't just do something completely different where I get ethane and bromine gas, even though that reaction can also be a balanced reaction. The properties of the atoms and molecules don't allow this to happen. The same principles are applicable to cell formation; chemistry doesn't just stop working with abiogenesis.

Evolutionists have tried to rebut ICR’s study by making de minimis assumptions without running the resulting numbers. For example, Dr. Frank Drake simply put the probability at 100% and moved on.

Read the xkcd strip.

In this study, I adopt every reasonable assumption an evolutionist could make that I am aware of, and run the model to calculate the probability. My result is that the probability of a single cell evolving under extremely favorable assumptions is less than 1 / (1*10^7500), making evolution impossible under reasonably and unreasonably conceivable circumstances. If there are only three possibilities for the origin of life—chance, aliens, and God, this study removes 2 of the 3 possibilities and proves the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt.

Except for, you know, chemistry. And realizing that chemical reactions ARE NOT CHANCE!

TalkOrigins added fictitious bacteria precursors called "replicating polymers," "hypercycles," and "protobionts" to give more intermediate steps between random and a self-sufficient cell.

Literature on self-replicating polymers (and self-replicating systems).
link
link
link
link
Just because you don't want something to exist, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I have added 15 intermediate steps to make it easier for evolution. Also, the smallest discovered cell (phytoplasma) is comprised of about 33 billion atoms. NASA’s smallest theoretically conceivable exobiological cell would have about 260 million atoms ((6.022E23 atoms/mole) * (1 mole/ 18 grams of H2O) * (1 gram/cm^3) * (.00002 cm)^3 = 267,644,444 H2O molecules per bacteria). To be phenomenally generous, I’ve reduce the number of atoms, or parts, to a mere 50,000. To eliminate the complexity of biochemistry, which is intensely damaging to evolution and results in numbers closer to the ICR figure, I assume “parts of anything,” which could be binary code for sentient software, plasma on the surface of a sun, subatomic particles, etc. rather than atoms, sugars, amino acids, proteins, DNA, etc. I also give each part a 50% chance of creating a favorable reaction each time they interact with each other. In real life, hydrocarbon reactions like to form CO2 and H2O, not long-chain hydrocarbons like sugar, amino acids, and proteins. That’s why evolutionists are so intent on finding evidence for a non-oxygen atmosphere 2 billion years ago, despite evidence that ranges from very sketchy to non-existent. But my 50% favorable reaction assumption resolves this debate, such as it is, in favor of evolution. Another highly favorable assumption is that when the atoms coalesce to form a cell, the cell becomes alive. The reality is not Frankenstein’s monster—life forms don’t become alive by being shocked with electricity. They have an ineffable quality that science does not yet understand, a kind of biological software, but which I disregard in this analysis. Also, chemical catalysts are not alive—we have to keep ourselves in reality rather than coming up with…unusual…definitions of life. Regardless, those precursors themselves would have more than 50,000 parts, and that assumption is given to evolutionists.

Blah, blah, blah, random, blah, blah, blah, probability. Next time, why don't you look into the chemistry of living things. For example, the chemistry that went into this development.
link

What about Aliens?

Not interested, no evidence behind any aliens directing any evolution.

What if God guided evolution?

Not interested, you first need to provide empirical evidence of God's existence.

My meager ability to reason tells me that even a simple shovel couldn't form from random chance--how would such a marvelous bacteria form? I can only give credit to God.

As does your total lack of knowledge about how chemistry works. Please, before starting these kinds of topics look at the actual science being done and not just some ICR or AIG articles (or for that matter, anyplace with a statement of faith).

 

[atomweaver]

In real life, hydrocarbon reactions like to form CO2 and H2O,

False. About the only time you get just CO2 and H20 out of hydrocarbons is when you burn them;

C17H36 + 26O2 → 17CO2 + 18H2O.

not long-chain hydrocarbons like sugar, amino acids, and proteins.

I'm curious as to how you can refer to anything with an abundance of peptide bonds as a "long chain hydrocarbon", and expect that anyone with one semester of college chemistry to believe you actually know what you're talking about.

You'll also want to comment on the self-assembly of billions upon trillions of abiotic peptide bonds each year SOURCE. Apparently, DuPont didn't get the memo on the creationist exercises in statistical nonsense, which disprove the validity of all of their decades of work and billions in profit from polyamide chemistry...

 

[True_Blue]

False. About the only time you get just CO2 and H20 out of hydrocarbons is when you burn them;

C17H36 + 26O2 → 17CO2 + 18H2O.


I'm curious as to how you can refer to anything with an abundance of peptide bonds as a "long chain hydrocarbon", and expect that anyone with one semester of college chemistry to believe you actually know what you're talking about.

You'll also want to comment on the self-assembly of billions upon trillions of abiotic peptide bonds each year SOURCE. Apparently, DuPont didn't get the memo on the creationist exercises in statistical nonsense, which disprove the validity of all of their decades of work and billions in profit from polyamide chemistry...

For one thing, nylon isn't alive. There's a big difference betwen making nylon (by the way, nylon forms from intelligent design, not random chance), and making a living organism. For another thing, this is not an article about biochemistry. But if you can find a place anywhere on earth where H, O, and C and strung together from simple compounds in a natural setting (I'm sorry, Du Pont's human-run lab doesn't count), maybe you'd have a point.

 

[True_Blue]

I don't think this argument works. If you applied the exact same thing to say, atoms in a crystal (let's leave the "life" aspect aside for now, we're still collections of particles), it falls flat. Say you have a crystal of 10^18 atoms, the odds of one atom being in the correct location alone is 1/10^18, never mind when you multiply up all the probabilities for all the other atoms being in their correct spots.

And yet, crystals obviously crystallise, we can observe it. This "order from disorder" arises from maximising the entropy of the system, which is why I think this argument falls flat - if you take the probabilistic approach to entropy, a system HAS TO condense into a final state, the one which maximises the entropy, in the crystal's case. If you examine the actual odds for the crystal forming, they're within the range that some ID propenents (arbitrarily) say indicates "design" - and yet the odds of any other outcome occuring are even more astronomically small. That's why I find the miniscule probability argument kinda moot, personally - yes, it's incredibly unlikely if you crunch the numbers, but given how entropy works (probabilistically) there's no other way things could have occurred.

Also, I have to ask this of everyone who touts a "proof" for God - why exactly do you believe God can be "proved?" Surely if God were empiricially proved that would make it illogical in any belief system to reject God, removing any element of free will and choice, which is of course what God is all about. I believe the only "proof" of God is personal experience, which is fine, but as for scientific - I think a conclusive scientific proof of God will never be found.

Crystals are not alive. Their formation is proof of the underlying elegance of the mathematical system that governs the universe (another proof of God) than a natural manifestation of the extraordinary complexity of life forms. If you pour sand out of a buck onto a flat surface, the sand forms a nice pyramidal shape. The shapeliness of the sand is quite unrelated to the complexity of life. Also, I think you misapprehend the word "order" as applied to crystals. Crystals are not some sort of mystical exception to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. They're pretty to look at, but the arrangement of atoms in crystals is the result of the withdrawal of heat from the system, not the addition of it.

 

[TheManeki]

For one thing, nylon isn't alive.

Neither is a shovel, yet that didn't stop you from mentioning one when you were trying to disprove abiogenesis.

There's a big difference betwen making nylon (by the way, nylon forms from intelligent design, not random chance), and making a living organism.

I'm guessing that the reason that atomweaver mentioned nylon is because it is very similar chemically to the proteins in the body, and both nylon and proteins contain peptide bonds.

For another thing, this is not an article about biochemistry.

But an understanding of biochemistry (or basic chemistry) would have shown you that chemical processes are not random chance, and that compounds can occur naturally without a designer.

 

[True_Blue]

I think you need to go away and study polymer chemistry for a start. Long-chain hydrocarbons form very easily in a number of ways. In fact, a study of chemisty, reaction rates and free engergy would be useful for you to understand reactions taking place. Reactions aren't just a matter of luck and random chance - they happen because of the stucture of the compounds involved, and the conditions they are involved in.

You talk about Talk origins adding in fictional precuresers. I'm not an expert in that field but I'm fairly sure replicating polymers exist (DNA and RNA) and protobiots do exist. I think the problem with your maths is you are assuming the formation of the cell by each component making its way to the right place.

K, the smallest cellular genome has 160k kilobases. Source. 26*160,000 = 4,160,000 atoms. My poor computer can't calculate the probability of such a structure evolving. If we use 160,000 instead, that's still a vastly larger structure than the one used at the beginning of this thread. If that's the smallest unit of "life" as TalkOrigins defines life, it can't form from chance. If one extracts the DNA from a cell and splats it on a petri dish or in some custom-designed broth, it isn't going to duplicate itself. I hope you can see that.

 

[True_Blue]

As a followup to my previous post:

I'm pretty sure multiplying the probabilities together is not a representative way of describing, say, aminos being formed from primordial chemicals - multiplication of probabilities, iirc, implies that the probability of particle 1 being in location 1 is completely unrelated to the probability of particle n being in location n, which sounds like the odds being described are those of all the required particles "falling into place" through sheer chance (and as any scientist will tell you, most of the things people think arise from sheer chance usually don't, cf. oh, i dunno, ToE)

Whereas if actual chemistry is involved I imagine the odds will start to fall as the probabilities combine in a much more complicated way, as particles in chemical reactions, chemical bonds etc can't be treated as having independent probabilities because they're linked to many other particles.

Also, in what piece of work did Drake set the probability of DNA arising to 100%? I only ask because if it's related to Drake's equation, then that isn't taken particularly seriously by most scientists anyway and is mostly conjecture, see linky below:

http://xkcd.com/384/

Chemical reactions are reductionistic--they like to form nice, simple inert gases and solid precipitates. Chemical reactions are mini-explosions. It should be clear that explosions create nothing orderly. In real life, the odds of even a simple sugar (C6H12O6) forming from chance are quite unlikely, perhaps similar to the odds of a hammer or shovel forming from chance.

The TalkOrigins basically did the same thing as Drake. Check out this quote here: "At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two (monomers to polymers p=1.0, formation of catalytic polymers p=1.0). For the replicating polymers to hypercycle transition, the probability may well be 1.0 if Kauffman is right about catalytic closure and his phase transition models, but this requires real chemistry and more detailed modelling to confirm." I consider this a very disingenuous conclusion, and no different than Drake.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Chemical reactions are reductionistic--they like to form nice, simple inert gases and solid precipitates.

That seems a bit of an oversimplification, but you are right in that final products from a spontaneous reaction should, in general, be of a lower energy state than the reactants. But that says nothing about "inert" or "solid precipitates". That's demonstrably wrong.

Chemical reactions are mini-explosions.

Where did you get that idea? There are many reactions that are endothermic in otherwords they take heat in and cool the surroundings. I don't understand what you mean by "mini-explosions".

It should be clear that explosions create nothing orderly.

What? While explosions may generally decrease the ordering, there are many spontaneous chemical and physico-chemical reactions that do cause a localized decrease in entropy (as long as the entire system increases in entropy). In other words a reaction can have a delta S < 0 and still be spontaneous. (Just look at crystallization. Or do you own a freezer that requires the active input of God to get the water to crystallize into ice? I've bought from that manufacturer, but I forgot the pray.)

In real life, the odds of even a simple sugar (C6H12O6) forming from chance are quite unlikely, perhaps similar to the odds of a hammer or shovel forming from chance.

I think you are drawing massively erroneous conclusions based on faulty understanding (or incomplete at best) chemistry.

So are you saying that all chemical reactions are at the behest of God? Or just the ones that lead to self-replicating organic systems?

 

[TeddyKGB]

Chemical reactions are reductionistic--they like to form nice, simple inert gases and solid precipitates. Chemical reactions are mini-explosions. It should be clear that explosions create nothing orderly.

It is almost beyond belief that you have such a child-like grasp of both chemistry and terminology and yet purport to lecture degreed professionals about these matters.

In real life, the odds of even a simple sugar (C6H12O6) forming from chance are quite unlikely, perhaps similar to the odds of a hammer or shovel forming from chance.

The spontaneous formation of glucose is in no way relevant to the emergence of life.

 

[atomweaver]

For one thing, nylon isn't alive.

A peptide bond is a peptide bond is a peptide bond. There are conditions under which peptide bonds form. If the conditions are met, the bond is formed. If the conditions aren't met, the bond doesn't form. Given this fundamental fact of polymerization, how do you justify assigning a 50% chance for any particular arrangement of 'parts', and choose to ignore reaction conditions altogether?

There's a big difference betwen making nylon (by the way, nylon forms from intelligent design, not random chance)

It forms from neither. If the reaction conditions for the formation of nylon are met, then it forms, with or without the intervention of an intelligent entity.

, and making a living organism.

Good! If you know that, then you are a step towards realizing why your statistical exercise is nonsense...

For another thing, this is not an article about biochemistry.

Actually, it is about biochemistry, or more specifically about how your statistical ass-u-m(e)-ptions are a rather poor substitute for an understanding of actual chemistry...

But if you can find a place anywhere on earth where H, O, and C and strung together from simple compounds in a natural setting

Sorry, your request doesn't reflect reality. If we're talking about abiogenesis, that series of reactions occurred in a sterile (life-free) environment. Find me one of those on Earth, and then we'll start looking for natural abiotic polymers...

(I'm sorry, Du Pont's human-run lab doesn't count), maybe you'd have a point.

ever hear of Buckminsterfullerene?

Given 60 carbon atoms, the odds of forming buckminsterfullerene by the criteria of your "exercises in statistical nonsense" methodology is 1 in 60!, or 1 in 8.3 x10^81, and yet every gram of soot on the planet has buckminsterfullerene in it! Gee whiz, what're the odds*?





* actually, the odds are 1 in 1, because the products of chemical reactions are a consequence of the conditions of reaction, not the statistical odds derived from all possible combinations of atoms...

 

[True_Blue]

True Blue wrote

I am not going to comment on everything, but there are a few things worth noting.

I believe life is the product of intelligent design, not random chance.

Why when random change works quite fine for hospital super bugs, or are you saying god is designing these bugs so that they can kill our weak and infirm.

There are irreconcilable problems with evolution at every discrete stage.

Give us the list and we will discuss them one by one.

Big Bang

Since when was the big bang incorporated into the theory of evolution; now you are showing your ignorance. If you are going to discuss evolution, I suggest you learn what it is first.

In my personal view, the most compelling evidence against evolution is the low probability of the first cell evolving from chance (abiogenesis).

Again this is not evolution, if you want to discuss abiogenesis, start a thread and ask the question &#8220;what are the chances of abiogenesis occurring in the universe.

Favorable Assumptions

This section on statistics is total nonsense

Take the following

Number of stars in the universe ~5 x 10^22

Number of planets in the universe assuming each star has one ~5 x 10^22

Age of the universe ~ 1.4 x 10^10 years 4.4 X 10^17 seconds

It only takes an instant In time for the right conditions to occur so lets put a figure on it, say 1 X 10^1000 of a second


So the number of chances of life occurring in the universe to this point in time is

5 x 10^22 * 4.4 X10^17 * 1 X 10^1000 = ~2 X 10^1040

Divide this by you calculation for it to have occurred one

2 X 10^1040/1 X 10^150 = ~1 X 10^900 time

Life has started at least 1 X 10^900 times in the universe to date.


Now I do not believe my calculations for a minute, but the same is true of AIGs calculations.

i.e. TOTAL BULLS---

The question you need to ask yourself is. If the simplest life forms cannot be created randomly in our universe, how can a super super deity be created randomly.

Your logic is flawed

If you want to be taken seriously calculate the chances of said deity coming spontaneously into being.

When you talk about God killing the weak and the infirm, you make a valid argument. In their heart-of-hearts, I don&#8217;t believe people doubt God exists. Rather, they question whether He&#8217;s a good God, and they question whether He has our best interests in mind.

I know you and I both know that your calculation is tongue-in-cheek, but lest anyone take it seriously, the key number in your question is setting the number of instances per second to 10^1000. Not a reasonable assumption. Your numbers are the functional equivalent of setting P=1. That&#8217;s Drake and TalkOrigins did, and that isn&#8217;t accurate.

 

[TheManeki]

Chemical reactions are reductionistic--they like to form nice, simple inert gases and solid precipitates.

Incorrect. Gases other than the noble gases undergo reactions, making them far from inert (and under the right conditions, the noble gases have been observed to react). Similarly, reaction products do not always form solid precipitates.

Chemical reactions are mini-explosions. It should be clear that explosions create nothing orderly.

Incorrect. Chemical reactions occur all the time, creating new orderly molecules like nylon and DNA.

In real life, the odds of even a simple sugar (C6H12O6) forming from chance are quite unlikely, perhaps similar to the odds of a hammer or shovel forming from chance.

Chemical reactions do not occur by chance. Positing that the only alternative is divine intervention is a false dilemma.