Abiogenisis by the Numbers

And then one last thing:See: Some Like It HotBut First Life Did Not
By Fazale R. Rana again at reasons.org/resources Remaining incredibly lengthy content of post deleted. Please provide a link. --AdminThis message has been edited by Admin, 11-17-2004 11:26 AMThis message has been edited by dshortt, 11-17-2004 12:04 PM

Please see messages 164, 165 and 166. Thanks.

Please see messages 164, 165 and 166. Thanks.

Also, see reasons.org/resourcesProbability for a Life Support Body
by Hugh RossApril, 2004Probability Estimate for Attaining the Necessary Characteristics for a Life Support Body Remaining incredibly lengthy content of post deleted. Please provide a link. --AdminThis message has been edited by Admin, 11-17-2004 11:26 AMThis message has been edited by dshortt, 11-17-2004 12:05 PM

And also,Fine-Tuning of Solar System Design for Life
by Hugh RossReasons To Believe, Updated June, 2004 Remaining incredibly lengthy content of post deleted. Please provide a link. --AdminThis message has been edited by Admin, 11-17-2004 11:24 AM

All of that is off topic here. Fine tuning is not the topic.In addition, do not make large copy and pastes like that again. Make a link to reference it and pick the more relevant parts that you'd like to high light. Then discuss how they are useful in the discussion at hand.

Sorry, I was replying to Pink Sasquatch when he ask me about the 150 criteria and who came up with them in an earlier post. My contention is that these criteria are necessary predecessors to any discussion of abiogenisis; in other words the conditions are what set up any possibility of abiogenesis and wouldn't we have to include the odds of that set of circumstances into the calculations. I will refrain from including long articles in the future. Thanks

Dayum! I sure hope that ol' Fuz was getting paid by the hour to compile all that crud!

I am not signing off this or any thread here at evc.Percy extracted,

quote:

---

"Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects

---

which has made the "engineering problem" that I at least can identify to Shrodinger's term "mental copy" as to STATISTICAL MECHANICS, thanks in part to your contribution here, larger than I or Loudmouth can apprehend at the present time. I speak approvingly of LM in that last sentence! We have made *some* progress in this thread, as it is not necessary to concieve any space for any time but just that information needed to create probabilites of life ON EARTH evolving OFF Earth. If we discover Life ON MARS, this makes all these speculations even more particularly difficult but as I at least will attempt to use ONLY CLASSICAL ENTROPY in the sense that Maxwell INSISTED BE TAUGHT, I think there is some reason to believe this is possible. What little I have read on Ross as to light etc, I have been MORE SKEPTICAL OF than $anythiing^ out of ICR. Just to let you know.Gladyshev is wont to stress that his work uses bioloigcal information as to classical entropy NOT to Progogine temperature incorporated layering nor Shannon measures BUT the calculation CAN be approached IN TERMS OF SHANNON defs within the INTERVALS of hierarchic thermodynamics
http://www.worldscinet.com/...18/1806/S0217979204023970.html
provided these would be THEN found embeded in a larger variation of the effect of entropy on THE COMMUNICATION of the same.This is not a trivial undertaking. I still dont have a noodle all the way around..
http://www.endeav.org/evolut/age/dem/dem.htm
but I am confident that I can use Shrodinger's BOOK
STATISTICAL
http://www.amazon.com/...il/-/0486661016/102-5696429-9052104
MECHANICS to find the crack in the Shannon scoped evaluations.Loudmouth seems to think that all of this is unnecssary but I know that it is needed to show in what ways THE CROIZAT METHOD is criticizable qualitatively in substantive (bettering its methodology) ways. LM may be satisfied with current biological neontology. I am not.The clue is to NOT USE any kind of elemental/funamental/pricipaled units but ONLY THOSE both withIN macrokinetics & having a probablity attached to some subset of DNA,RNA,proteinexpression apparatus within a panbiogeoraphic track. I just saw a note in SCIENCE MAGAZINE describing ribosomes and "entropy traps" so it is just a bit much to do all of this in one post. Whether or not any results I could come up with will match you ostensive "criteria", I have no idea. But if my approach will not permit any sociological information to be part of it unless the divide and rule is ALREADY found reductionnistically. Part of the justification to proceed where LM would rather not see the degrees of magnitude traversed come from some distillation of the counter view to the calc I am going to try from Wolfram but no matter the criteria difference equivalent sophistication MUST apply even if the criterial difference between us might amount to different realities of universal computational reducibility. That of course assumes what LM justly asserts does not exist. It doesnt exist for me as of yet either.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-17-2004 12:31 PM

Sure if you spread the different combos out on all the planets capable for life, it would increase your odds, but then you have the one to a trillion trillion odds that each planet would try different combos. The odds of getting the right combo are still extreamly high.

You are obviously way out of my league and speak way over my head. But I would like to know, if you get the chance, the basis of your sketicism towards Dr. Ross. He of all the scientific based creationists makes the most sense to me and stays current with advances in knowledge on many fronts.

quote:

---

Sure if you spread the different combos out on all the planets capable for life, it would increase your odds, but then you have the one to a trillion trillion odds that each planet would try different combos. The odds of getting the right combo are still extreamly high.

---

I don't think you are getting what I am saying. Let me reword this a bit, using a lottery analogy.Let's say the odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 50 million. So, 10 million people buy 5 tickets each. There is a pretty good chance that one of those 10 million people will win. Agreed?This is comparable to the situation I have laid out for the emergence of life on one planet in the universe. Relating to the lottery example, each planet is a lottery player. The 5 tickets equate to 5 combinations of amino acids. The "winner" is the planet that hits the winning "combination" of amino acids that result in the first life.The extremely high odds of getting the correct combination of amino acids or nucleotides is spread over billions of planets. Just like in the lottery, it is total chance that life emerged on Earth just as it is total chance that a certain player won the lottery. However, given that the odds are spread over millions or even billions of players, the probability of a winner is almost guaranteed.

quote:

---

The clue is to NOT USE any kind of elemental/funamental/pricipaled units but ONLY THOSE both withIN macrokinetics & having a probablity attached to some subset of DNA,RNA,proteinexpression apparatus within a panbiogeoraphic track.

---

How does panbiogeography, a term linked to the diversification of life, have to do with abiogenesis?

I'm guessing this is your 150 criteria? It is just a list - what is it based upon?How did Hugh come up values for "number, intensity, and location of hurricanes", "quantity of forest & grass fires", and "mass of Neptune" that are life permitting? How did he figure out that the probability of Neptune being a life-permitting mass (for life on Earth) as 0.1?More importantly, what do hurrricanes, flora fires, and Neptune have to do with the initial formation of life? Nothing.These are criteria that permit existing life to continue living (though I'm still not clear what Neptune has to do with life on Earth).Hugh's conclusion is that only divine intervention could have produced a planet that is compatible with life as we know it. He is ignoring the fact that the planet was the selective force acting during evolution. That is, the planet wasn't created to be compatible for life, life evolved to be compatible with the planet. This is the prediction of evolution.The very concept behind those 150 criteria is incorrect, they are "probability of the Earth being exactly like the Earth" calculations. Do you know what the real probability of the Earth being exactly like the Earth is?100%And I can tell you that without making up a bunch of probabilities regarding such things as the "mass distribution of Kuiper Belt asteroids".

quote:

---

... Dr. Ross. He of all the scientific based creationists makes the most sense to me and stays current with advances in knowledge on many fronts.

---

Dr. Ross is an intelligent man who is extremely knowledgable about astrophysics, astronomy, and related fields.He is making a genuine effort to produce a scientific theory of the universe. He is, of course, an Old Earth creationist; no astrophysicists can believe in a young Universe - they know too much!Alas, he is not knowledgable about biology, the theory of evolution, and related fields. What he writes about such things it is, sad to say, hooey and completely untrustworthy.Young Earth Creationists loathe him.See Review of The Genesis Question, By Hugh Ross ... you might also want to read About the Author.