Probability of Life Arising Calculations

(edited # 1)
A number of people make the claim that life could not have arisen by chance because the probability of it is too low. It is taken as being so low that even with a few hundred million years and a large fraction of the Earth to work with it still remains a highly unlikely event.
Here re example of a couple of statments made by someone who thinks that is the case:Mike the Wiz writes:It's basically a big big number, - since there was no pre-biotic evidence or pre-biotic conditions anyway - abiogenesis is now a no-go, they try and look to Mars - but that's unlikely even with science, because the atmosphere was too dry - no water could exist long enough - so now they look to Europa, and invoke multiple-universe theories.andMike writes:
The fact is that Math says that the probability of life coming about by chance is highly improbableMessage 185 (Thread Who can be saved? A Christian perspective in Forum Faith and Belief)This is the thread where Mike will show the calculations of this probability. Or perhaps others will want to jump in.I will kick the thread off by giving what I think is the actual, defensible answer to the question:There are too many unknowns to calculate a meaningful probability of life arising on Earth through natural means.There are many other tacks to take while discussing this topic and I think they are all fair:
1)Earth is only one of many worlds. It is highly improbable but there were a few billion worlds to try on.
2)Chemists interested in the topic already understand that a fully modern bacteria could not be the first life form partially because of the probability argument.
3)We don't know how many different paths to complex life are possible. Without that we can't calculate the probability of any one arising.(Whole topic restarted to get Author right)

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Okay - I can give a short but not full response now but more input might be added later.I admitt that I didn't intend this topic to happen - but people have jumped on mike as usual - because he has the truth of Christ. You see - there is no actual evidence of pre-biotic conditions on earth which could make this primordial soup - I'm afraid it really does only exist in bad restaurants.And so - it seems with the bombardment of early earth through meteor activity - the time gap for life was just too short - life simply couldn't arise in the time gap required for this primordial soup..Nor is there evidence for the speculations of chemical evolution. More highly recommended reading concerning this is in those links Kendemyer provided. Excellent read!Not that I am closed-minded to the possibilities of abiogenesis - I just think it highly improbable. But the problem is Ned - that various gas giants tear worlds apart, orbital inclinations have to be correct - Jupiter is perfect as a shield - but the fact is that scientists are finding it more and more unlikely that there is life elsewhere. Probability of lifeFurthermore - to completely ignore the supernatural implications of life is to be unfair to yourself.even if possible evolution happened - it seems and looks like design is here in this solar system, and that the God of the bible is the only God, and none else beside him.

Mike. The site you list to simply takes a whole list of probablities that don't show their work, and multiplies them.If you go this route, you've made your job much, much harder. For instance, let's start at the top.local abundance and distribution of dark matter: 0.1How did they reach this conclusion? Feel free to continue down the list when you're finished with this one.I might also add that they seem to be taking the odds of life developing on Earth, and then applying it to life developing anywhere in the Universe.For instance, if life began off somewhere in the gamma quadrant (or what have you), then what would the mass of Neptune have to do with it?

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

Hugh Ross - that fair and balanced figure - no axe to grind there....There is a detailed rebuttal of that somewhere - let me see if I can find it in the jungled labed "c-drive".

quote:

---

Mike wrote:

​

link writes:

​

Thus, less than 1 chance in 10215 (one hundred billion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such planet would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.

---

Mike, I'm a creationist and I still don't buy into the probability calculation given in that link. I'm sorry to say, but creationists who buy into such argument without giving it much thought is what's wrong with the creationist side.Let us look at the table that was given. Here is a part of the table:Probability that feature will
Fall in the required range
for physical lifelocal abundance and distribution of dark matter
0.1relative abundances of different exotic mass particles
0.01decay rates of different exotic mass particles
0.05density of quasars
0.1For believers of this calculation of the probability, can you tell me where the individual probabilities came from? Where did Hugh Ross come up with these numbers?The simple truth is that creationists such as Hugh Ross just fabricate numbers and arguments for the sole purpose of bringing in followers who don't question anything that agrees with their preconcieved beliefs.

quote:

---

NosyNed wrote:

​

A number of people make the claim that life could not have arisen by chance because the probability of it is too low. It is taken as being so low that even with a few hundred million years and a large fraction of the Earth to work with it still remains a highly unlikely event.

---

I don't know if this will satisfy the issue. Although I am fully aware that common sense is not the best thing to use when we are talking about such complicated matters, I'd have to say that the answer to this fine-tuning issue is derived from common sense.Before we go on, we need to consider that all life as we know it we know from observing the life that already exist on this planet. In other words, we must exclude the claim that "the universe is fine-tuned for *all* life." We can only make the claim that "Earth is fine-tuned for life as we know it." Now, whether life is fine-tuned for this planet or this planet is fine-tuned for life on it is a messy issue, one that I am still trying put my fingers on.So, using common sense alone, it would appear that the coincidence is very unlikely simply because of the following:(1) Earth's distance from the Sun is almost perfect for the conditions for life as we know it. The part of the solar system hospitable for life, sometimes referred to as the habitable zone, starts from just outside of Venus's orbit to just inside of Mars's. Although this is a wide margin, in astronomical terms it is not so wide. If indeed the solar system started out as a rotating disk of gas and dust, it would appear that it is an amazing coincidence that a planet is formed just inside this habitable zone.(2) Through our observations of other stars, it is very likely that the Sun could have been slightly brighter or slightly less bright. Slightly brighter Sun would mean a much higher energy radiation on Earth. Global climate would not be the same as we know it and we'd be seeing a lot less habitable places on Earth. Slightly less bright Sun would have a major impact on world vegetation because of the differences in photosynthetic responses in plants. Again, this is purely common sense and it means little with regard to science.

Earth's distance from the Sun is almost perfect for the conditions for life as we know it.And we know this because we are here!

Charles, I understand that the only reason we know this is because we are here. Later on in my previous post, I said that I wasn't entirely sure if life *as we know it* is fine-tuned for this planet or this planet is fine-tuned for *life as we know it*. I also tried to make it clear that fine-tuning is not an argument I would use simply because it is entirely based on common sense.I've been lurking around here for some time and started to get tired at creationists making obvious bogus arguments (You are hurting our side, damn it!). A simple quick thought on the matter would have revealed that there is no basis for the fine-tuning argument. It is like saying "my house is fine-tuned for my family... therefore there must have been a creator of the house who made the house specifically for my family." This argument would work if we didn't buy the house from another owner and if we haven't been living there for many years now. So, I'd say that it was us that actually got used to our home and started thinking that it was perfect for us.By the way Charles, mind if you calm down a little? I've read some of your posts before and you tend to come off particularly aggressive.

In case anybody was curious, this is what it looks like when someone abandons evidentiary argumentation and instead substitutes their own prejudices.Before you start basing arguments on so-called "common sense", maybe you should stop and think about where common sense comes from, and why things that seem so "commonsensical" to you might seem outright wrong or dumb to another, like this: Now, see, here's where my common sense wonders why you have a problem with this. When you see one thing that is malleable - life - and another that is not - the laws of physics, etc - it shouldn't be messy in the least to determine which shaped the other.The cup shapes the water; the water does not shape the cup. Like I said, its common sense to me, but then, I don't go around substuting "common sense" for rigorous argumentation, like you seem to do. It's .8 AU wide - 8/10's as wide as the distance from the Earth to the Sun. And you think it's unlikely that a planet would form somewhere within that distance?Just to put in in perspective, there's two whole planets within .8 AU of the Sun.So, surprise. Since life on Earth was shaped by the conditions it found itself in, if those conditions had been different, it turns out that life would wind up being shaped differently.What a truly shocking revelation. You might be interested to know that if you pour water from a cup of one shape into a cup of another, the water changes shape. Wow!I'm sorry, was that sarcastic? My bad.AbE: Ok, now I see that that actually was my bad - no sarcasm this time. I see that I misinterpreted the tone of your post. I do apologize.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-18-2004 04:02 PM

I will try and be fair and even - how's that? ;-)This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 10-18-2004 04:00 PM

The intention here is to discuss the probability of life arising given the conditions on Earth, both past and present.If we wander off into the fine tuning of the universe we will end up all over the map (universe actually ).(there is a suggestion for another topic though -- the fine tuning question has been discussed before, you could go there or open another one). Life and Fine-tuning of the universe.

Sorry Ned, I was under the impression that fine-tuning is part of the issue. Mike's link included some things like "local abundance and distribution of dark matter" and "relative abundances of different exotic mass particles" which implied on the topic of fine-tuning. I'll be more careful next time.

quote:

---

Crashfrog wrote:

​

Before you start basing arguments on so-called "common sense", maybe you should stop and think about where common sense comes from, and why things that seem so "commonsensical" to you might seem outright wrong or dumb to another, like this:

---

Well, I tried to say many times already that common sense is a bad thing to use in an argument like this. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough with my intention in that post. I was trying to point out that the only way you can make the argument for fine-tuning or the probability of life arising on Earth through abiogenesis is if you use common sense.I believe I wrote earlier that "I also tried to make it clear that fine-tuning is not an argument I would use simply because it is entirely based on common sense."To be more blunt, common sense stinks.ABE:

quote:

---

Crashfrog wrote

​

AbE: Ok, now I see that that actually was my bad - no sarcasm this time. I see that I misinterpreted the tone of your post. I do apologize.

---

Oh, never mind then. Didn't see that you double checked my post. I must admit that I laughed when I read "What a truly shocking revelation. You might be interested to know that if you pour water from a cup of one shape into a cup of another, the water changes shape. Wow!" I think I'm going to use this one on some people I know from now on.By the way, I kinda feel stupid because it took me a while to figure out what "Abe' was. Learning new things all the time This message has been edited by GoodIntentions, 10-18-2004 04:28 PM

quote:

---

You see - there is no actual evidence of pre-biotic conditions on earth which could make this primordial soup - I'm afraid it really does only exist in bad restaurants.

---

We don't even know what the recipe is for the "soup" so how can you say it didn't exist? What about deep earth pockets heated by water and fueled by methane? Bacteria can be found in these environments now, breaking down methane for energy. I am sorry, but your statement lacks any credibility whatsoever.

quote:

---

And so - it seems with the bombardment of early earth through meteor activity - the time gap for life was just too short - life simply couldn't arise in the time gap required for this primordial soup..Nor is there evidence for the speculations of chemical evolution. More highly recommended reading concerning this is in those links Kendemyer provided. Excellent read!

---

Again, what was the first replicator, and why didn't the replicators environment exist?I was watching a Nova special recently. One piece of evidence for abiogenesis is that meteors contain amino acids. On impact, the pressures and heat created makes the amino acids form into long peptides, or proteins. Meteors might have caused life, not destroyed it.

quote:

---

But the problem is Ned - that various gas giants tear worlds apart, orbital inclinations have to be correct - Jupiter is perfect as a shield - but the fact is that scientists are finding it more and more unlikely that there is life elsewhere.

---

Why don't you ask the dinosaurs how "perfect" Jupiter is? The meteor that ended the dinosaurs was 6 miles in diameter. For the millisecond that the meteor rested on the earth it was the tallest mountain on Earth. Jupiter isn't perfect, although it is pretty effective. Also, large meteor impacts do not prevent life from occuring. Complex, mutlicellular life, maybe, but not life itself.

quote:

---

even if possible evolution happened - it seems and looks like design is here in this solar system, and that the God of the bible is the only God, and none else beside him.

---

This is such a poor argument, Mike. Is water designed to perfectly fit the lake bottom? Is a river designed to always flow downhill? Life is perfect for this planet because life that wasn't perfect for this planet was outcompeted and died off. It is called natural selection.If we find life on Europa, and this life is non-DNA based, will you admit defeat? If we find evidence for other earth like planets in the Milky Way, will you admit defeat? Me thinks not.

quote:

---

If we find life on Europa, and this life is non-DNA based, will you admit defeat?

---

Mike might admit defeat, but I see no reason why creationists should. In fact, why should finding non-DNA based lifeforms be any problem for creationism?

Uhh....Mike? The Late Heavy Bombardment was about 3.85 billion years ago, and the first really promising signs of life about 3.5 billion. Do you really think 350,000,000 years isn't A Long Time? Dinosaurs were far, far in the future that many years ago. And more evidence rolls in all the time as to ways you can go from soup to life - just this last week I read a paper about how carbonyl sulfide, a common gas from volcanos, causes amino acids to link up to form peptides - in water solution, yet. Stick some of that stuff to clay near a subsea vent, and pretty soon you'll have proteins. Oh? The same scientists that are discovering extrasolar planets in droves and finding new mechanisms like the one I just mentioned, or different scientists?