Probability of Life Arising Calculations

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:

---

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?

---

Actually you are right, Mike is actually pretty fair minded. He might admit defeat.As to non-DNA based lifeforms, this would show that probabilities for the first life based on current, terrestrial DNA based lifeforms is not accurate. That is, any probability for abiogenesis must include all possible routes leading to life, DNA and non-DNA pathways. If creationists did not predict that non-DNA could exist, then their probabilities are wrong. We must know every single, possible pathway and every single, possible place in the Universe that life could have arose by one of those pathways before we can make a single probability dealing with the abiogenic origin of life. However, showing that life COULD arise in an early earth environment goes a long way towards falsifying creationist claims.

See the post above. You are right, you would admit defeat and you do know about natural selection. It's Monday, I get a little cranky early in the week.

quote:

---

Remember - my argument isn't against evolution of life on earth in this thread - I just think it's improbable that abiogenesis is the way it came about is all.

---

To calculate the probabilities you have to know the possible pathways that could have resulted in life through abiogenesis. Right now, we have no idea what those requirements are. Anyone claiming to know any probabilities governing abiogenesis are shooting in the dark and are making claims because of either personal incredulity or religious needs.

quote:

---

Because it seems that these figures show that life is unlikely.

---

What replicator were these figures based on? Was it a DNA, RNA, protein/RNA, protein/DNA, or another type of replicator? What possible replicators did they do for an early Mars environment, or for Europa? What types of replicator pathways did they list for unknown environments on planets that we will never discover?In other words, show the math and what they are basing their probabilities on.

quote:

---

Consider conditions alone - Gas giants - too big, in the wrong place, the habitable zone etc.. The sun being right.

---

These are all requirements for life as it is found on earth, not life in any form. Also, you must calculate all possible planets in the universe that have an earth like environment. To my knowledge, no one is able to accurately calculate this number. There could be millions of earth like planets in the universe.I stress this point because of the following argument. If the odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 50 million, then shouldn't it take 50 million drawings till we get a winner? If only one person were playing, this would be true. If there are 100 million people playing then it will only take one drawing. Your argument claims that no one else is playing and that the odds are too high when in fact we don't even understand the rules of the abiogenesis lottery.

quote:

---

But we only have life on earth - Saying life could adjust elsewhere because it happens on earth --> Is that valid? It's still surviving - on earth.

---

It is more valid than claiming "There is life on Earth, therefore it can't exist anywhere else". Also, as I said earlier (and you seemed to agree) natural selection would mold life so that it adapts to Earth. The Earth does not adapt to life.

quote:

---

Life is only on earth, I suppose I could also say "porridge is only on my plate" -- erm, am I refuting myself here?

---

I think you are finally seeing the weakness of the "no life anywhere but Earth" argument.

quote:

---

Good point - but I heard them argue on the program Reasons to believe -- that Mars was just too uninhabitable, and Europa? If it's DNA - you'll know my answer - if it's not, my ass is kicked!

---

Again, you are being earth-centric. Mars is too uninhabitable for organisms that LIVE ON EARTH. Life could have thrived on Mars millions of years ago when Mars was more habitable. We are even finding evidence that water may have existed on Mars at some point.

quote:

---

Ofcourse - we can only deal with what can be dealt with - and planets that we have discovered are the only ones available - and so far - all planets inidicate hostile turbulent solar systems - big numbers are given to justify the possibility of an "earth-like" planet, but we haven't found one. Nevertheless, I only find good porridge at my house - but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist at yours - so I'm keeping "insane creo mike" in check.

---

Just when I was ready to label you a "crackpot creationist" you have to go and write this. Foiled again. I see this as the same argument that agnostics/christians and atheists have. Agnostics say that we may never know if God exists, and an atheist claims that they have never seen proof so no proof exists. We do not have evidence that life exists elsewhere, but this is due to our lack of knowledge and a lack of investigation.