Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Probability of Life Arising Calculations
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 16 of 40 (150861)
10-18-2004 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Loudmouth
10-18-2004 5:14 PM


Speculations about "possible" pre-biotic conditions isn't evidence though - it's speculation. Surely abiogenesis is based on speculation.
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.
I might admitt defeat actually - because if it is DNA based then it will have been from earth. So - infact you recommend a good falsification of Hugh's supernatural indications.
But Loudmouth - You know I would accept defeat, do you cut me to the quick?
And I also know about natural selection - cos you told me about it.
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.
I think it's fair to say that I backed up my assertion Dan - I provided what you wanted - and I don't even intend to go through it, as it was requested by you - not me.
Listen - this is your party - I was happy to stay in my cage in the faith and belief section.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-18-2004 04:27 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Loudmouth, posted 10-18-2004 5:14 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Dan Carroll, posted 10-18-2004 5:37 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 19 by Loudmouth, posted 10-18-2004 5:38 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 40 (150864)
10-18-2004 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by GoodIntentions
10-18-2004 5:20 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by GoodIntentions, posted 10-18-2004 5:20 PM GoodIntentions has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 40 (150865)
10-18-2004 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by mike the wiz
10-18-2004 5:26 PM


I think it's fair to say that I backed up my assertion Dan - I provided what you wanted
I'm sorry, Mike. I should have made clear that when I asked you to show your math, I meant all of it. Not just the last step.
Next time, I'll be sure to explain to you what a sixth-grader taking an algebra test already knows.
I don't even intend to go through it
What an astounding surprise.
Listen - this is your party - I was happy to stay in my cage in the faith and belief section.
If you intend to keep using the argument over in the faith and belief section, then it's most certainly your party as well.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by mike the wiz, posted 10-18-2004 5:26 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 10-18-2004 6:05 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 40 (150867)
10-18-2004 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by mike the wiz
10-18-2004 5:26 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by mike the wiz, posted 10-18-2004 5:26 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 20 of 40 (150870)
10-18-2004 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by GoodIntentions
10-18-2004 5:14 PM


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
No reason for you to feel stupid. It's my own nomenclature, not any kind of commonly-used abbreviation here. Most people append "added by edit" when they add substantial, post-changing remarks; I'm just too lazy to type it out.
To be more blunt, common sense stinks.
You're quite right, and it was my own carelessness that caused me to miss that point in your post. I do hope you'll excuse my bombastic reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by GoodIntentions, posted 10-18-2004 5:14 PM GoodIntentions has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 21 of 40 (150872)
10-18-2004 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by GoodIntentions
10-18-2004 5:20 PM


In fact, why should finding non-DNA based lifeforms be any problem for creationism?
Because they're not in the Bible?
When you say "creationists", to whom are you referring? Maybe the better question is, to whom are you not referring? People who believe that evolution is the most accurate scientific description of the history of life on Earth? Or do you just mean to exclude people who have no belief in God?
You seem fairly open- and science-minded, which leads me to believe you're either identifying as creationist by mistake (or by a definition much more general than that employed around here) or are that rarest of breeds; a creationist who actually understands the theory he opposes. That should be interesting; we've been waiting for someone like you for a while.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by GoodIntentions, posted 10-18-2004 5:20 PM GoodIntentions has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by coffee_addict, posted 10-18-2004 6:29 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 22 of 40 (150880)
10-18-2004 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Dan Carroll
10-18-2004 5:37 PM


Okay - I'll respond to less of a chance (tht's Dan in english money) - as I didn't respond to his previous post. And you other naughty confused evo-babas will have to wait.
I'm sorry, Mike. I should have made clear that when I asked you to show your math, I meant all of it. Not just the last step.
But Dan - it took me ages to find that link, and the recommended figures are most rigorously scrutinised in order of fair play. (LOL)
Anyway - I still say that life arose supernaturally - as the evidence indicates, whereas surely there is no real abiogenesis evidence. If you r reasonable Dan - surely you consider a supernatural creator as creating life - through creation, and then making it possibly evolve. How open are you to that possibility?
Because it seems that these figures show that life is unlikely.
Consider conditions alone - Gas giants - too big, in the wrong place, the habitable zone etc.. The sun being right.
It's all good and well saying that life can adapt without showing it could in very inhospitable conditions.
If you intend to keep using the argument over in the faith and belief section, then it's most certainly your party as well.
I don't know - having been forced over here by you and Ned - I think it's not my party - remember Amhodli and Shraff didn't even back their assertions up - but mikey came over here and had to put up - despite shutting up in the other thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Dan Carroll, posted 10-18-2004 5:37 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Dan Carroll, posted 10-18-2004 6:27 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 28 by Loudmouth, posted 10-18-2004 6:38 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 23 of 40 (150882)
10-18-2004 6:17 PM


link writes:
Evidence for the fine-tuning of the universe
strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable
if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen
weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in big bang, hence too much heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
if smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence too little heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn up quickly and unevenly|
if smaller: stars would be so cool that nuclear fusion would not ignite, thus no heavy element production
electromagnetic force constant
if larger: insufficient chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding
ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short and uneven stellar burning
if smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production
I digged this up from Hugh Ross's site.

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by NosyNed, posted 10-18-2004 6:35 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 24 of 40 (150884)
10-18-2004 6:21 PM


A note from A Moose
I haven't studies the entire thread, but my instincts tell me it's already fragmenting into a lot of subtopics and/or offtopics. I may be wrong.
Take it easy. Think quality messages, not just a lot of messages.
Remember the topic title: Probability of Life Arising Calculations. All messages should have some connection to that theme.
As moderation messages are inherently off-topic, any replies to this message should be posted to the "Changes in Moderation?" topic. Supply a link back here, if you do reply.
Adminnemooseus
Note: "Theme" has become my new favored cliche term, replacing "realm".

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests
or
Considerations of topic promotions from the Proposed New Topics forum

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 40 (150885)
10-18-2004 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by mike the wiz
10-18-2004 6:05 PM


If you r reasonable Dan - surely you consider a supernatural creator as creating life - through creation, and then making it possibly evolve. How open are you to that possibility?
As soon as you can tell me what this creator is, and how it went about creating life, I'm more than open to considering it.
But as long as you're saying "I dunno", then why should I bother considering it?
Because it seems that these figures show that life is unlikely.
Without the work being shown, these figures are just pulled out of some guy's ass.
It's like me saying, "Math shows that there is no God. You see, the probability of there being no God is 1. Honest."
It's all good and well saying that life can adapt without showing it could in very inhospitable conditions.
The desert is inhospitable to humans. Life still exists there. It even thrives there.
remember Amhodli and Shraff didn't even back their assertions up
So go ahead and ask them to back their assertions up. I think they should... if someone asks them to do so.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 10-18-2004 6:05 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 26 of 40 (150886)
10-18-2004 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by crashfrog
10-18-2004 5:48 PM


the frog writes:
You seem fairly open- and science-minded, which leads me to believe you're either identifying as creationist by mistake (or by a definition much more general than that employed around here)
Nah, based on what he wrote in his first post
quote:
I'm a creationist and I still don't buy into the probability calculation given in that link.
or are that rarest of breeds; a creationist who actually understands the theory he opposes.
I'm more inclined to think this is the case. Either way, could you guys please lay off the aggression? His first post there clearly showed that he is at least not a crackpot. Give him... or her a break.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 10-18-2004 5:48 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 27 of 40 (150889)
10-18-2004 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by mike the wiz
10-18-2004 6:17 PM


One step at a time Mike.
The issue was abiogenesis. Not the orgination of the universe, sun or earth in the place.
Have a look at your statments in the OP. You talk about "life".
As noted we don't know enough to calculate the probabilities involved. When you go off into discussing the various physical "constants" of our unverse we know even less of what is necessary to do calculations.
Your sight suggests that each of these parameters is fine tuned. Please take all of that to the fine tuning of the universe thread.
Life and Fine-tuning of the universe.
While I agree all of these things to into any final calculation, if we don't restrict the topic here and divide the whole discusion up it will get very confused.
Now, given that the earth exists, where it exists with a sun like ours: how do you calculate the probability of life arising?
If you want to separately calculate the chance that earth exists given a universe like we have that would be a separate thread.
If you want to talk about the probability of a universe like ours existing that belongs in the above referenced thread.
Does this seem a reasonable division to you?
If you want the "earth existing" thread and have a phobia about starting threads then ask and I will create one.
Once we arrive at probabilities for all 3 issues then we perform the suitable arithemetic on them to come up with the final probability.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by mike the wiz, posted 10-18-2004 6:17 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 40 (150892)
10-18-2004 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by mike the wiz
10-18-2004 6:05 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 10-18-2004 6:05 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by mike the wiz, posted 10-18-2004 8:14 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 29 of 40 (150913)
10-18-2004 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Loudmouth
10-18-2004 6:38 PM


These are all requirements for life as it is found on earth, not life in any form.
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.
Ofcourse - the possibility of other life makes my argument inductive;
So when I say;
Life is only on earth, I suppose I could also say "porridge is only on my plate" -- erm, am I refuting myself here?
Anyway - I didn't do the math - I only heard the hearsay, - and was asked in another thread to show this - so I did.
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?
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!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Loudmouth, posted 10-18-2004 6:38 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by NosyNed, posted 10-18-2004 10:28 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 31 by Coragyps, posted 10-18-2004 11:42 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 33 by Quetzal, posted 10-19-2004 10:07 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 34 by Loudmouth, posted 10-19-2004 12:41 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 30 of 40 (150970)
10-18-2004 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by mike the wiz
10-18-2004 8:14 PM


dealing
Ofcourse - we can only deal with what can be dealt with
Exactly! We simply don't know enough to be able to arrive at any conclusion in this area.
To suggest this has anything to do with the existance of a god or other intelligent designer is simply yet another case of god of the gaps.
We have to leave some of these questions open as "I don't knows". To suggest otherwise is, well, unwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by mike the wiz, posted 10-18-2004 8:14 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024