Abiogenisis by the Numbers

And we are certain that abiogeneis occurred at some point, because at some point there was no life, and now there is life. We're just not sure how it happened, though there are some hypotheses. The opposite is true. It would be unscientific to assign numbers without the evidence to do so. Are you able to show the evidence and math that the intelligent design advocates use? We could examine it to determine if it is sound.The process of abiogenesis, if it occurred on this planet, did so under unknown conditions at an unknown time, with an unknown total number of molecules interacting. To give a numerical probability of anything happening with so many "unknowns" happening is indeed unscientific.The "unknowns" don't make abiogenesis a useless field of study though - just more gaps in knowledge to be filled with further study.Also, your focus on protein origins of life may be a bit off, since the prevailing hypothesis is that RNA "life" came first, existing without protein or DNA.Here is a thread with discussion of RNA: Early RNA Life, and another on Abiogenesis.Let me know if you have any questions...

Not when you are talking about probabilities. You need some knowledge about conditions and complexity to start talking probabilities.However, the ID camp often looks at the composition of a single living cell today and tries to come up with a simple probability of it forming randomly. Since the "first life" was likely not a fully intact "modern" cell, probabilities calculated based on that assumption are pointless strawmen. No one on the chemical abiogenesis side is arguing spontaneous generation of a complete cell. I don't agree with that at all, mainly because I don't think the first life needed any protein at all.The interesting thing about RNA is that it can act as a genetic template, and it can have catalytic activity like protein enzymes (including acting as a polymerase to replicate RNA). Since it is an imperfectly replicating template, mutation and selection can act upon it increase its stability and activity (survival).RNA strands also form from strictly chemical processes.Because of these characteristics, short RNA replicators seem the most likely "first life". Later association with lipid micelles would have created the first cell.When the complexity of the first life drops from an intact, protein-synthesizing cell to a short RNA strand, so does the probability of first life forming.
_____________Edited to add: Here is an online article that goes into specific calculations and much greater detail regardng the above, as well as providing references: Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics,and Probability of Abiogenesis CalculationsThis message has been edited by pink sasquatch, 11-13-2004 02:54 AM

Another ambiguous claim with no numbers to back it up...The classic ID equation makes some assumptions that are not at all "favorable" as you suggest. To start, why does Behe insist on using protein for his calculations rather than RNA? It's quite simple, because proteins needs to have more units, and have more options for units, than RNA.The ID "favorable" conditions usually claim that a protein needs to be at least 300 amino acids long to be functional, and there are at least 20 amino acids to choose from. They assume that only one specific sequence will produce anything useful (which is false), so the odds become:1 in 20^300 ; or 1 in 20000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000or as you might say, "impossible".However, let's examine an RNA-based RNA polymerase replicator that has been discovered in actual laboratory experiments:26 units long, with 4 possible units, assuming that only one sequence is useful:1 in 4^26; or 1 in 4500000000000000Suddenly the odds are a lot less "impossible", and I assumed that only a single 26 bp sequence would have activity; we know that many other sequences have activity, so the odds are much less than stated above.In addition, some experiments suggest that the minimal RNA length with catalytic activity is 8 bp:1 in 4^8; or 1 in 65536Again, these odds include the assumption that only one 8 bp RNA has catalytic activity.Hopefully you see that the IDers have NOT used simple, "favorable" conditions to determine their probabilities.

The rest of my post backed up my claim. (If you noticed, I actually provided some calculations...) An assertion is nothing without evidence. What conditions does he base this claim upon? I'm interested in what specifically you are basing this statement upon. Under some conditions, RNA formation is more favorable than protein assembly, likewise under other conditions, the opposite is true. RNA strands can form under strictly chemical conditions. How much "less likely" is this than a protein assembling? Say it's ten or even a hundred times less likely - multiply by 100 the RNA strand probabilities from my message above and see if they even approach the high improbability of the protein forming. NO! They were NOT "intelligently designed" in the lab! That is the best part - the way labs look for RNAs with enzymatic activity is by making a few million random RNA strands by chemical processes, and then looking for strands that have activity. In this way the lab experiments are similar to what may have happened at the moment of abiogenesis - from a pool of random RNA synthesis, an active sequence arose.Truthfully, we were not "intelligent" enough to know what RNA sequence would have activity, so there was no way to "design" catalytic RNAs. Thus, scientists had to utilize the random production and selection strategy. That all depends on your definition. If your definition of "life" is a thing that utilizes enzymatic activity to reproduce based on a genetic template, then yes, it is life. Actually it basically is a "sure thing" - that is a really low probability when you are talking about millions and billions of reactions per second. You started a thread on probabilities and you don't see that?

Another silly assertion. Amino acids are made of multiple "components" just like nucleotides. If the "components" of nucleotides were "chemically incompatible", they would not form. Since all life is seething with nucleotides, we know they do form.Also, short RNAs have been discovered that catalyze the production of nucleotides.By the way, terms like "chemically incompatible", "undirect", and "shapeless goop" are pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo that mean very little. So in other words, though the "overwhelming" majority of "undirect" chemical reactions produce "undesired shapeless goop", (whatever the hell that is), some reactions do produce nucleotides.It doesn't have to work everytime in order for it to happen. Honestly, did you even read my post? I said it depends on the conditions. Everything in chemistry depends on conditions.I went on to state that even if RNA strands were less likely to form than protein, the net probabilities based on standard ID methods would still favor active RNA strand formation. Because of this, ID arguments generally use protein-based probabilities to make abiogenesis seem impossible. Are you serious? Honestly, RisenLord, where is the "intelligence" or the "design" in producing random molecules? Thanks for the silly, incorrect analogy. Perhaps you could provide some math or evidence instead of groudhog stories? Yes, evolution can "act" upon it. Any imperfectly replicating template is subject to mutation and selection, the processes that result in evolution.Yes, it can survive on its own, as long as it is stable under the conditions. Unstable conditions would lead to the selection for mutant strands that were more stable, or perhaps for strands that had become engulfed by micelles, forming protocells. Wow. No. Not at all correct.If there is a 1 in 65536 chance of a specific event happening in a population, and the population is one million, you divide the population by the probability to get the probable number of specific events in that population:1,000,000 / 65536 = 15.25In other words, for every million events, about 15 will be the specific one you are looking for given that probability.This is why I said under conditions where a million or billion reactions per second were taking place, 1:65536 odds is essentially a "sure thing".Do you understand how probabilities work at all? Maybe you should learn before you start a thread based on probabilities - it really is quite basic math.Speaking of math, do you have any numbers or calculations from the ID camp for us to examine?

Thanks, JonF, for the link - I enjoyed it.Hopefully RisenLord will read it as well, since he seems to have gotten Behe's incorrect analogy incorrect...

That's not what I said. I said that your assertion that the components of nucleotides are "chemically incompatible" was wrong, since obviously those components come together in nucleotides. I didn't say the catalytic RNAs needed to be there before nucleotides could form. But once such RNAs did form, they would catalyze the formation of nucleotides, making it a more efficient process. Just because ribozyme catalysis makes a reaction more efficient doesn't mean that the reaction can only occur with that specific ribozyme. Then stop quoting him and silly groundhog analogies. Post some calculations. No they're not. What a ridiculous statement. In some fields an overwhelming majority of the time could easily refer to say, 75% of the time. Wrong again. First it depends on conditions (the third time I've said that.) Under some conditions nucleotides form more readily than amino acids.Secondly, reread the post above where I posted the probabilities. The specific protein probability is so much higher than the specific RNA probability that you could easily adjust for ribonucleotides being a trillion times less likely to form than amino acids, and the RNA strand would still be much, much more probable.(And don't come back and tell me I've stated a nucleotide is a trillion times harder to form than an amino acid - that was simply an extreme example.) I'm not sure about your analogy, but let me co-opt to describe the scientists method in producing RNA:What the scientists did was like putting a crayon and a sheet with a panda on it in a closed box, then putting that box on a paint shaker for thirty seconds. The crayon and paper fly randomly around the box, and some marks are made on the paper. They repeat this a few million times. Most of the papers are covered in random crayon marks - these they burn. However, on a few of them all of the marks are within the panda drawing - these they keep. An outside observer handed only those few would likely state that they were the product of a directed process, even though they were not. Presented with all of the millions of papers one would see a random process.So the "intelligent design" by the scientists in the actual experiment went as far as putting a bunch of single nucleotides in a random RNA strand synthesis reaction. They discarded those without activity, and kept the ones with activity.However, they did not "intelligently design" the sequences that produced activity. That was the result of a random process. Ocean? Why the ocean? Left alone?
A simplistic statement. Yep, you're absolutely correct. If you've got a billion replicators in a stable environment, and suddenly change the environment, most of them will probably "die". But the few that don't because of some heritable difference will go on to repopulate the new environment. It's called natural selection. You are incorrect.Your math DOES NOT hold.You obviously don't understand basic probabilities, and I'm tired of explaining them to you.Provide some math or other evidence or quit with the assertions.

Since you are an expert, please list the various theories of abiogenesis, and their assumptions.

You have really shown your simplistic view of abiogenesis with this post.Abiogenesis theory assumes simple chemical replicators as the first life, not a baby floating in the "dangerous" ocean. (Thar be sharks and pirates!)Ooh! Oh no! How will the baby bacteria survive without someone to feed and burp it!

Anthropology and chemistry have different stringencies on the term "incompatible", so your analogy is silly.The components of a ribonucleotide are compatible, otherwise ribonucleotides could not form from those components. Which fields would not use "overwhelming majority" to describe 99,999,999,999 out of 100,000,000,000? Or are you just writing whatever pops in your mind again? Why do the "overwhelming majority" of your rebuttals to me involve placing words in my mouth?I never said preexisting RNA strands were required for chemical RNA synthesis. In fact, I said the exact opposite. There are purely chemical conditions that favor the production of ribonucleotides. Actually, that is exactly what I am saying, at least at the level of a directed-vs-nondirected approach. By the scientists method the crayon marks would appear randomly on the page. Children scribbling would concentrate the scribbles on the panda, because they are guiding the process (however inaccurately).Sometimes scientist utilize random processes when they have no way to "intelligent design" what they want, due to lack of knowledge. Isn't it interesting how randomness produced molecules with activity that man could never design? It's not at all self-explanatory. Why do you think life formed in the ocean? Why not a pond or a mud puddle or in soil? Guess what happens if you have a single chemical replicator? It replicates! Simple replicators replicate extremely fast, and exponentially. Reread the thread, or standard ID calculations. I'm tired of explaining probabilities to you.

This the crux of your problem. You think that simple chemical replicators need to eat and metabolize and swim and sense. Hell, most bacteria don't do all of those things. That is why I called your view of abiogenesis theory "simplistic".We're talking a population of chemical/biochemical replicators here, not cellular life. They don't need to metabolize to "survive".

RisenLord,I see you have taken to including the Romans passage on Godsense removal in your posts.Are you so incapable of arguing your point that you have to accuse your opponents of being supernaturally ignorant?Why don't you do some research instead of invoking the supernatural...

How do the three theories you mention other than RNA world describe the first replicators?For example, many underwater vent theories utilize RNA strands as first life, and so are also RNA world theories.But you knew that, didn't you?

In your thread-opening post you state and ask: About a hundred posts later you state: So you started a thread whose sole purpose was to refute the calculations of Dembski, yet you haven't read Dembski, and think it is unfair of us to ask you for the calculations.Do you see the absurdity in that?

You shouldn't be ashamed of those things. You don't see how? Honestly?You chose the one passage in the Bible where God inflicts ignorance on non-believers, so that they become naturalists who create their own false objectivity.