Origin of Life (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, December 23, 2009, 22:07 (5448 days ago) @ David Turell


> As a non-mathematician, I know of Borel's 10^ minus 50, and Dembski who tripled it to 10^ minus 150. I have no systematic justification. I don'tknow how to establish one except, I know the universe is 10^18 seconds old. I know that there are roughly 10^80 particles. 
> > -Alright. That's a good start. Here's where I think the position needs to be refined, in no particular order: -1. One second is entirely too long. You and I are both aware that a chemical reaction, defined as the exchange of electrons in order to form bonds happens at the speed of light. The number of seconds that the universe has been here is misleading and for sure Dembski uses that to his advantage when talking at the public. If you pick a larger unit of time, you make the appearance of ANY combination of matter less likely to appear. You need to go down to the smallest possible unit of time, which ultimately would be the amount of time needed for a photon to travel its own length. This drastically shifts even his own numbers, while I don't have a number for you right now I can derive it for you. Why this is significant is that I can ask you a question: How many attempts per second are Borel and Dembski Measuring? I can't answer for Borel, but Dembski assumes one attempt per second. The total number of *possible* attempts is that unit of light that I discussed above. Basically--especially in Dembski's case, his entire analysis fails on this point alone. His model is dead in the water. -> > 2. What are you comparing against? Meaning, if you have a probability limit, you have to have a system of measurement for it (or probability cannot be used).
> 
> Somehow mathematically I would think it can be calculated that, knowing methane, CO2, N2O, and other simple molecles exist naturally, what are the odds they could get together against time to a meaningful amino acid, and then from there to RNA and then DNA, each with a meaningful code inserted, again all against the time alloted, 700-800 million years (the time for earth formation to recognized life on earth). -You're not going small enough, though your method is sound. You need to use the correct time scale. -> > 
> > 3. What are your assumptions taken in support of 1 and 2?
> 
> I have faith, not assumptions. How did Dembski calculate the odds for the E. Coli flagellum? I don't know. Are his assumptions correct? I have no way of knowing. I know you don't trust Dembski, but were his assumptions correct as he calculated odds for the proper mix of amino acids?
> -No, for reasons stated above. Chemical reactions happen on the quantum scale. Chemistry's models though fitting and appropriate for analyzing reactions don't give enough explanation on what happens during the reaction. What happens? The only terms I know that you MIGHT is "bit fiddling." -> > 
> > 4. Why do you think the assumptions are reasonable? 
> 
> I am way beyond my depth here.
> 
> 
> > 
> > 5. How confident can we be of this limit? (This part may shake out as we grapple with all of this.)
> 
> Those limits I quoted make superficial sense to me. At 10^18th seconds, any negative odds beyond that should be impressive for my point of view.
> -The assumptions you need to ask are:-How many attempts per second? If you assume 2 attempts per second your number is 10^36. If 4, you get 10^72. Now we're within the total number of particles in the universe. -Mathematically speaking, once you reach 10^80 attempts you've had one attempt at every possible combination of matter in the universe. This means that you've had enough time to try every combination once. Now you should start to get the idea why I say "it wasn't by chance." Life's appearance at this point becomes a deterministic property of the universe, designed or not. -However, what are the chances for life to appear? You can't answer this question until you find a mechanism for life coming from non life. This is because the only thing we can study--biochemistry--is POST-LIFE. It's a circular study. Everything we can study is the result of 4.5Billion years of evolution; there's no way to tell for sure that the life we have now is the same as it was when it started. We can't make that claim.-When I jumped into this forum, it was on the topic of chance, I just... lacked the sophistication to try and explain why it was that the argument "life is too complex to have arrived by chance" doesn't have much to support it. -I will gladly read Shapiro--it's well overdue. My only hope is that he too, provides the complete mathematical background for his treatise.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"