Origin of Life (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, December 24, 2009, 20:38 (5244 days ago) @ dhw

dhw, -> Matt: 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.
> 
> ...We do not know what the mechanism is. How can you even begin to make mathematical calculations about odds, probability, time divided by attempts, when you don't know what you're looking for? -A math joke will illustrate what I'm trying to bring to this discussion.-"An engineer, a physicist and a mathematician are staying in a hotel.
The engineer wakes up and smells smoke. He goes out into the hallway and sees a fire, so he fills a trash can from his room with water and douses the fire. He goes back to bed.
Later, the physicist wakes up and smells smoke. He opens his door and sees a fire in the hallway. He walks down the hall to a fire hose and after calculating the flame velocity, distance, water pressure, trajectory, etc. extinguishes the fire with the minimum amount of water and energy needed.
Later, the mathematician wakes up and smells smoke. He goes to the hall, sees the fire and then the fire hose. He thinks for a moment and then exclaims, "Ah, a solution exists!" and then goes back to bed. "-As I'm playing the mathematician, I'm trying to put bounds on the problem; to set up the problem in such a way that we can gain a solution. You can say that I'm trying to set the course here. Specifically, for us to *strongly* argue that "life is too complex to have arrived by chance," there are several things that need to be done. We need to define what we know, what needs to be known, and what is known about the things we need in order to solve the problem. -To more formally answer your question, in order to make a probability argument--something that is viciously difficult to do--we need to know what we're pulling our sample from. That's where the total number of particles in the universe comes in. But then we need something to measure our attempts by--which is an amount of time. Because of Einstein, time = matter, so 1 particle = 1 unit of time. If we pass through enough time such that it is equal to the total number of particles in the universe, then we've had enough time to try every possible combination. The problem with how most people (atheist as well) argue with this system, is in not providing an accurate model for the number of attempts--if they even choose to define it. -So the answer to the question of probability is one where we have to gauge the amount of time needed to reach a specific combination. Normally, time wouldn't need to be an issue, but there are contingencies that need to be satisfied. -Suffice it to say at this point that though we possess much knowledge, it isn't sufficient to bring this to a resolution without the mechanism by which life came to be. -What I've built however is a system that I think will allow us to analyze probabilities in such a way that we can make a claim for or against a creator--without needing to rely on something as "soft and squishy" as faith. -Who knows, maybe I'll be a published philosopher some day, lol! ->You use this argument ... which seems perfectly logical to me ... to counter the claim that life can't have "arrived by chance", but it is equally applicable to the claim that life did arrive by chance. (I tried in my non-scientific way to demonstrate limits to credulity with my monkeys on typewriters and my COOL machine.) David has acknowledged many times that his belief in a designer requires faith. Atheists should also acknowledge that their belief in chance origins requires faith, but they rarely do. Agnostics lack faith in either theory, and so remain open to both.
> -I guess I find myself more thoroughly agnostic than I would have admitted when I came to the board. While I have no faith in either selection, for obvious reasons there is one I favor. I'm just trying to set things up to help us reach a conclusion, one way or another...

--
\"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.\"