Origin of Life (Pt2) (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, December 28, 2009, 18:31 (5240 days ago) @ dhw

In response to my point that the "ingredients" for life had no form of locomotion, you reply that chemical reactions are "an exchange of electrons ... nothing more". Scientists in search of the Holy Grail of abiogenesis consciously conduct experiments, i.e. investigate possible combinations. My argument was that according to the chance theory, 4.5 ... 3.5 billion years ago no-one was conducting experiments, and the ingredients had no way of combining and transferring their energy except through unpredictable, unconscious elements. That was why I queried how you could accurately count the number of "attempts". But maybe I've misunderstood your answer.
> -An "Attempt" in this case isn't a conscious thing, if it is nature. It still relies on "the right things being in the right place." The argument from Dembski and others against this is that there isn't enough time for "chance" to work out a solution. I'm challenging their claim by showing that their resolution of time isn't fine enough, as 1 "try" per second isn't enough when you consider the speed at which a chemical reaction actually happens. And just like with dice, the more attempts you have, the more chances you have to get it "right" by brute force. In short, Dembski (and others) either willingly or unwittingly skew their attempts when talking about time. Also misleading is the fact that the time we're talking about is only the "maximum" amount of time needed to guarantee a positive outcome. While you correctly nip chance arguments in the bud by stating we don't have a mechanism for life from nonlife, I'm also demonstrating another place where their model is incorrect for the given scenario, and trying to build one that IS. -> Let me really stick my neck out now, and try to sum up your hypothesis in my own layman's terms. If we knew the total number of particle combinations possible in our cosmos (which we don't), and if we knew the combination that led to life (which we don't), and if we knew what other combinations and conditions might also lead to different forms of life (which we don't), we would be able to calculate the number of "attempts" necessary to achieve a combination for life. If we divided the number of attempts necessary by the age of the universe at the time when we know life began (say 10 billion years?), we would be able to calculate the number of attempts necessary per second/minute/hour for chance to have created life (though we would have no way of knowing whether they took place).
> -For 1: We have a good enough range, To make our case better, we'd use the smaller number, to make it more pessimistic, we'd use the larger one. -For 2: Once you have the total number of particles in a system, you can deterministically map all possible combinations. This is possible because of the computational nature of the cosmos, and the fact that matter/energy are finite. -For 3: We need this piece. -For 4: We know they took place, because we are here. If we crack 3, variations of 4 will give us better or worse answers as we find different ways to "make life." --> I apologize in advance if this is all wrong, and I fully acknowledge that I am a non-swimmer jumping in at the deep end, but the object is clarification, and I see no other way of getting it. I can only hope you'll find it of some use to explain your ideas so that even a non-scientist like me can follow them. If my summary is not wrong, though, aren't we still left, not with a solution but with a question of belief ... namely, whether chance could and did carry out the requisite number of "attempts" within the given time?-Perhaps, but with this we'd be in a much better position to judge.

--
\"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.\"