the probrability of life occuring on earth

Jello
Posts: 223
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
the probrability of life occuring on earth

I've been arguing with a young earth diddle head and he threw this one at me.

 

" know I'm repeating myself but meh!!
Wel science backs creation it's just undermined by some scientists because the chance of making a 100 chain amino acid protein (which is the smallest ever actually smaller than the smallest because the white on your finger nails is something like230 amino acids)but anyway the chances are 10 to the power of 130 to 1 which is 100000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000
00000000000
000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000
00000000000
0000000000000 to 1

you do the math!It's correct!And all mathematichans agree that any thing over 10 to the power of 110 to one is mathematically impossible. Evolution also goes against the Biological law of biogenisis (that life is always required to produce new life)And science can not go back on a law!!!!!Any questions?"

 

I know there's a brilliant way to beat this argument with a rolled up newspaper, but It's beyond my meager abilities. I would like some help from the more educated on this board, please pretty please? 

Wish in one hand, shit in the other, see which one fills up first.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Well for one thing the

Well for one thing the statement "All mathematicians agree this probability is mathematically impossible" is pulled straight from his arse. Ask him to back that up.

Another is that it is true that biogenesis says that life produces new life. However, the formation of life has nothing to do with biogenesis. That's abiogenesis

Actually I'd like to hear where he got the 10 to the power of 130. How the hell do you formulate a mathematical equation about the probability of life? He keeps stating things as facts like "100 chain amino acids" being the smallest. Where the hell does he get these supposed facts from?

Where the heck is deludedgod?  He'd rip that guy a new ass. 

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
For starters: 1) Small

For starters:

1) Small chance != No chance
2) Cumulative selection is much much faster than trying to randomly guess the answer. See also: Weasel program
3) Evolution is not concerned with the origin of life; abiogenesis is concerned with that.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Wel science backs

Quote:
Wel science backs creation

How could it possible do that? Creationism proposes that life sprang out of nowhere, so the only 'confirmation' of this would be not finding transitionary fossils, not seeing speciation recreated in a experiments, not finding genetic links between species (like the fusion in human chromosome 2). Even if Creationism had occurred, 'proof' of it would be indistinguishable from a complete lack of evidence, and the whole thing could never rise beyond an argument from ignorance.

Quote:
it's just undermined by some scientists because the chance of making a 100 chain amino acid protein (which is the smallest ever actually smaller than the smallest because the white on your finger nails is something like230 amino acids)but anyway the chances are 10 to the power of 130 to 1 which is 100000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000

00000000000

000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000

00000000000

0000000000000 to 1

Over what span of time? Under what conditions? Where does this number even come from?

Quote:
you do the math!It's correct!And all mathematichans

I know the Chinese are supposed to be good at math, but do they need a separate title?

Quote:
agree that any thing over 10 to the power of 110 to one is mathematically impossible. Evolution also goes against the Biological law of biogenisis (that life is always required to produce new life)And science can not go back on a law!!!!!Any questions?“

Can't go back on a law? The hell?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
For one thing people who say

For one thing people who say this are just plain looking at it wrong - if you won the powerball for $80million, you'd be very pleasantly surprised, but you certainly wouldn't say it was so unlikely it mustn't have really happened - life did occur on Earth - once something has happened the chances of it happening are 100%. And if it hadn't happened we wouldn't be here to discuss it anyway.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
A Streetcar Named

 

 

It’s called the Hoyle Fallacy, and is common among those who understand nothing about this topic.

Its easy to calculate the probabilities associated with proteins . Essentially, a protein is a string of amino acids, usually 500-2000 amino acids long. The whole of life depends on proteins. Everything else, save the genes, is a mere passive bystanders in a biological dance of life. When we observe the cell, we are in essence observing proteins. Proteins control movement (motor proteins), the control structure (structural proteins), they control concentration (transmembrane proteins), they control ion gradients (pump proteins), and most importantly, they control every single chemical reaction in the body (enzymes). Proteins don't just control the body, they are the body. All proteins fold up tightly into one highly preferred conformation. There is no limit to the number of tasks they do in the cell. Proteins can be subdivided into two large classes, the globular proteins fold up into irregular ball-like shapes and fibrous proteins. Nearly all globular proteins are allosteric, which means they can adopt two slightly different conformations, this means they have two binding sites, one of which is for a regulatory molecule, and the other is for the substrate. Allosteric control is very complex. Suffice it to say for now that it works on either negative or positive feedback (ie the regulatory molecule increases the protein's affinity for the substrate, and the other way around, or the opposite, the regulatory molecule decreases protein affinity for the substrate, which of course, would be reciprocal. In this way, regulatory molecules can turn the protein on or off, and in negative control, there is a tug of war between the regulatory ligand and substrate which are reciprocally affected by each others concentration in the cell.

A protein is a specific type of biological polymer made up a specific family of chemical subunits called amino acids. There are 20 biological amino acids, and they are distinguished by the fact that they all have a central alpha carbon, which is attached to an amine group (-NH2), a Carboxyl group (-COOH), a hydrogen, and a side chain. It is the side chain that gives each amino acid its properties, and each of the 20 has a different side chain. Proteins can be anything in length. Usually it is 50-2000 amino acids long, and the longest ones can 7000 amino acids long. The interaction between the side chains (which is determined by charge, since three are basic, four are acidic, nine are nonpolar and five are polar but uncharged) determines the shape of the protein. For instance, the nonpolar side chains are all hydrophobic (water hating) which means the protein will fold up in a manner where the nonpolar side chains are facing inwards and not exposed to water (this is the most energetically favorable conformation). This is just one of many different subtle interplays between amino acids that determine a proteins shape. However, nearly all proteins fold spontaneously in a solution, indicating that all the information necessary to fold it is stored in the amino acids.

Proteins have only one or a second highly similar conformation, that is how they work.

Now, for the number of possible combinations of amino acid, such calculations are easy to make. With just two amino acids joined in a row, we have 20^2, or 400 possibilites. With three we have 20^3 or 8000 possibilities, with ten, we have 10240000000000 possibilities, with the average protein having several hundred amino acids up to a thousand, we have vastly more conformations than there have been seconds or atoms in the universe.

However, the Hoyle Fallacy occurs here, in making our calculatiosn in the possibility of stable biological proteins arising, because the calculations, as was pointed out by the TalkOrigins archive:

· They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

· They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

· They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

· They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

· They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

Now, proteins do not form in this way. There is an evolutionary advantage to stable conformations forming, and stable conformations, in turn, are the ones which give rise to biological functions. There is an obvious reason for this. In my notes on the matter, I wrote:

All Proteins Bind to Other Molecules

·  Properties of proteins depend on their interactions with other molecules

  • Eg. Antibodies attach to viruses to mark them for destruction, the enzyme hexokinase binds glucose and ATP to catalyze the reaction between them
  • Actin molecules bind to each other to produce actin filaments etc
  • All proteins stick or bind to other molecules
  • Sometimes tight binding, sometimes weak and short lived
  • Binding is always highly specific. Each protein can usually only bind to one type of molecule out of the thousands it encounters
  • The substance bound to a protein, be it an ion, a macromolecule, a small molecule etc is referred to as the ligand of that protein
  • Region of the protein associating with the ligand is known as the binding site
  • Usually a cavity in the protein surface caused by a particular chain of amino acids
  • These can belong to different portions of the polypeptide chain brought together when the protein folds
  • Separate regions of the protein surface generally provide binding sites for different ligands.

 

The Details of a Protein’s Conformation Determine It’s Chemistry

· Proteins chemical capability comes in part because neighboring chemical groups on the protein’ surface often interact in ways which enhance the reactivity of amino acid side chains

· Two categories of this: Neighboring parts of the chain may interact in a way that restricts water molecules access to the ligand binding site.

· Because water molecules tend to form hydrogen bonds, they can compete with the ligands for sites often the protein surface

· Therefore, the tightness of the protein-ligand bonding is greatly increased if water molecules are excluded

· Water molecules exist in large hydrogen bonded networks, and inside the folds of a protein a ligand can be kept dry because it is energetically unfavorable for water molecules to break from this network

· Clustering of neighboring polar amino acid side chains together can alter reactivity. If the way the protein folds forces many negative side chains together that would otherwise not associate due to their mutual repulsion, the affinity of this new pocket for a positive ion is greatly increased

· Sometimes, when normally unreactive groups like CH2OH interact with each other because the side chains on which they are on form Hydrogen bonds with each other they can become reactive, allowing them to enter reactions making/breaking covalent bonds

· Therefore the surface of each protein has a unique chemical reactivity that depends on which side chains are exposed and their exact orientation relative to each other.

 

Sequence Comparisons Between Protein Family Members Highly Crucial Ligand Binding Sights

  • Many domains in proteins can be grouped into families showing clear evidence of evolution from a common ancestor
  • Genome sequence reveal a large number of proteins with one or more common domains
  • 3D structures of members of same domain family remarkably similar
  • Even when the amino acids identity match falls to 25% the backbone atoms in two members of the same domain family have the same fold within 0.2nm
  • These allow a method called “evolutionary tracing” to determine which sites in the protein domain which are most crucial to the function of said domain
  • For this, the most conserved amino acids stretches are mapped onto structural model of the known structure of one family member
  • The SH2 domain is a module that functions in protein-protein interactions. It binds the protein containing it to a second protein containing a phosphorylated tyrosine side chain in a specific amino acid context
  • The amino acids on this binding site have been slowest to change in the evolutionary history of SH2

We must understand all of this. Biology is highly modular. It is all about the assembly of large structures from smaller ones. Polypeptides are modularly assembled from amino acids hence determining its structure hence its chemistry and binding. Proteins are modularly assembled from polypeptides, and supramolecular structures from polypeptides, therefore, the evolution of proteins will be forced in the direction of stable amino acid conformations not random possibilities associated with amino acids. This becomes evident when we consider proteomic supramolecular structures:

Protein Molecules Ofter Serve as Subunits for the Assembly of Large Structures

·  Noncovalent bonding allows proteins to generate supramolecular structures like construction of giant enzyme complexes, ribosomes, proteasomes, protein filaments, and viruses

·   These are not made by one giant single covalent molecule, instead by noncolvalent assembly of many giant subunits

·   Advantages of this building technique: Large structure built from a few repeating subunits requires little genetic information

·   Both assembly and disassembly are easily controlled and reversible

·   Errors in structural synthesis are easily avoided as proofreading mechanisms can operating during the course of the assembly

·   Some protein subunits assemble into flat sheets, on which the subunits are arranged in a hexagonal pattern

·   Slight changes in the subunit geometry can turn the sheet into a tube, or with slightly more changes, into a hollow sphere

·   Protein tubes and spheres which bind to RNA form the coats of viruses

·   Formation of these closed structures provides additional stability because it increases the number of covalent bonds

·   This principle is illustrate by the protein coat or capsid of may viruses

·   Capsids are often made of hundreds of identical protein subunits enclosing and protecting the viral nucleic acid code

·   The proteins of capsid must have particularly adaptable structure

·   Not only must it have multiple contact points to make a stable sphere but also must be able to change to let the nucleic acid out to initiate viral replication in a cell

·   This is shown here by the construction of a capsid from monomer protein subunits, which connect into dimers, then trimers, then into the intact sphere with the addition of more free dimers

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Thanks, DG.  I know this

Thanks, DG.  I know this shit must get completely tiresome for you.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
And you're damn right! There

And you're damn right! There are times I wonder why I bother...

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Jello
Posts: 223
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
thankyou everyone, and

thankyou everyone, and Deluded God for the replies


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Since your interlocutor

Since your interlocutor sounds like an utter idiot, I wish for you to send my reply to him word for word, and then inform me of his reply. You see, the only reason I continue to do this is mainly the amused pleasure of rending asunder creationist arguments, and it is rather fun to watch them respond. Therefore, I wish for you to tell me when, if and what he responds, that I may laugh.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: And

deludedgod wrote:
And you're damn right! There are times I wonder why I bother...

 

Don't think of it is a futile response to a person who isn't listening to you. Think of it as explaining the answer to people who ARE listening so that they can read something they may not know and then offer futile responses to people who aren't listening in your place, thus saving you time.

Better? 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
I doubt the guy will even

I doubt the guy will even read all of DG's post. I imagine his eyes clouding over and him/her losing all interest in learning anything.

To people like that I have no sympathy and little patience. Let them rot in the squalor of ignorance. I'm alive to learn something before I check out. I don't want to be right. I want to know something of what the heck is going on.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Jello,

Jello, http://www.talkorigins.org/ has some great stuff. While some of the rebuttals to Creationist claims aren't as detailed as one might prefer, they do cite sources and have links to more information.

-Triften 


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
Your reply could just

Your reply could just consist of "YOU FUCKING IDIOT YOU FUCKING IDIOT YOU FUCKING IDIOT" repeated a couple dozen times. It'll change their mind just as much as a reasonable educational answer would and you'll feel better to boot.

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
JS does have a point

JS does have a point there.

Laughing out loud

-Triften

 


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
As Mr. Shizzle alluded to,

As Mr. Shizzle alluded to, pondering the probability of an event that has already happened is pointless because regardless of what the probability of that event was before it happened, the fact is that it did happen. The only question is how, which is of course the root of the theism vs. atheism debate. But bringing up probabilities is just another way that theists try to posit that science supports creationism.

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Here's my response,

Here's my response, Jello.

Quote:
Wel science backs creation it's just undermined by some scientists because the chance of making a 100 chain amino acid protein (which is the smallest ever actually smaller than the smallest because the white on your finger nails is something like230 amino acids)but anyway the chances are 10 to the power of 130 to 1 which is 100000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000
00000000000
000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000
00000000000
0000000000000 to 1

These sort of arguments are fallacious. They're designed to wow people, most of whom have trouble adding two fractions together, with large numbers.

I can go in my backyard, and pick up a rock. This rock has billions upon billions of molecules arranged in a very specific way. The odds that that particular arrangement came about are astronomically large, to the point of being impossible. So does the existence of this rock prove God? No, because whatever the shape the rock takes, there's perfectly good natural explanations of it's formation.

Furthermore, these sorts of calculations don't take into account various forces of nature that can predetermine how molecules arrange themselves. Continuing the rock example, if I found some quartz crystal, am I to claim that its orderliness is too impossible so God created that way? No, because crystals can only arrange themselves in certain ways, which cuts down the odds drastically. I'm not a biologist, but can't proteins follow similar, but more complex, rules?

Finally, these sorts of arguments can be applied to almost any event that ever happened. What are the odds that your parents met? What are the odds that that one sperm fertilized the egg that became you? What are the odds that you'd have the life experiences you had, meet the persons that became your best friends and/or spouse, drive by the people you did on the freeway today, drink the specific water molecules that where in this morning's coffee, etc. It seems that your life is simply impossible, the odds are just too high.

Quote:
you do the math!It's correct!And all mathematichans agree that any thing over 10 to the power of 110 to one is mathematically impossible.

Mathematician? You mean statistician. I've taken 10 hours of graduate statistics class, and no such standard was ever given.

Quote:
Evolution also goes against the Biological law of biogenisis (that life is always required to produce new life)

Evolution assumes life already existed, so this supposed law isn't even a problem.

Quote:
And science can not go back on a law!!!!!

Tell that to Einstein.

Quote:
Any questions?please?

Do you plan to ever takes some math & science classes?


DarwinsMonkey
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
One was of explaining the

One was of explaining the fact that probabilities don't work in reverse (i.e. if the event has already happened, the probability of it happening is irrelevant) is to have the deluded idiot shuffle a deck of cards and deal them out one by one.  When they're done, explain to them that the probability of dealing the 52 cards in the deck in exactly that order is 52! or 52 factorial.  You'll probably have to explain that the factorial of n is expressed as n * (n-1) * (n-2) ... * 1.  Or, you can just tell them that the probability of dealing the cards in exactly that order is roughly 1 in 8.0685 X 10^68, or if they're hung up on lots of zeroes, 1 in 80,685,175,170,943,900,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.  In other words, the order of the cards they just dealt is unlikely in the extreme, and yet they dealt them in exactly that order.  Of course, this may not work with complete morons, in which case there's nothing you can do but lament the sad state of our education these days.

 

Cheers!

~Mike


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
DG, I've really got to

DG, I've really got to thank you. Every long post of yours I read is incredibly informative, even if most of it is stuff I already know. I've only recently began to realize that some people really don't understand evolution, biology, or science for that matter.  You've got a way with words that someone with only a highschool biology education from Oklahoma can truely understand and comprehend... of course I was one of the brighter students... but that isn't saying much about Oklahoma either.

I think the major problem with the way people think is that they truely don't understand what the simplist answer really is. They see lots of data... lots and lots of data... and think that it is very complex, thus taking 'god did it' as a simpler answer. I believe the fallacy that the OP presented shows this.


Jello
Posts: 223
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
"You've got a way with

"You've got a way with words that someone with only a highschool biology education from Oklahoma can truely understand and comprehend..."

 

You've got that right, I didn't comprehend it. I'm a laaaaaayman. I would feel slightly dishonest using a rebuttle that I didn't even understand myself.

Wish in one hand, shit in the other, see which one fills up first.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Go ahead and use it! Burn

Go ahead and use it! Burn that idiot to the ground and then show me his response to make me laugh. It is what I am here for.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Adraedan
Adraedan's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-07-12
User is offlineOffline
You might want to point out

You might want to point out that the odds of an infinitely powerful and complex being coming into existence before smaller, simpler creatures is infinitely more mathematically improbable than anything evolution states.

Have no pity for those mired in the prophet delusion, content to be servile for a lifetime; tis better to be king for a day


Zan
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-11-21
User is offlineOffline
RE: Thread topic. This

RE: Thread topic.

This might help.

http://www.physorg.com/news114963214.html


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
I am pretty sure that it is

I am pretty sure that it is never going to happen. Earth will just have to make due being a barren rock.

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


zekehampton
zekehampton's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
I know in several of

I know in several of Richard Dawkins' books he writes about probabilities of life and how life formed.  Basically there are so many planets in the universe that a 1/1trillion of a chance still yields trillions of positive results because of the immensely large number of planets over all.

As for the formation of life, as has already been touched on, scientists have "created" amino acids from uv light and certain elements. 


EricMS00
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
I think most people in this

I think most people in this thread are ignoring a very important detail. The probability of live on any given planet (considering all of them) may be somewhat low. However, that probability is based on the qualities of the planet.

My point: The probability of life on "earth" is virtually 100% after a long enough period of time. Earth is about 5 billion years old and has had liquid water since only a few million years later...


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
EricMS00 wrote: I think

EricMS00 wrote:

I think most people in this thread are ignoring a very important detail. The probability of live on any given planet (considering all of them) may be somewhat low. However, that probability is based on the qualities of the planet.

My point: The probability of life on "earth" is virtually 100% after a long enough period of time. Earth is about 5 billion years old and has had liquid water since only a few million years later...

Most of these probabilities are based off of the standard model of life we've interacted with and what the condition of the Earth was presumed to be because the original post was about life on Earth, no other planets. On other planets, there may be other conditions that lead to life being generated but not in the realm of what we've known so far to be life. Other compounds may make up the metabolism. I don't think we can't calculate those probabilities with anything resembling accuracy.

Honestly, I'm not quite understanding what your first paragraph really has to do with the second one. 

Yes, given enough trials the proability of an event not occuring drops towards zero. Even if the chances of an event X occuring in a given week are 1 in 1 million, after a million weeks, the probability of X occuring at least once is nearly 1.

-Triften 


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
EricMS00 wrote: I think

EricMS00 wrote:

I think most people in this thread are ignoring a very important detail. The probability of live on any given planet (considering all of them) may be somewhat low. However, that probability is based on the qualities of the planet.

My point: The probability of life on "earth" is virtually 100% after a long enough period of time. Earth is about 5 billion years old and has had liquid water since only a few million years later...

Yes, that's a good point. I would also say that the probability of life evolving on some planet in any given galaxy is near 100% (for some value of "near").


yeahokwhatever
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-12-03
User is offlineOffline
Adaptation and miracles

1 chance out of anything is a possibility. "god does not play dice with the universe"


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  ... we are ?, explain it

  ... we are ?, explain it ? you know god ? possibilities ? bow ? pray ? so silly is religion ....


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
yeahokwhatever wrote: "god

yeahokwhatever wrote:
"god does not play dice with the universe"

I like Hawking's response to that: "God not only plays dice, but sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen." (Referring to the strangeness inside black holes.)

-Triften 


V1per41
V1per41's picture
Posts: 288
Joined: 2006-10-09
User is offlineOffline
EricMS00 wrote: I think

EricMS00 wrote:

I think most people in this thread are ignoring a very important detail. The probability of live on any given planet (considering all of them) may be somewhat low. However, that probability is based on the qualities of the planet.

My point: The probability of life on "earth" is virtually 100% after a long enough period of time. Earth is about 5 billion years old and has had liquid water since only a few million years later...

 

I disagree with the point mainly becuse Earth has a finite life.  If the probability of life forming and the lifetime of the earth are both small enough then the probability doesn't even come close to approaching 100%.

In any event.  Most of the other posts all have the right idea.  It only needed to happen once somewhere in the universe.  And with the number of planets and the amount of time that the universe has existed it doesn't really matter how small the odds of it happening in one place are. 

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan


Vesha
Vesha's picture
Posts: 31
Joined: 2007-10-10
User is offlineOffline
I'll dumb it down. Their

I'll dumb it down. Their argument is something like saying when you roll a six sided dice there is only 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 4 ,but how many times was the dice actually rolled?  If you take every molecule on earth needed on every nanosecond you'll find it was actually inevitable.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
.... and so it was , so it

.... and so it was , so it is, this is not a miracle, sorry, there is no magic , none.

I wish there was, that would be fun, oh well ..... this is still amazing , .... without pretending, .... hi god , hee hee