DarkDespair5 Posted:

”Life” (in the sense of simple, replicating molecules) *has* been spontaneously generated under early earth conditions in a lab. These conditions are unlikely, but not impossible in a short time span. But we’re talking billions of years. This molecule was not made of conventional DNA or RNA, either. It shows that the universe can have more than one type of life-forming reaction. How about viruses? Some are so simple they have almost no genome. They are not technically considered “alive”, but they ARE evolving particles nonetheless. Not all mutations would kill a bacterium, and a wrongly placed DNA nucleotide could be beneficial.

Do you really believe the endless molecular collisions in space would not result in at least *one* durable replicating biomolecule?

Earth is 4.6 billion years old. The universe must be even older. Easily, at least 1000 reactions to create life happened per year. Thus, over such a long period of time, possibly trillions of such reactions have occurred, making it very likely that at least of them produced life.

if my math is correct 2^1,000,000,000,000 > 10^166,000. Thus, the formation of life is very likely.

Shii Posted:

Your math is not correct.

I’m not sure where the “two” is coming from, but you’re not doing it right anyway. If you have a bag with 300 numbers in it, the probability of pulling them all out in order isn’t 1x10^300. You don’t raise it by a power of 10 for every new trial.

Shii Posted:

Scientifically speaking, the probability that random amino acids combined in the perfect pattern to create a functioning single-cell eukaryotic bacterium is something to the order of 1 x 10^166,000, according to an article on the subject I read a while back.

uhh Posted:

For such a reaction, I can think of two outcomes:

1. life is created

2. life isn’t created.

so the chance that no life is created is (1/2)^1,000,000,000 which is too small.

The chance that life is created = 1 – (1/2)^1,000,000,000 which effectively equals 1.

——————————————

edit: i’m going to bed, so i’ll see your rebumal in the morning

I think in order to have a rebumal there needs to be something to “rebum.” As it stands, you’re basically bending mathematics over your knee and spanking it.

Firstly, you make up your own arbitrary numbers to support your points based on your bumumptions about how many reactions are taking place. Then, you calculate those arbitrary numbers wrongly anyway.

My number is based on the number of letters of DNA that make up the simplest single-cell bacterium; it’s not an bumumption or anything close to arbitrary. When you have something approaching concrete that didn’t just come out of your imagination, then we can have a debate.

Inertia Posted:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Search

I’m willing to admit the articles I’d read on the subject are possibly mis-informed as well; however, I am hesitant to accept this person’s research because he’s acting as if a peptide ligase sequence = life.

A probiotic enzyme chain is not life. Life is far, far more staggeringly complex. Furthermore, if it was so easy to generate life by using these self-replicating peptide sequences, I’m sure it would’ve been done by now. Again, organic biotic molecules and peptide chains do not constitute life. And until the peptides can somehow make the huge jump from molecule sequences to living, reproducing life, I’m unwilling to bridge my stance.

Hobart Bliggity Posted:

*Picture*

I’m going to go with “no”

Edit: Image is totally worth the click

Whoa! Suddenly I feel so small.

And yes, I do believe that we aren’t alone in here.

Okay, so, I could write a big long post explaining why that probability statement is invalid (and there are many reasons that have been somewhat covered so far, and are well covered in Inertia’s link), but I won’t. Instead, I’ll just state that if a god created us, and the rest of the universe, and we’re the only life in it, that’s a whole lot of wasted space, just up there to look pretty. Why do planets exist around other stars, if a god made it? Any reason other than “to give astronomers something to look for”?

Really, I think it’d make much more sense for a deity only interested in humans to put us in a snowglobe-like enclosure, rather than this gigantic universe, billions of light years across.

Shii Posted:

I dunno; it might just look big to us. I’m sure it’s pretty snow-globey to God. :3

Lemme try this again.

You’ve got this single snow speck that you love, in a snowglobe. It’s your favorite, you’ve named it, you created it special, drawn little people on it through the use of a microscope and tiny tools, and really, the only reason for the snowglobe to exist at all, is that speck. Yet, you’ve also placed thousands of other specks inside the snowglobe, each remarkable similar to your speck. Why?

Ricket Posted:

Lemme try this again.

You’ve got this single snow speck that you love, in a snowglobe. It’s your favorite, you’ve named it, you created it special, drawn little people on it through the use of a microscope and tiny tools, and really, the only reason for the snowglobe to exist at all, is that speck. Yet, you’ve also placed thousands of other specks inside the snowglobe, each remarkable similar to your speck. Why?

The entire concept of a “God” is, by definition, beyond human understanding. Whether you’re a devout religious person trying to reconcile the reality of a vast world and universe with the idea of a creator with a plan, or an atheist/agnostic/whatever just toying with the idea of a supreme being, this is one of the hardest concepts to come to grips with. I truly believe that anyone who has a definite answer about “God” is simply choosing to just not think about it.

Ricket Posted:

As long as “God is beyond human understanding” isn’t followed by ”...but I know what God wants/he did X, Y and Z” I’m fine with that position. Though I wouldn’t say “God is beyond human understanding” is accurate for the gods of many major religions, as followers seem to have a pretty good grasp on their concept of their god, and surely, if you think a god created the universe, you have at least a little bit of understanding as to why.

I’m saying more form/function/procedure unknowable. If any of the gods of major religions are the one true God, then they have revealed their reasoning and intentions through various means, but the how and why are still essentially clouded.

bumume a god exists.

We don’t know his purpose. We don’t know his identity. We don’t know his form. If there is no way to tell, then what is the point in living a life consistent with a particular “god” that has an insignificant chance of actually existing because of all the other possibilities?

i.e. Should we care outside academia what is outside our realm of knowledge?