Abiogenesis takes a step forward via RNA

RecoveringYuppy said:
We don't know that the probability of life is a small number. There is no way to calculate it at present because we don't know what the mechanism is and therefore don't know what role chance plays in it.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but we can mathematically at least put some reasonable bounds on it.

For example, we know the probability of abiogenesis being responsible for life is no smaller than the probability of the n particles in the universe spontaneously assembling into the proper configuration for life on Earth.
 
rocketdodger said:
For example, we know the probability of abiogenesis being responsible for life is no smaller than the probability of the n particles in the universe spontaneously assembling into the proper configuration for life on Earth.
Click to expand...

How would you calculate that?
 
Perpetual Student said:
If other than natural processes were involved in abiogenesis, the burden of prove is yours. The natural processes of life are all around us; but where is the evidence for any paranormal processes?
Click to expand...

You see, Rodney, I back you into the same corner every time you attempt this argument. Whatever degree of scientific evidence and mathematical analysis is required for abiogenesis would also be required for any paranormal explanation.

Rodney: So point me to a probability calculation that supports abiogenesis.
Click to expand...

So point me to a probability calculation that supports a paranormal explanation.
 
Rodney said:
That is the same logic used by most abiogenesis believers. It's also known as "begging the question."
Click to expand...
What exactly do you want from a "probability calculation"? We have very good evidence that the universe was once completely devoid of life. Incontrovertible evidence that life exists now. Isn't it a no-brainer that abiogenesis must have occurred?
 
Rodney said:
Has an abiogenesis believer [calculated a probability]?
Click to expand...
Who cares? The point is that probability calculations are virtually impossible. The creationists should never have brought up the subject.

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
Rodney's citation said:
Abstract—In Part I of this paper (PCID, Oct.-Dec. 2002), we estimated the probability of randomly assembling a cell containing 12 proteins, each of which consists of a chain of 14 peptides.
Click to expand...
Same old crap. No one claims that cells spontaneously assemble from randomly composed proteins. The only reason that creationists perform these worthless probability calculations is because they realize that they can't possibly even pretend to calculate the probability of what biologists think actually happened.

As I said, they should never have brought up the subject.

~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Same old crap. No one claims that cells spontaneously assemble from randomly composed proteins. The only reason that creationists perform these worthless probability calculations is because they realize that they can't possibly even pretend to calculate the probability of what biologists think actually happened.

As I said, they should never have brought up the subject.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

You're right, nobody does claim that. Oddly enough though, even though it's a creationist journal, and even though the probabilty calculations are meaningless, their conclusion is that the odds of randomly forming a minimally viable cell randomly are fairly high.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
How would you calculate that?
Click to expand...

Hmmm... are you talking about the unknown first cause?

Yeah, I guess there is no way to calculate that whatever you do.

So I am talking about the assumption that we have a universe full of particles and either 1) abiogenesis occurs through natural causes or 2) God then further refines those particles into life.

There is no way to reason about first causes. What we can reason about, at least, is whether or not it would be necessary for God to engineer life all the way. If it can be argued that even if there is a God that created the initial conditions it is still not necessary that such a God had any further hand in our existence I think that would be a big win over creationism.

Even if a God created the universe in favor of conditions that would support life (the trendy new idea that I.D.ers are latching on to) it doesn't mean anything to us as long as we evolved without interference. We wouldn't owe such a God a darn thing.
 
jasonpatterson said:
You're right, nobody does claim that. Oddly enough though, even though it's a creationist journal, and even though the probabilty calculations are meaningless, their conclusion is that the odds of randomly forming a minimally viable cell randomly are fairly high.
Click to expand...
So they've like sort of shot themselves in the foot and then extracted the bullet.

Did you understand the motivation behind the paper? I don't.

~~ Paul
 
rocketdodger said:
Hmmm... are you talking about the unknown first cause?

Yeah, I guess there is no way to calculate that whatever you do.
Click to expand...

No, I was asking about the part I quoted.

rocketdodger said:
...the probability of the n particles in the universe spontaneously assembling into the proper configuration for life on Earth.
Click to expand...

How would you calculate that?

You said we could put some "reasonable bounds" on the probability of abiogenesis. I'm wondering how. It appears to me we don't have much basis for saying anything other than the probability is above 0 and less than or equal to 1. A probability can be anywhere from 0 to 1 inclusive. We eliminate zero by noting that we are here. Other than that I can't think of any way to tighten the range up.
 
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy said:
No, I was asking about the part I quoted.
How would you calculate that?
Click to expand...

Oh. Begin with probability 0.

Well, you start with a single particle. Since the initial position of the initial particle is irrelevant (only the relative positions of all the rest are), the probability of that particle being at that location is 1.0.

Then, particle by particle, you could multiply the probabilities that a given particle would be in a given location that could lead to life as we know it. To do that you could estimate the size of the universe and divide by some sort of planck constant to determine how many possible positions it could occupy.

For every particle this would be a monumentally huge number, of course, which means the probability that a complete RNA molecule spontaneously forming by chance would be astronomically low.

There is a lower bounds for you. No matter how unlikely the reactions of abiogenesis are, they wouldn't be any more unlikely than a molecule popping up from nowhere.
 
rocketdodger said:
There is a lower bounds for you. No matter how unlikely the reactions of abiogenesis are, they wouldn't be any more unlikely than a molecule popping up from nowhere.
Click to expand...

I guess you have a vastly different idea of "reasonable bound' than I do. Hard as it is to imagine, that seems like a much less meaningful calculation than what Rodney cited.
rocketdodger said:
Then, particle by particle, you could multiply the probabilities that a given particle would be in a given location that could lead to life as we know it. To do that you could estimate the size of the universe and divide by some sort of planck constant to determine how many possible positions it could occupy.
Click to expand...
You might be able to come up with a plausible number for the number of possible states of the universe, but how do you propose to identify which of those states "could lead to life as we know it"? Like I said earlier, to make a meaningful probability calculation you have to know the mechanism and what role chance plays.
 
Last edited:
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
So they've like sort of shot themselves in the foot and then extracted the bullet.

Did you understand the motivation behind the paper? I don't.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

I really couldn't, beyond the possibility of people just trying to be genuinely honest, I guess. I'm not terribly surprised that they were honest about their findings, but I am a little surprised that the journal (or website, or whatever the heck it actually is) published the thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom