Hello, I'm new to this site and have been looking for information on the probability of abiogenesis occurring. I've stumbled across some creationist videos posing this very thing as a problem for us atheists.
Now, I know that to be atheist you don't have to accept abiogenesis. However, I do want to uncover any flaws in the reasoning used in this video: https://youtu.be/cQoQgTqj3pU
If anyone could help me crunch the numbers, (Math is my weakest subject) I would be very appreciative.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Without data, we don't know the probability. It's like, if I were to say "I rolled a 5, what's the probability of that happening?" Without knowing how many dice I rolled, how many sides the dice had, how many times I rolled the dice, etc you couldn't answer that question.
I see. So the conclusion that the video author came to was actually inconclusive because of lack of data.
What are the chances of abiogenesis happening?
Once, at least.
rmfr
The numbers are correct, but the methodology is a bare lie. The entire video is predicated on the assumption that a 200 amino acid would pop out of nowhere. But the reality is that there are amino acid chains of length as small as 32. A 32 could have come into being much sooner, and then life built on that foundation, adding more layers of complexity.
The author is also assuming that each "test" occurred in a sequence, one after another. But even on this planet, it is large and those "attempts" may have been occurring by the millions each second, for millions of years.
There is also the assumption that the entire sequence of tests must be run to arrive at a successful product. I will be the first to concede that luck played a big part, and sometimes luck also works in wonderful ways. The right sequence may have been assembled very early, if only because of luck.
There is also the assumption that life had to begin on a planet within the "golden zone". That may not be a fact, because life just needs energy, a solvent, and a few basic molecules and atoms.
This is a classic con game. The perpetrator starts off soft and non-threatening. Then he throws out a proposition, without revealing that it may not be the only option or method. Then he throws huge numbers at the mark, hoping to overwhelm them with the numbers.
And . . . what is the probability that life was poofed into existence by a magic "man" ? ? ? § Even lower than if abiogenesis happened, (ie. naturally), I'd suggest.
§ The first line is a paraphrasing of :-
. . . what is the probability that life was brought into existence by a super-powerful, (or even omnipotent), god ? ? ? SFA I'd suggest.
Mu.
Well said Mutorc S'yriah. If we have two options, the one of abiogenesis is much more rational than the god story.
No one knows how many planets are in the universe, so I don't know where the author got that information from; I suspect they got it by pulling it out of their ass.
The narrator of this video is arguing for intelligent design. Well let's turn the question around. Where can you find evidence of intelligent design in life on this planet? In the mass extinctions? Over 99% of all the species that have existed are extinct. That's a pretty high fail rate for any designer, let alone an intelligent supernatural one. Look at the design of the human body. How many things would you change if you could design it from scratch? How about UV-proof skin, no appendix, and an immune system that can detect and kill cancer cells?
The randomness and fail-rate of nature point to abiogenesis by chance. The odds against that are very high, but then you don't have to try every possible password before you find the right one. You might hit it the very first time.
Something else that is always neglected (because it is just too hard to do) is to consider the forces between the pieces you are trying to assemble. We've all seen the difference between just throwing some objects together, and throwing magnets together and having them snap together into a structure. Magnets have forces between them, not unlike amino acids.
There is little to no probability of biogenisis without theoretical mathematical models. Biogenisis has not happened yet in any scientific provable way. Until it happens one time, our probability is near zero. There really is no way that I know of to assess probability. Perhaps you mean "possibility." The possibility is quite high. We already know that bio material (amino acids) can be extracted from inorganic materials.
I FOUND THIS:
"At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two (monomers to polymers p=1.0, formation of catalytic polymers p=1.0). For the replicating polymers to hypercycle transition, the probability may well be 1.0 if Kauffman is right about catalytic closure and his phase transition models, but this requires real chemistry and more detailed modelling to confirm. For the hypercycle->protobiont transition, the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed, and is unknown."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
I don't know how probability is assigned to events that have not yet been demonstrated to have happened. I know there is a science to it and I know it can be done but the results are most often considered to be arbitrary or vague generalizations. On the other hand, if you want to know the probability of being dealt pocket aces from a 52 card deck in a game of 9 players in Holdem, it's 1/221