News Origin Of Life

Equation: Overwhelming odds against life’s beginning?

Spread the love
equation/Aguilar, Harvard-Smithsonian

From Sarah Lewin at Space.com:

When life originates on a planet, whether Earth or a distant world, the newborn life-forms may have to overcome incredible odds to come into existence — and a new equation lays out exactly how overwhelming those odds may be.

Well, it’s good that someone is admitting that there aren’t billions and billions of them out there.

If we can’t factor in information, we can get precisely nowhere, though there may be some good luncheon talks in the meantime.

“It’s not an answer; it’s a new tool for trying to think about the issues involved,” Ed Turner, an astronomer at Princeton University, told Space.com. Turner was not involved in the work, but the paper’s definition of the left-hand probability — the expected number of origin-of-life events — draws heavily from his work to allow for incorporating scientists’ uncertainty about the origins of life based on observations of life on Earth (and how much weight to give those observations). More.

Paper is free.

See also: What we know and don’t know about the origin of life

and

Data basic

Follow UD News at Twitter!

3 Replies to “Equation: Overwhelming odds against life’s beginning?

  1. 1
    Otangelo Grasso says:

    Abiogenesis is impossible

    http://reasonandscience.heaven.....impossible

    Harold Urey, a founder of origin-of-life research, describes evolution as a faith which seems to defy logic:
    “All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.

    ? Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis
    “The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.”

    Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 24.

    “The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”

    Ibid., p. 130. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.g.....hoyle.html
    Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one part in 10^40,000 must be judged superior to random shuffling [of evolution]. The theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40,000 of being the correct explanation of the many curious facts discussed in preceding chapters. Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.

    Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 3.
    Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero.

  2. 2

    There is absolutely no scientific evidence for naturalistic abiogenesis (life arising from non-life). None. Zero. So, why do atheists/Darwinists believe it happened? Two words…BLIND FAITH.

    Ironic, isn’t it?

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    There is a well researched statistical analysis, by Dr Hugh Ross, of the many independent ‘life-enabling characteristics’ that gives strong mathematical indication that the earth is extremely unique in its ability to support life in this universe. And the statistical analysis, like the equation discussed in the OP, is actually a extreme refinement of Drake’s original equation:

    Linked from Appendix C from Dr. Ross’s book, ‘Why the Universe Is the Way It Is’;
    Probability Estimates for the Features Required by Various Life Forms:
    Excerpt:
    Requirements to sustain bacteria for 90 days or less:
    Probability for occurrence of all 501 parameters approx. 10-614
    dependency factors estimate approx. 10^-303
    longevity requirements estimate approx. 10^22
    Probability for occurrence of all 501 parameters approx. 10^-333
    Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe approx. 10^22
    Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^311 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.

    Requirements to sustain unicellular life for three billion year:
    Probability for occurrence of all 676 parameters approx. 10^-859
    dependency factors estimate approx. 10^-303
    longevity requirements estimate approx. 10^22
    Probability for occurrence of all 676 parameters approx. 10^-578
    Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe approx. 10^22
    Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^556 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracle

    Requirements to sustain intelligent physical life:
    Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. 10^-1333
    dependency factors estimate approx. 10^-324
    longevity requirements estimate approx. 10^45
    Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. 10^-1054
    Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe approx. 10^22
    Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracle
    http://www.reasons.org/files/c....._part3.pdf

    Interestingly, when Dr. Hugh Ross factors in the probability for ‘simple’ bacterial life randomly coming together in this universe, the probability for a planet which may host ‘simple’ life in the universe explodes into gargantuan proportions:

    Does the Probability for ETI = 1?
    Excerpt: In another book I wrote with Fuz, Who Was Adam?, we describe calculations done by evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala and by astrophysicists John Barrow, Brandon Carter, and Frank Tipler for the probability that a bacterium would evolve under ideal natural conditions—given the presumption that the mechanisms for natural biological evolution are both effective and rapid. They determine that probability to be no more than 10-24,000,000.
    The bottom line is that rather than the probability for extraterrestrial intelligent life being 1 as Aczel claims, very conservatively from a naturalistic perspective it is much less than 10^500 + 22 -1054 -100,000,000,000 -24,000,000. That is, it is less than 10-100,024,000,532. In longhand notation it would be 0.00 … 001 with 100,024,000,531 zeros (100 billion, 24 million, 5 hundred and thirty-one zeros) between the decimal point and the 1. That longhand notation of the probability would fill over 20,000 complete Bibles. (As far as scientific calculations are concerned, determining how close a probability is to zero, only Penrose’s 1 in 10^10^123 calculation, for the initial entropy of the universe, is, as far as I know, closer to zero)
    http://www.reasons.org/does-probability-eti-1

Leave a Reply