Abiogenisis by the Numbers

In recent years, many people have voiced opposition to the concept of abiogenisis. Among them are prominent materialists, like Francis Crick. William Dembski claims that the odds of a single viable protein molecule forming naturalistically in the course of a billion years are a google to one. I've heard other scientists make such claims of outrageous numbers, even if you idealize the conditions with which first life had to form, such as gathering all the carbon in the universe and putting it in one place. Proponents of abiogenisis question the accuracy of these numbers, claiming that (as in the case of Demski) these numbers are flawed because they don't allow for the potential of fully formed unviable molecules gradually moving toward viability by changing bonds. But these complaints seem hollow since random changes in a protein molecule could as easily move the molecule further away from viability as it could towards it. Another way in which time could actuall work as a destructive force against abiogenisis is seen in the tendancy of amino acids to disolve in water.So, naturalits, without appealing to fact-free hypotheses, can you TRULY invalidate the given numbers? And if the math truly works in favor of abiogenisis, why don't proponents of the theory come up with their own figures to back it?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I contend that we do not have a good estimate of the probability of abiogenesis. If you actually have an estimate you feel to be sound then please provide the details of how it was calculated.

Please supply the source and quotes from Crick on this topic.

I believe he is referring to Crick's ideas about 'directed panspermia'.TTFN,WK

Directed Panspermia. LOL, just pushes the issue to somewhere else. Also at least a bit misleading of our new poster isn't it? He'll have to learn to be more careful than that.

It may even be more specific than that, a particular quote from Crick and Orgel's book 'Life itself'. But then he said it in 1981, I don't know if he changed his views subsequently as more research has been done.TTFN,WK

This is a generalized statement that, imo, is given more weight in order to lend credence to your argument and is misguided. Proving abiogenesis occurs is, at least, in the same category as proving a god(3-O) exists and, in my opinion, in no way negates evolution and faith respectively....hmmm the most recent way I've seen is starting from 'okay the probability is 50/50....' and then extrapolate from there....not a good method imo. A number is exactly that...a number. If you got a number: what makes your number more valid than my number?

The quote goes on TTFN,WK

quote:

---

In recent years, many people have voiced opposition to the concept of abiogenisis. Among them are prominent materialists, like Francis Crick.

---

Is this the same Francis Crick who thinks that abiogenesis occured on another planet and life on Earth was transported from that planet? Is this your view as well?

quote:

---

William Dembski claims that the odds of a single viable protein molecule forming naturalistically in the course of a billion years are a google to one.

---

Problems with this statement:1. Define viable.
2. Proteins may not be necessary for the production of a self replicating reaction.
3. No one knows what the first replicators were like, so Dembski has nothing to base his calculations on.

quote:

---

I've heard other scientists make such claims of outrageous numbers, even if you idealize the conditions with which first life had to form, such as gathering all the carbon in the universe and putting it in one place.

---

I've heard other scientists claim that life is all but assured if certain conditions are met. No one knows what the first life was like, so we can't make any probabilities about something that we can't model.

quote:

---

Proponents of abiogenisis question the accuracy of these numbers, claiming that (as in the case of Demski) these numbers are flawed because they don't allow for the potential of fully formed unviable molecules gradually moving toward viability by changing bonds.

---

This statement is nothing but pseudoscientific goobly-gook. Even a first year chemistry major would laugh at this description. Chemicals aren't "viable" and molecules "change bonds" all of the time, millions of times per second in some cases.

quote:

---

Another way in which time could actuall work as a destructive force against abiogenisis is seen in the tendancy of amino acids to disolve in water.

---

Umm, this actually works in favor of abiogenesis. Amino acids are much more likely to form long chains called peptides and proteins if they are dissolved in water.

quote:

---

So, naturalits, without appealing to fact-free hypotheses, can you TRULY invalidate the given numbers?

---

It may help if you give the reasoning behind these probabilities, what the first life was thought to be like, and the genetic material used by the first replicators. Without these there is nothing to invalidate.

quote:

---

And if the math truly works in favor of abiogenisis, why don't proponents of the theory come up with their own figures to back it?

---

Because real scientists are honest enough to admit that they don't know enough about abiogenesis to even start to construct any probabilities whatsoever. Why aren't creationists this honest?

NosyNed, Behe in Darwin's Black Box refers to Crick as having become exaspirated with the concept of abiogenisis, which is why he's now proposing that our planet was seeded.

Yes, it does........which is why it's a flawed proposition. And it's proposal from a materialist seems to be a desperate ploy to find a materialistic explanation for first life, does it not? I don't see how.This message has been edited by RisenLord, 11-12-2004 06:19 PM

How so? And EVENT is not a BEING. We've proven beyond reasonable doubt that other certain events long ago occured, like the Big Bang and evolution. That's the thing.....abiogenisis advocates DON'T present numbers........only intelligent design advocates do. Seems to be rather unscientific of the former.

As NosyNed and countless others have pointed out, this is a copout. It just pushes the same problem to a different location. It's a desperation move. I don't know enough about biochemistry to define viable......I'd have to imagine that Dembski does, though. 100% speculation. We know what replicators are like NOW, and we have no reason to believe that first life replicated in a way that was so much different from the way life today does it. In fact, we have every reason to believe that it replicated in a related fashion, considering that we ARE, after all, its children. Two things. First, I doubt this is true.......second, such scientists have practically zero experimental evidence (and absolutely no mathematical evidence) to back such claims. We have no reason to believe that first life could have been anything but a more basic version of modern living cells....... Amino acids that have been disolved into entirely seperate atoms can't form any protein....... A cell with the ability to metabolize and replicate. We have no reason to believe that it was anything other than DNA and/or RNA. No, "real" scientists (aka scientists that agree with you) pose wild speculations about life forming from clay in order to avoid the self-evident facts. The only reason you claim we don't know enough about first life to give numbers about the odds of it forming naturalistically is because you ASSUME that first life took place naturalistically, and that proof of a life form which is much more simple than the simplest concievable single-celled life self-assembling will be forthcoming.REAL scientists don't make such assumptions to back their dogma.

And we are certain that abiogeneis occurred at some point, because at some point there was no life, and now there is life. We're just not sure how it happened, though there are some hypotheses. The opposite is true. It would be unscientific to assign numbers without the evidence to do so. Are you able to show the evidence and math that the intelligent design advocates use? We could examine it to determine if it is sound.The process of abiogenesis, if it occurred on this planet, did so under unknown conditions at an unknown time, with an unknown total number of molecules interacting. To give a numerical probability of anything happening with so many "unknowns" happening is indeed unscientific.The "unknowns" don't make abiogenesis a useless field of study though - just more gaps in knowledge to be filled with further study.Also, your focus on protein origins of life may be a bit off, since the prevailing hypothesis is that RNA "life" came first, existing without protein or DNA.Here is a thread with discussion of RNA: Early RNA Life, and another on Abiogenesis.Let me know if you have any questions...