Can random molecular interactions create life?

[Hayabusa Rider]

And the answer is... no one knows. Makes for some high sounding speculation, but we are working from a data sample of 1 (earth). I'll check back in a few hundred or thousand years, when you might have something concrete.

 

[silverpig]

I did not say that life was created with lightning bolts, but rather that some of the building blocks could very possibly have come about in that manner. Your model suggests completely random collisions; a model that is not accurate. Try calculating what the chances are of ~10^56 of these particles randomly moving in such a way to create a super massive core, with a density of ~10^80 times that of the surrounding space. I'm sure that you'll see that it is HIGHLY unlikely that this will occur, (perhaps even less likely than an amino acid chain forming), yet, as you can see, there are plenty of stars in the sky.

 

[Moonbeam]

xirtam:

"Boy, I sure wish I could buy that theory. You're right... it would make things much more simple. But just because we can think of a simpler explanation doesn't make it any more true... or any more plausible.

It makes it more eligant. Simpler is always prefered logically.

"That's like saying: Why learn about all these arithmetic rules and algebraic rules and calculus rules? It introduces all kinds of weird paradoxes and complex notions, like infinities and division by zero, for which we have to come up with notions like limits and derivatives and integrals... Well, why get so fancy? Let's just say that the solution to every math problem is 5, and then we can leave all these add-on complexities."

Man, what can I say? All that math is at root elegant and as simple as can be. You are the one with 5 as an answer for everything wouldn't you say?

"Right? Wrong. Why? Because I'm not concerned with how simple of an explanation we can concoct if it isn't TRUE! So unless you have reasoning and scientific evidence to back up how -- contrary to everything we can observe in nature now -- life spontaneously produced itself, there is indeed "something wrong with [this] theory."

The whole weight of your thoery rests on the claim that science can't prove life can arise from the inanimate. I have simply shown that the next step in your argument is that therefore God must have done it. I simply provided a more likely explanation, life creates itself. It is, I fear, your turn to provide evidence as to why my explanation is wrong. It is clearly more eligant and logically preferable in every way to your own despite your shrill protests to the contrary. All I'm really saying is that your argument is a game and I have turned it around and played it on you.

" So far, the only reason you have given me is that it's easier to believe that life spontaneously came into existence. No, I'm sorry, that's not a valid assertion of faith. Furthermore, I'm not interested in faith ...."

Then why bring it up. Not a valid assertion of faith according to who or what?

"-- what does the scientific evidence point to?"

It obviously points to the fact that there is life in the universe and for you, since you don't like the most intuitive, simple, and eligant explanation for how it got here, you are forced to concede that it must have arisen by natural means. <B>

</B>

 

[xirtam]

Moonbeam: I would argue that the most elegant, simple, and rational explanation for the formation of that which I can observe in the universe... the fact that it is complex, ordered, and highly structured and selected for life on our planet... is that a supernatural uncaused cause was the designer of this thing. I'm arguing that what I see in nature argues strongly for the existence of someone with intelligence, rather than the mere accidental cause of particles randomly bumping around. So sure... God must have done it. I'm glad that you have realized that this is the most logical procession based on what I have already asked, because that's where I'm coming from. This premise explains things not only from a scientific point -- the "what" -- but also things from a philosophical view -- the "why" or meaning.

If we buy into the idea that life is pointless and is the byproduct of random "bumps" and chance mutations arising to life forms of greater and greater complexity -- contrary to everything we observe in nature -- then we must accept the idea that there is no metanarrative. There are no absolute ethical or moral standards, or there is no absolute truth. I refuse this position, not only because I disagree with it on intuitive grounds and for personal reasons, but also because it is ultimately self-defeating. It logically commits suicide. These inconsistencies are why I reject the idea of abiogenesis -- not only because I am not given a sufficient reason to believe it, but also because I am given sufficient reason *not* to believe it.

Congratulations, Moonbeam. You have drawn out my claim. Am I going to get flamed? Only time will tell...

 

[Riprorin]

Don't forget that the mathematical treatment is for forming one protein consisting of a chain 200 amino acids.

I could go on and on about the complexity of living organisms but consider this:

Even the simplest self-reproducing organism contains encyclopedic quantities of complex, specific information. Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome of any free-living organism, containing 482 genes comprising 580,000 base pairs. As for humans, there is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encylopedia Britannica all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over.

Even more amazingly, living things have by far the most compact information storage/retrieval system known. To illustrate further, the amount of information that could be stored in a pinhead's volume of DNA is staggering. It is the equivalent information content of a pile of paperback books 500 times as tall as the distance from the earth to the moon, each with a different, yet specific content.

The genetic information cannot be translated except with many different enzymes, which are themsleves encoded. So the code cannot be translated excpet via products of translation. These include double-sieve enzymes to make sure the right amino acid is linked to the right tRNA molecule. One sieve rejects amino acids too large, while the other rejects those too small.

The genetic code has vital editing machinery that is itself encoded in the DNA. This shows that the system was fully functional from the beginning.

The enzymes that make the amino acid histidine themselves contain histidine.

 

[silverpig]

That may be what your mathematical treatment is, but it is wrong.

 

[xirtam]

<< That may be what your mathematical treatment is, but it is wrong. >>


How profound.

 

[rahvin]

The first life did not use DNA. You lay out the complexity of life now quite efficiently. The question is, what is life. Define it. Draw the line in the sand (I would warn you that science has many many versions of where that line lies and it's very very undecided). Then take into account that the reactions AREN'T random. Organic molecues have a tendency to certain reactions. Next consider the entire oceans of the planet as a broth of organic material for over a billion years before life occured (explain how long a billion years in, considering the size of our oceans come up with the number of organic reactions per second that would have been occuring then multiply it by the number of seconds in 1.1 billion years). The first life looked, acted, and is undoubtably completely different from what we consider life today. The first life would have probably been simple self replicating catalysts. No complex proteins, no DNA, no RNA. As selection pressured the "organisms" (molecues if you prefer) the complexity would have undoubtably increased to those that survived.

And finally, consider this. In the viking probe to mars the martian soil was exposed to an organic soup believed to be much like the earths primordial seas. After mixing the soil with the soup something "consumed" the organic molecues. In addition, the soil was exposed to an earth like atmosphere and something "consumed" the oxygen. The other tests for life failed. Maybe, just maybe the first life wasn't what we know as life today. Consider that.

 

[silverpig]

I already outlined why his treatment was wrong.

 

[Moonbeam]

xirtam, I deeply appreciate the clarity honesty and vulnerability with which you present your arguments. A while back I came to the same point, but took a different turn. I used to believe and went looking for proof. I just couldn't take all the suffering and misery that people suffer in the world and i wanted to prove to myself that it was really OK that there was a God and there was a reason for everything and that suffering wasn't in vane or the end of it. I wanted to think that people who are evil will pay too. I did the best i could, but I just couldn't find a shread of proof that there is a God. I doubt and with that came the collapse of my world. I went into a depression that I really can't describe except to call it black, completely hopeless. Everthing is, was, utterly meaningless. I knew that I would never be happy. Sorry to those who already heard this.

Well anyway. to make a long story short, I discovered that nothing is changed by the fact that life is meaningless and there is no God. All that is meaningless too. The need for meaning is meaningless. I let go and fell into pease. My heart woke up and I realized that love needs nothing, it just is. The truth about us, the deepest thing within us is that we love. It can be burried, but it can't be destroyed.

So when you say that a bump bump universe leand to relativism, I say that's only relatively true. We are a reflection of the universe in that we are what evolved from it. We have a human nature, a core, a central feature. We reflect the universe in our consciousnesses and we are love. So from one perspective I don't see a God, but from another there may as well be. It's all the same either way.

I don't want you to change how you believe, I just don't want what everyone who can't believe as you do to also accept the notion that there is nothing spiritual possible for them, that life, everything is relative. There's a whole boat load of those people. I keep inserting myself in these disucssions just in case there are one or two who might be able to reevaluate to no God thing from a no faith no proof required viewpoint.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

The need for meaning is meaningless.

 

[xirtam]

<< I wanted to think that people who are evil will pay too. >>



If there is no God, how can there be a standard whereby one can judge the "evil" people? Whence comes your sense of justice? Where are these intuitions coming from? Are they the byproduct of random chemical chance, or do they actually mean something?



<< My heart woke up and I realized that love needs nothing, it just is. The truth about us, the deepest thing within us is that we love. It can be burried, but it can't be destroyed. >>

What about love? Where does that come from? How did it get here scientifically, and why? I don't see how science can explain these "feelings" and philosophical states of being -- do you?



<< So when you say that a bump bump universe leand to relativism, I say that's only relatively true. >>


You're only proving my point by relativising my statement. My claim is that this is how it is, and it's not subjectively relative. You're proving it by showing how your belief system causes you to, rather than reject my point, uphold it as being relatively true. But what is truth, in your book? In a relativistic world, doesn't truth lose all its meaning?



<< ...able to reevaluate to no God thing from a no faith no proof required viewpoint. >>

But this viewpoint is entirely unscientific, isn't it? Science requires proof -- the very essence of science cries out for proof. Are you admitting that the origins of this "no God thing" are unscientific in nature, and we must therefore seek answers from other media?

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't have time mto say more now but something to think on is what is certainty. Maybe when you love, you know.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

xirtam, having established that one could go around in circles forever questioning these things, can you tell me why it would be unfair to say that to buy into whatever brand of religion is closest at hand is nothing more than an easy way out? I'd also like to know if you see any flaw with the idea that we should simply not worry about it, that no conclusions need to be drawn? We are here now, maybe we should just live and let live?

 

[QueHuong]

<< What about love? Where does that come from? How did it get here scientifically, and why? I don't see how science can explain these "feelings." >>



I'm surprised that for someone who tries to play the role of the all-knowing philosopher, that you don't know anything about the limbic system. If you reach up your nose, feel around for a doughnut shaped neural structure at the border of the brainstem and cerebral hemispheres, you'll feel your limbic system which is composed of the hippocampus, amygdala, and hypothalamus. The system is associated with emotions and drives (such as for food and sex). In an experiment, electrical stimulation of a cat's amygdala caused it to become enraged. Another example is Phineas Gage. Through a freak accident, a rod shot through his brain, damaging his frontal lobes. Miraculously, he survived but his personality changed drastically. He was no longer this soft-spoken guy but an impatient, irritable, dishonest, and profance guy. Emotions and personality are influenced by the brain, and through experiments and case studies, they show science can explain "feelings" and personalities. However, I'm not saying emotions are mere chemicals in the brain and that science explains everything. I'm saying science can explain quite a lot and I find it pathetic when people attribute anything they don't know or understand to a superior being. Give science time and it will unravel many of today's mysteries.

 

[Riprorin]

If your brain thought, if your brain initiated your thoughts, then you would be a prisioner of your brain. You'd have to do whatever your brain told you. Wilder Penfield, one of the world's leading neurosurgeons says that the brain is a computer. It is programmed by something independent of itself - the mind. You do the thinking and you use your brain as a computer. Sir John Eccles, a Nobel Prize winner for his research on the brain siad that the brain is a machine that a ghost can operate. In a nomal state of consciousness, you are the ghost that operates it. The point is you cannot explain a sense of truth, justice, holiness, purity, a sense of purpose and meaning in terms of electrical impulses and chemical reactions.

 

[silverpig]

Look at why your calculations are wrong. Let's calculate the probability of a star forming in space with no calculations included for any forces etc. This will be based purely on random particle positions.


Msun = 10^30 x 6.02 x 10^23 particles = 6 x 10^53 particles
Vsun = 4/3 Pi (1.4 x 10^9 m)^3 = 1.15 x 10^28 m

density = M/V = 5.22 x 10^25 particles/m^3

1ly = 9.461 x 10^15 m

Let's assume that the average distance between stars is ~10 ly (it's higher in galaxies, but much much lower in other regions of space. This is a very generous estimate).

The added mass of all of the planets together is about 0.01339 the mass of the sun. To account for everything (and to be even more generous), let's say 0.02 sol. Generalizing, we get 2.5 x 10^51 particles in the space between stars (multiply it for other stars, and round up again).

Avg volume of space b/w stars = 4/3 Pi (10ly)^3 = 3.548 x 10^52 m^3

Avg density of space b/w stars = 2.5 x 10^51/(3.548 x 10^52) = 0.07 particles / m^3

ratio of densities = 3.654 x 10^28 (the sun is that much more dense than the space around it)
ratio of volumes = 3.085 x 10^27


The probability that any particle in the 10 ly radius will be in the sun's radius is 1/3.085 x 10^27.

The probability that the amount of particles that make up the sun would actually be there, assuming a zero-force, purely random collision universe, is:

(1/3.085 x 10^27)^3.654 x 10^28 (approx)

Therefore, the probability that one star will form in the universe is.... (waiting for my 1Ghz Tbird to calculate this number... okay, I'll post the final answer when my cpu finishes calculating it... It's been 3 minutes already)

As you can see, it's incredibly tiny. Much much smaller than the chances that a protein chain will form. Actually, using your method, it "shows" that life could very well have evolved from random interactions. Raise this extremely tiny number to the power of however many stars there are in the universe, and you'll get an insanely small number. The probability that a protein chain forming is a definite possibility, given that there are so many stars in the sky, and their relative probabilities.

PS: it's been over 5 minutes now, and my cpu still hasn't finished calculating the number.


edit: language

 

[rahvin]

<< If your brain thought, if your brain initiated your thoughts, then you would be a prisioner of your brain. You'd have to do whatever your brain told you. Wilder Penfield, one of the world's leading neurosurgeons says that the brain is a computer. It is programmed by something independent of itself - the mind. You do the thinking and you use your brain as a computer. Sir John Eccles, a Nobel Prize winner for his research on the brain siad that the brain is a machine that a ghost can operate. In a nomal state of consciousness, you are the ghost that operates it. The point is you cannot explain a sense of truth, justice, holiness, purity, a sense of purpose and meaning in terms of electrical impulses and chemical reactions. >>



Isn't it great when you take personal (not scientific) thoughts of some person that made a potentially major scientific discovery and then use those credentials to lend weight to that persons speculations and philosiphical musings? For example:



<< you cannot explain a sense of truth, justice, holiness, purity, a sense of purpose and meaning in terms of electrical impulses and chemical reactions. >>



But I sure can stimulate those feelings in you with the right electrical impulses and chemical changes even if you can't explain them. In the future when you try to quote some nobel laureate why don't you quote the year she/he recieved the prize and for what discovery so we can be certain without a ton of research that the musings being made are those of a scientific nature and not a personal feeling. Irregardless of the fact that even the most brilliant of men can fail to accept reality (such as Einstein's stout refusal to accept quantum mechanics).

 

[silverpig]

Bah, I've waited too long. It's been 25 minutes now, and still no answer on that calculation. Let's just suffice to say it's small

 

[zzzz]

<< Can you point out to me one instance where purely random and unguided processes can produce higher complex forms >>


take a look at a snowflake.

 

[silverpig]

Along those same lines...

Diamonds, salt, or any other crystal for that matter.

Electron orbitals are complex shapes...

 

[xirtam]

<<
xirtam, having established that one could go around in circles forever questioning these things, can you tell me why it would be unfair to say that to buy into whatever brand of religion is closest at hand is nothing more than an easy way out? I'd also like to know if you see any flaw with the idea that we should simply not worry about it, that no conclusions need to be drawn? We are here now, maybe we should just live and let live?
>>



"Whatever brand of religion is closest at hand?" Doesn't that statement assume two things -- first, that there is no such thing as truth, and second, that religion is nothing more than a personal preference? Here's the problem as I see it...

You have two kinds of choices. Insulin choices and ice cream choices.

Ice cream choices are those kinds of choices entirely based on opinion. Insulin choices are "cure" offers. Now, I can't stand in judgment over an ice cream decision. I can argue that chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream is the best kind of ice cream, and it is... for me. But others might like other kinds of ice cream better. This is a subjective choice -- that is, it depends entirely on a person's taste buds as to whether or not he likes that particular kind of ice cream.

The other kinds of choices are objective choices. These choices don't involve the subject at all, but are rather based on truth. Statements like "2+2=4" are such examples. This rule does not depend upon the subject -- it's not like the idea that this logic is "your truth" or "my truth." It is "the truth." Now, about the ice cream versus insulin: Let's say that I argue that ice cream cures diabetes. You say it doesn't, I say that it's true for me -- that it cures my diabetes! Are you starting to see the flaw? Cures don't come in "brands" like these, and religions are posing cures to man's problem. Not all of them can be the accurate cure. Some of them are like ice cream -- they taste good, but they compound the problem. Perhaps the insulin doesn't taste very good -- in fact, for that reason, I wish Christianity wasn't true in several cases -- but if it's true, it must be accepted. The only reason to accept a reason is because you think it's true. Not because it "tastes good" or seems like "a good brand." And that's why you're right -- it is an "easy way out" to buy into whatever religion is closest at hand or whatever seems the easiest at the time.

Then there's the idea you posed that we "should simply not worry about it, that no conclusions should be drawn. We are here now, maybe we should just live and let live." The first part of your statement shows a potential for moral assertion -- that there is a correct course of action to take, and that is one of not drawing conclusions. I believe with you that we should "live and let live," but if you accept the idea that there is indeed something like truth, our actions and thoughts must always be tested with a moral/ethical yardstick. Was your "live and let live" principle based on the idea that ignorance is bliss, and therefore we should not seek answers to questions? Both religion and science are based in my mind on the fundamental quality of human curiosity. Why destroy this element?

I'm sorry I don't have time to address the other posts directed toward me, but I will address this one:


<< I'm surprised that for someone who tries to play the role of the all-knowing philosopher, that you don't know anything about the limbic system... I find it pathetic when people attribute anything they don't know or understand to a superior being. Give science time and it will unravel many of today's mysteries. >>



First of all, if I was all-knowing, I would not be a philosopher. Philosopher means "lover of wisdom," and I think the greatest joy that philosophy brings is through the learning processes and the thinking processes. If I already knew everything, I wouldn't have to think. There would be no way to increase my knowledge. I don't think I'd like that. I don't believe I have claimed omniscience, and I thought that the fact that I'm asking these questions illustrated the point. Perhaps not. I'm truly sorry if I come across as an arrogant know-it-all. That's not my intent. I seek truth. Secondly, I don't believe that I attribute anything I don't know or understand to a superior being. I agree with you -- there is a lot in the physical world that effects our emotions -- chemical imbalances, things that happen to us through the day, apparently this "limbric system" (which I hadn't heard of before -- thanks for pointing it out. It will make for some good reading.) But the problem I still see is that science does not explain how or why these systems came into existence to begin with? I'm having difficulty understanding why people have the intuition to recognize something is wrong or evil if there is no moral truth. I'm not saying that science won't come up with a lot of answers to today's mysteries -- I am an engineer, after all. I specialize in the application of science, and I love the sciences. I recognize, however, that science cannot explain everything. Neither can religion. They seek different types of answers. To ask science to answer a religious question is to ask someone to describe what the smell of hot looks like. Hot is not a smell, and even if it was, you can't see a smell. The main argument I was making is that due to scientific bounds -- put in place by somebody other than me, so don't blame me for that -- science is limited in scope. What is truly pathetic is the absolute reliance on the five senses. They tell us a lot, but they don't tell us everything.

 

[lebe0024]

I'm with you friend, but I don't think your statements will be post-modern enough for this crowd.
I love your generous bounds on the probabilities. Ever wonder why more and more microbiologists today no longer believe in primordial soup origins?

 

[SagaLore]

<< I'm sorry, what is the probability that man was created from dirt (was it?) and that women were created from a bone?




<< ends with a fantastic imaginary world far away and long ago >>



surely you are aware that there is a high chance that life did not begin on earth, but arrived here? NASA did an experiment where bacteria survived a space flight and there was that Mars asteriod in '96 with the bacteria on it, so I guess its not so fantastic after all. >>




Um... men from dirt? 50/50 chance


Might want to freshen up on the Mars asteroid incident... it ended up inconclusive, more likely a naturally occuring deposit formation based on minerals and such, wasn't bacteria

 

[SagaLore]

<< Sorry if I failed to communicate clearly -- I wasn't acting like you were making this up to prove a point. Rather, I wanted to see what support you could offer... mainly because none was given (I did read Hairrcut's "defense," but I didn't find any support.) I had heard the multiverse argument before. But I still find no proof... only speculation. Surely nothing on which to base a scientific stance. I have no difficulty with Copenhagen's wave collapse theory or the dual nature of light.



<< Many physicists are turning to it to help fill in the gaps in what we don't understand... don't act like we made it up to prove a point. >>

What's the difference? It seems to me like physicists started with the answer they wanted and wound up needing to create multiple universes to justify themselves. Now, as long as they leave this in the realm of "one possibility" (that web site you pointed me to explained that there were many interpretations of which multiverse was just one), I have no problem with that. But it has to stay there until there's more proof or actual evidence or support for this thing.

I still have a few questions on multiverse. Yes, I did check out the experiment, but I find the inference that there must be multiple universes as a result of shining an electron gun through a couple of slits to be a bit far-fetched. First of all, what test exists to prove the multiverse theory wrong? These multiple universes are beyond our observation, correct? It seems to me to be a bit presumptuous to create universes to explain something we're observing within our known universe. But hey, I recognize that I'm not an expert on this. Is there any evidence to indicate why I'm wrong? Do you actually believe this theory of multiple universes to be true, and if so, why do you believe it?

Moonbeam:


<< xirtam, let me see if I got your argument right. You are saying that life can't scientifically arise from the inanimate. Now that that is settled we can introduce the notion that it must have been God that created it.

Well why get so fancy. Lets just say that life creates itself, it has the magical property that it is sui gereris. Thus we can leave the idea of some other type of creator with all the add on complexities that create such logical paradoxes behind. So life creates itself or there's something wrong with the theory and life does arise from the inannimate. Much simpler.
>>



Boy, I sure wish I could buy that theory. You're right... it would make things much more simple. But just because we can think of a simpler explanation doesn't make it any more true... or any more plausible. That's like saying: Why learn about all these arithmetic rules and algebraic rules and calculus rules? It introduces all kinds of weird paradoxes and complex notions, like infinities and division by zero, for which we have to come up with notions like limits and derivatives and integrals... Well, why get so fancy? Let's just say that the solution to every math problem is 5, and then we can leave all these add-on complexities. Right? Wrong. Why? Because I'm not concerned with how simple of an explanation we can concoct if it isn't TRUE! So unless you have reasoning and scientific evidence to back up how -- contrary to everything we can observe in nature now -- life spontaneously produced itself, there is indeed "something wrong with [this] theory." So far, the only reason you have given me is that it's easier to believe that life spontaneously came into existence. No, I'm sorry, that's not a valid assertion of faith. Furthermore, I'm not interested in faith -- what does the scientific evidence point to? Oh, by the way, does adding infinite universes detract at all from the "simplicity" of your argument? >>



I think scientists have a habit of coming up with a simple theory, and then making it more and more complicated instead of just discounting it. "But just because we can think of a simpler explanation doesn't make it any more true... or any more plausible" is a pretty good way of putting it. Darwin started out with an extremely simple theory - his original model was completely false, but scientists continued to adapt it and stitch it. I guess the same thing happens with the supernatural. It's pretty simple just to say there is one ultimate God that created the universe. But that statement is even more simple, yet the evidence/theory that could possibly go into why/how is far more complicated than anything we could understand.

This thread started out by talking about chance and numbers. What are the chances that the universe could inevitably create life? People say "far better chance than that there is a God that created it." People say "don't forget that there could be an infinite number of universe at each junction point of probability".

Sure. So, the universe creates itself... spawns an infinite number of co-universes... develops life... life becomes intelligent, capable of inquiring it's own existence...

Sounds plausible to me. So if the universe is basically an inifinite perpetual algorithm ... why can't a God being an infinite perpetual algorithm? Some people will admit the possibility of higher states of naturality - beyond our current perception of time, space, and energy. And somehow our universe is so special that a God can't exist on the same premise? Scientists still are arguing just how gravity works, and we just can't be open to the possibilty that a God of another continuum couldn't have spawned our existence?

But people will say it's unlikely? Well... it's also unlikely you will win the lottery. Same example used for evolution.