All scientists:How life came about on earth?

Question

Please comment on the probability (in term of mathmatics/statistics) of vasious atoms (carbo/nitrogen/hydrogen) to come together to form the first basic cells? How many atoms does it take to form such primitive cell "in the beginning"?

Great examples given. And sure I don' denied to be an I.D. proponent. True, early cell may be form despite high improbability based on random atomic collision. But then there are layers after layers of organic organization needs to be formed, from nucleic acid, to DNA, ribosomes, nucleus, endo/exocytosis mechanism, mitochondria...and this is just cellular level. Then the cells have form tissues (with collision mechanism, and tissues had to form organs, then organs get together to become a system and then ultimately, becaome an biological being. All these needs to be come together and stay energetically stable for them to survive. How? by collision? Certainly any orderly organization, by laws of thermodynamics, had tendency to disintergrate to acieve lowest energy level to be stable. This is not account for all DNA needs to encode correct stereoisomer of a protein (and millions of them) for the body to work correctly, with each function differently for body to work.

And not to mention central nervous system. Finally, how would one explain human soul/mind? Sure, throw everything together if we, but can anyone difine soul/mind/consciousness? Sure, probabilty for one cell to come by chance is small by likely. But life is not a deck of cards, not simply explainable by chance alone. The step going from cells or even bundles of cell (primitive tissues) to an organ structure level? I just can't an organ flow around in oceans, swimming and ultimately collide with another organ or for whatever reason they decided to"bound" together to form an larger biological beings.....and actually by same process of probabilities to form an enclosed internal cavity with special senses such as vision and hearing/taste, etc. Most of all, all these does not just happen with one species, but millions of species in different kingdoms/family/class, etc. How?

Skeptics, it turns out my faith is definitely strong. I read the link you have provided, interesting research. Yes, RNA/gene based theory and metabolism based theory, as well a amino acids catalyzed orgainzation, they all sound very interesting. But, again, they can only explain at sub-celluar level, and still does not constitue evidence for cell formation, not to mention, tissue formation. You forgot that tissue formation is not just gathering of cells.Tissues actually are called such because they derve a "function", just like organs and systems.They are specific and direction to coming about. Russell's and Martin made the statement that with the kind of chimney envioronment available, the proto-biological substance, with RNA,then "probable" add further component, then "probable" evolvfrom there. Now, as a scientist, would you take as definitive evidence? The point iam amking is that with all evidence not available yet, how can anyone really reject I.D. totally? Closed mind? Who?

iknowtruthismine, true, science does not have the answer...Yet. I f I am absurd in making a decision on origin of life without waiting for the evidence, aren't you are doing exactly the same? What convincing evidence do you have to tell anyone that science will GARUNTEED to prove life came about by random chance? Did you wait for evidence to come to that conclusion and calling people "absurd"? But, I respect you logic and thank you for your answer. May God bless you.

J.P, sorry about the collision organs, and sorry about not answering earlier. I can see where you are getting to. But my question is, where are the evidence for organs and systems to come about and eventually as an organism by the process you have described? It sounds to me this is claimed in the name of evolution. After tissues formed an organ, then why would one assume it will automatically go a step futher to form a system? Why would it actually behave as such? Evidence is what convince people, me included.

fourmorebeers, you said, "The probablities of molecules arranging themselves in self-replicating sequences is very high, given enough time! Once that happens the whole chain of life starts bootstrapping." How can you be so sure that this was exactly what happened? "But again its in the books if you can be bothered." Do you trust everything you read without even slight question, just because you subscribe to evolution wholeheartedly? Can you provide definitive proof God doesn't exist? Are you using your "books" just like Christians believing in their Bible. Beside whole discussion we are having here, I can't see how you are different from me in term of your faith. If I believe in I.D. without definitive proof, aren't you the same in your belief in evolution without definitive proof? As for great thinkers....well, wwhat is your standard for great? Does Nobel prize winner knows eveything about evolution? I am not very enlightened with evolution,but at least I was humility.God bless.

Skeptic,I'm not sure to say thank you or yell at you.That article literally gave me a headache.I am no expert on bio-digital simulated evolution,or what ever you call that,and I don't think I can comment in depth on that article,since it's out ofthe scope of my knowledge base to fully comprehend.However,I felt the article is inherently biased toward evolution.It made the assumptions that mutation is the basis of evolution,and with different mutations,organisms will evolve.Its a computer program,written to function within the rules provided by the designer.Assumption then is the enviorment given can be generalized to nature and also early earth.Finally,the enviornment provided is statice.I agree article support evolution,but if I create a program that does everything in the beginning,does that mean I have evidence of I.D.,as organisms function the way I designed from the very beginning?Anyway,just thoughts.And I certainly don't claim to undersatnd the article completely.

J.P.,even we look at an organism as a whole,how can that prove anything?True,heart can't function without lung and so forth.But how does prove about sub-process of cellular substance to complex organism like mammals?True, debates between science, evolution, all the proof and disproof are becoming very cliche.And I agree I really don't have a very sound basis on scientific inquiry.But just like you said, science can't prove God/I.D. false. If that is the case,why won't science embrace crationism as alternative to life's origin?Why discount it totally?So far,and I think this is what you mean,science had yet to draw a blue marble in terms of evolution.But at the same time,science is totally discounting human experiences in God,without really acounting those experiences in any "scientific" way.Finally,as a human invention,scientific methods to exam human experiences likely will be inherently with inability to be objectively.How can then science discount human experiences and hence God?

fourmorebeer,peer reviewed science by who? Scientists? Who are trained with same doctrine and examine issues with the same approach,and ultimately with the same blind spot and arrogance.So if I examine a paper or research, and I find it to be grossly contradictory to my experiences,and totally disagree with the "scientific" finding,my review is automatically discounted because I am not a "scientist"?How about rest of the population who are not scientists and hold the same view with me?Even if we are minority(which I don't believe so,at least in US),does that mean our judgement or clain to knowledge is invalid bcause we are not "peer" of scientists.By your reasoning,we are the inferior part of your "humanity",because we don't think like you and is skeptical about trusting science totally.And therefore you can discount our belief wholeheartedly without proving us wrong (according to JP,scientific is to prove is wrong) because YOU ARE A SCIENTIST!Confident?or arrogant and ignorant?

JP,first,just want to you to know that I truly appreciate you, as a extremrly intelligent person.At the same time,I hope you don't see yourself or ur surrounding or life as a conglomeration of byproduct of scientific reductionistic view of the physical world.You do have true purpose for existence.I say this with utmost sincerity.No joke.As for free will,I know already because Bible told me in RomanCh7V15.Don't need the excessive logic or proof.Human experience exists,of course,why would I have this conversation with u?NDE and OBE have no part in my Christian belief.I actually doubt its existence and signficance.If science treats NDE and OBE as supernaturality,science should not be commenting on religion,at least Christianity.Laws of nature(gravity/fusion of atoms in sun etc)does not contradict my beliefs,but theory claiming against Bible,I don't accept.I don't ask you to accept,but be open.Falsify experience?Sure,how 'bout lies?I don't define any science.None!Science try to define me!!

Skeptic,thanks.I do appreaciate all the supporting info you have provided.I have to say I am not convinced,but I do not hold people who believe different from me as enemy.I like to hear what they have say.Throughout this discussion,I made an effort to be receptive to ideas.I really not as "unscientific" as I appeared.It has been a long time since I come in contact with basic science research.I learn quite a bit in this discussion.I don't want to convert anyone(may be I did initially,my apology),but do hope you may consider seeing things from other angle beside science.Truly,may God bless you.

Everybody,thank you for your excellent discussion.I truly appreciate all your input.I will resolve this question for now,for the simple reason we will not revolve anything for each other.Also, THIS IS REALLY MENTAL DRAINING FOR ME TO COME UP WITH ANSWER TO ALL OF YOU!!Especially I have follow and reaon thorugh your answers(JP,skeptic,Rev Key),some of which were way too technical.Fourmorebeer,also thank you.Hope you have some positive image of me after some of my replies to you.I do have a positive image of you:)) Rest of you, thank you also.I am sure I will run into you guys somewher here.

Answer 1

Given the environment on early earth, practically guaranteed.

Turns out if you put carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and some trace elements (oxygen, phosphorus) in a sealed container, apply UV and electrical arcs, the basics of life (DNA, RNA, and amino acids) will form almost immediately and slowly build up. On pre-biotic earth, you had exactly these elements freely available, storms producing sparks (lightning) and sunlight providing UV.

In a similiar environment, once you have the bases, the polymers are almost as guaranteed. Amino acids will randomly assemble into peptides, DNA and RNA into DNA polymers and RNA polymers. Some proteins and some RNA are self-replicating. Given millions of years in the vast pangean-era ocean, even if the chances of these happening by random chance is slim, the sheer number of combinations made makes it almost a sure thing.

The only thing more you need is to realize that oils come out of the original chemical formation process. Oils and water don't mix. Churn them and you'll get droplets of one or the other. Churn them hard enough and you'll get water-filled oil shells in water, that is, a bi-lipid layer (which is what the cell membrane is). Get any of those self-replicating chemicals in one of these, and you have the first protocells.

Evolution takes over at this point.

----

added:

WHOA... where do you get this crazy idea that organs had to evolve and then come together? Species evolve, body parts do not.

Okay, let's step into the realm of evolution now. So we have this protocell. Time and change occur, we have a full cell now, with organelles and what not (most of them are evolved protocells that were absorbed by a larger protocell and became specialized). By nature of their proteins on their cell membranes, some of them are able to hold to each other. This can give them advantages. Look up 'biofilm' some time. This is a situation where a bacteria (which, by the way, don't have organelles, all their metabolic pathways happen in the same matrix) colony becomes so large that their combined chemical messaging triggers some to start doing different things. Some will change to producing heavy amounts of energy-holding molecules, the outer ones will stop producing energy molecules and will produce a protective slime. In short, depending on their location in the colony, they will start doing different things because they can 'rely' on the others to provide what they are no longer doing themselves.

A tissue is a group of cells that does a specific task. The outer layer of a bacterial colony is a tissue by analogy -- it does a singular task, the inner ones produce the toxins and energy molecules, etc.

So imagine you have prokaryotes (cells with organelles, and thus higher complexity) starting to do the same. In their case, they can actually stick together and form structure. You have differentiation of roles based on location in the greater whole.

In short -- you have the beginning of organs and systems.

Let's extend the example a bit -- you have a spherical arrangement of prokaryotic cells. The outside layer serves only as protection, the middle layer serves as active transport between outside and inside, and the inside serves as energy processing, plus occasionally gives rise to the cells that cause the ball to split in two (we'll assume reproduction by division for this critter).

When the thing gets big enough, the outer layer will be so thick that the middle layer can no longer get enough of the nutrients the inner cells need by diffusion and osmosis. So the outer layer will have to differentiate -- since they have the same genes as the rest of the organism, it will be possible for some to become transport specialized -- though they will still be part of the protective layer. So the outer layer now contains two tissues -- pure protection and transport-specialized protection. We can now call the outer layer an organ, because it is made of two different tissues. And we now have systems because parts of the 'skin' and the whole middle layer are used for transport -- thus the skin and middle layer are part of the transport system.

You have an organism that has evolved from non-structured origins through simple division of labor, to specialized tissues, to differentiated tissues, to organs, and to systems.

All without the need of a creator, just the random shifting of genes that already exist in all the cells of the species anyways.

-----

The evidence of it is preciously difficult to find. Microbes don't tend to leave the best fossils, and are so small you're lucky if you find them at all.

However, the very process I've described is quite literally based on the Hydra. There was a reason I chose reproduction by division/budding, because my example was based on the hydra. So in essence, you may look at the hydra as evidence that the process I've described is possible.

Also understand that the division between 'tissue', 'organ' and 'system' is entirely man-made. Though these things are differentiated on the page, they are all integral to each other -- the lungs would never have evolved without the heart, and as the heart evolved, the lungs evolved as well. It is easy for us to say, "This lump is the lung, and this lump is the heart," but metabolically, where EXACTLY does the lung stop and the heart begin? You cannot point at a specific spot on the vein going from the lungs to the heart and say, "This is where one ends and the other begins." There is a transition.

Tissues and organs are clearly defined biologically, but system is just a grouping of proceedures. Let us say that instead of viewing digestion and excretion separetly, we view the input and output of material as a single process -- the flow of material in and out of the body. By this definition, the kidneys, skin, stomach, esophagus, tongue, bladder, and bowels are all part of a 'system', while the heart, lungs, and blood vessels are part of the transport system. If we look for a motor control system, we would include the brain, the spinal column, the major nerves, the muscles, but exclude the heart, the eyes, etc.

In short, you're continuing to look at the parts when in fact, there are no real parts, only the unified whole.

-----

added:

Evolution, ID, Creationism, Proof, Disproof, faith... UGH.

Okay, let me explain something about science -- science cannot prove anything true, it can only prove something false.

Pretend you have a list of facts in front of you. You know some are true and some are false. You start testing them. Some, you find a situation immediately where they are false. So you scratch them out. Some, you have to test two or three different ways before you find out that they are false -- but they are, so you scratch them out. Some, you test a hundred different ways and never prove them false -- are they true, or are you just out of ideas on how to try to disprove them?

That's how science works. In order for something to be accepted as true (note: not proved to be true, just accepted), it must be able to be shown to be false.

I hold in my hand a bag of marbles. You cannot see through the bag. I ask you, "What color are the marbles?" Let's say you say, "I think they're all red." How could we disprove it? Simple -- draw a marble that is not red. I let you reach in and pull out JUST ONE. It's red. Do you know that all marbles in there are red? No -- you know the condition only of that one marble. I put the marble back in the bag and let you pick again. One hundred times, you reach in and get a red marble. Your hypothesis is starting to look realistic because your hand tells you that there are perhaps a hundred marbles total. You do it a thousand times. Ten thousand times. Always red. Your hypothesis is so thoroughly tested that you're willing to conclude that all the marbles are red. On the 10,001 time... you pull out a blue marble.
Your theory has just been proven wrong. However, now you can make a different hypothesis: "Most of the balls are red, and there are one ore more blue marbles." You could disprove this by pulling out a marble that is not blue or red, or suddenly getting an overwhelming proponderance of blue marbles. But you'll never know for CERTAIN.

The only way to know for certain is to test every single marble. But the nature of the universe is such that you cannot do so.

This is why to say "Prove evolution is true" is to show a total lack of understanding of how science works.

Creationism and ID -- how can you falsify these? Creationism, you simply can't. No matter the evidence, you could explain it as 'God had a purpose for this evidence'. ID makes no testible predictions either.

Therefore ID and Creationism cannot be accepted scientifically, because they cannot be proved (science cannot prove at all), and they cannot be disproved (they're not falsifiable).

-----
removed: temporary personal communication
-----
added:

Earlier I promised: "rest assured, my next answer will show the non-existence of free will, the irrefutability of human experience, and the material scientific basis for the theurgic/divine experience."

<<< Non-existence of free will >>>

First, a definition: FACT n. (fakt). 1. A statement that expresses one idea and can be falsified.

Notice that 'fact' does not mean true or false in the logical context -- 'the sun is made of water' is a false fact, 'the sun is powered by gravity and fusion' is a true fact.


Let's start by looking at the assumptions of science. Science makes three assumptions, and only these three: math & logic are valid; our observations, unaided or aided, are valid; if there is a nonmaterial/supernatural/spiritual realm, it cannot have an effect on the natural, material world.

Without math and logic, we cannot prove or disprove. We can accept this 'assumption' as a tautological axiom -- that is, an unarguable, but unprovable, fact.

We cannot prove that our perceptions are valid -- we could be brains in a jar connected to a complex simulation or we could literally be just software running on a massive computer. These ideas cannot be falsified, so we must accept our perceptions as valid purely axiomically. That is -- what we sense is valid. If a tool is used, its validity is based on what is known of scientific theory. A telescope follows known formulas of optical science, so is valid. A crystal ball is not defined scientifically, so is invalid -- BUT... if parapsychology could construct duplicatable and controlable results with a crystal ball, it would potentially be valid.

The assumption of the supernatural not interfering in the natural world is vital. If the supernatural interferes with the natural world, we can never be sure of what we do now. The supernatural that is making gravity follow X Y and Z formulas may tomorrow decide that A Y and 4 are the new formulas. Notice that science is agnostic -- it does not accept or reject the supernatural, it just makes a required assumption if we are to know anything at all.

Okay, first -- we need to define what free will is and then construct a falsifiable hypothesis, and then look at what evidence exists to disprove it.

I will define free will as such: Free will is the ability to act in a way independant of one's past experiences and current perceptions.

We now look at the hypothesis: "Free will exists." To prove that this is false, I need to show that we are in fact restrained to our experiences and perceptions in our actions. Most would take this as a tautology but I promised proof, and I will do this with three ideas:

1. The universe and its contents are governed by computable rules [true under the math & logic axiom of science].
2. The mind is not an external, nontangible source [true under the nonmaterial/supernatural axiom of science].
3. The human mind is a process of the brain. [consequence of 1 and 2].

Since the brain is embedded in the universe (1), it is governed by computationally-possible [though not necessarily feasible] rules. Since the mind is a process of the brain, it is also governed by computationally-possible[though not necessarily feasible] rules.

This establishes through the Turing-Church Thesis that the human brain is Turing Complete, as is any process it runs.

The brain is a computer, the mind is the software running on the computer. A computer runs on input, state, rules, and output. The input of the brain is the senses, the state is the sum total of all its previous experiences and behaviors, the rules are the rules of physics, chemistry, biology, and neurology, all summed in neuroscience, and the output is behavior.

Therefore, the mind can do nothing that is not computationally predicated on its inputs and state, and all behaviors are therefore computable.

Free will cannot exist.

This does NOT mean that we do not make choices, however. The fact computation happens in fact means that choices are DEFINATELY made -- it's just that the choice is predetermined by the input and the states. If you could ever be returned to exactly the same input and state, you would produce exactly the same output.

<<< Irrefutability of Human Experience >>>

The human experience is the sum total of its inputs, processes, and outputs. By the disproof of free will above and the observation axiom of science, the human experience is
irrefutable.

<<< Basis of the Theurgic / Divine Experience >>>

This may surprise you, but I am a strong, nihilistic atheist, even though I've had a near-death experience and regularly experience out-of-body experiences. However, these effects can be created via drugs (especially DMT), electrical or magnetic stimulation of the temporal lobes of the brain, or oxygen deprivation. All three of these have been tested, and they all produce theurgic or divine experiences.

Further, since we presume the supernatural cannot or does not interact with the material world, we can rule out that these are genuine spiritual encounters.

However, the fact that they are perceived does mean that they take the form of input (be it drugs, electromagnetic energy, oxygen starvation) and have an effect on the state of the mind. This feeds back into the irrefutability of human experience -- Even though NDE's and OBE's exist, but have physical causes, does not change the IMPACT they have on people.

Thus, science does not discount the theurgic or divine human experience.

<<< Embracing the unprovable >>>

Science is defined by the three assumptions I stated above, each having a powerful, strong basis for its existance. To embrace that which can neither be proven nor disproven requires that we be willing to consider witchcraft, the supernatural, the purely absurd, as potentially true. It literally requires us to accept that we can know nothing at all about the universe.

Under your modified version of science, I could say that fusion in the sun is a result of a bunch of subatomic lions running around and shoving the subatomic particles together while they chase subatomic gazelles, and that gravity doesn't REALLY play a role in it except to hold it together.

Since you cannot falsify it, under your definition of science, should we accept it?

Answer 2

I suggest you read a proper science book. Try one of Dawkins', The Blind Watchmaker would be a good start.

Ok, best update the answer because the chances of any of you lot actually reading a real science book is an a par with pigs flying.

The probablities of molecules arranging themselves in self-replicating sequences is very high, given enough time! Once that happens the whole chain of life starts bootstrapping. But again its in the books if you can be bothered.

And a little more..... do you not think that the finest minds in the greatest Universities in the world haven't thought about your questions before? Its all there in the literature if you could really be bothered to read and understand it.

However you don't really want to do that, you'd rather sit in a stew of ignorance so long as it fits your world view.

And at the risk of my repeating myself yet again..... If you really want an answer to these questions just do some research, look at the scientific literature, the peer reviewed Nobel Prize winning sort, its all there.

Again....

That is how we judge competing claims, my claim to knowledge would have no more validity than yours if thats all it was,a claim, you can't just close your eyes and say "but I believe more!!".
Peer reviewed science is the only way humanity has for judging claims to knowledge, evolution has withstood every one of these reviews with suprisingly little change since Darwin, Creation Science has not survived one.

And one last little point, evolution is a historic science like cosmology or plate tectonics, by definition we were not around when much of what matters for these theories actually happened, we don't have a video recording, but we can be pretty sure of our theories when all the 'EVIDENCE' (that word again) ever discovered supports those theories.
We might even get it slightly wrong, clay vs soup for example, but it would not effect the bones of the theory in the slightest.

Answer 3

So your God is the God of the gaps... when ever science does not as of yet have the exact answer - it must have been God.

I wonder, will your God then go away when science does solve this problem?


Well, it is obvious you do not really want an answer to this question, or you would have done some research already.

For those of you who might want some answers to this very involved question, read the book "Genesis: the scientific quest for life's origins" - Hazen.


Amino acids occur naturally. These have an affinity for one another and would have formed the building blocks for other things to come. If you would bother to read the book I give, you will see that your "collision idea" is not correct. Building blocks are there. They really only need a substrate to come together on (like clays or aerosol bubbles).

Really, try reading the book. Is your faith strong enough? If so, what harm could it do?

Here is one link to get you started:

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030396


I see by your edits that you are really not interested in an answer. Rather, you just want to throw up your hands and say "it's all to complex for me to understand."

Do you really expect to get answers to all of those questions in a simple Q&A forum? Those answers take at least reading a few books to get a hold on. And more than a lifetime to understand in depth.

But that's not really the religious way, is it? It's so much easier to just walk away and say "God did it."

All of those questions you asked in your details have answers from scientists. It is clear you have never investigated them (my guess is that you never will). You have a lot of misconceptions about abiogeisis and evolution. The question is, will you ever try to understand them?


EDIT: OK, you are willing to read a little... I'm impressed. With that in mind, here is a little more:

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/papers/nature2003/

Also, do try the book I've recommended. It is very good.

And, pay close attention it JP's answer - it is very good.


EDIT: OK, the short answer is this: the conditions assumed at the start of the computer model are only those that are found in natural circumstances. Even ID'ers like Behe agree that variation in offspring gives us that kind of "raw material" to work with.

Another part of your discussion on the foundations of science... science does not permit anything it can not falsify. That is why ID and creationism are not science (also for other reasons such as they do not make predictions). Also, you need to understand that science CAN NOT admit supernatural causes (afterall, science is the study of the natural world). [Have you ever seen that cartoon with the mathmatician doing his caculations on the board in stepwise fassion? His step #7 says "and then, a miracle occurs." Another person looking at this then says, "I think you should clarify a bit more here in step 7.]

Again, science can not deny the existence of God, but it can say it's not necessary for the explaination for the origin of life or it's subsequent evolution.

BTW, there is a branch of cognative science that is dealing with human experience and even our idea of God.

Also, sorry if I was too harsh earlier. Most creationists on here are not as interested in learning as you are.

Answer 4

The first "life form" was most likely only a few hundred atoms in size, an oligonucleotide of RNA, though you may not believe it small molecules of this type are subject to natural selection. They evolved to replicate more efficiently and started to associate with DNA, peptides, carbohydrates and lipids. Over billions of years these collections of molecules gradually became simple cells, similar to modern bacteria. After many more millions of years, complex multicellular structures arose, paving the way for the staggering diversity and complexity of modern life.

Answer 5

There is no answer on that. Well I'm sure there is, but we don't know it. So far we have been able to create ammonia strains, some of the first building blocks of life, but that is about it. Who knows what is out in space or in dark matter that we may be missing.

With Billions of stars with Trillions of planets over infinite years, what are the chances it would not happen? and who are we to guess it has not happened before with different climates and different ingredients. You can say our world is perfect for sustaining life, but that is a very narrow view. It is perfect for sustaining OUR form of life.

Answer 6

Unlikely things happen all the time.

Here is a way for our tiny brains to understand the sheer improbability of random molecules interacting. I use for an analogy a simple deck of cards.

Take a deck of cards and shuffle it. Lay out the cards one at a time. Let's say this sequence is something like QS, 9D, 2H, AC, etc. Remember that sequence.

Now, rearrange the cards so they read AH, KH, ...2H, AC, ...AD, ...AS. What is the probability of that happening after a thorough shuffle? Quick hint, it is 1.24 x 10^-68. That's pretty unlikely. Now, shuffle that deck and flip out those cards. Can you get AH, KH, ...2H, AC, ...AD, ...AS? I'm guessing not. Try again. The odds of you getting that exact sequence are pretty slim.

Now, shuffle that deck and try to duplicate your first sequence: QS, 9D, 2H, AC, etc. Did you get it? No? Did you get the first 30 cards at least? 20? 10? Quick trivia: The probability of matching the first 10 cards is: 1.74 x 10^-17. The probability of matching that exact sequence is the same as getting AH, KH, ...2H, AC, ...AD, ...AS. "Impossible!" one might cry. "I could sit here for a whole week and never flip that exact sequence of cards."

Except that you already did. You flipped that sequence when I told you to. And now you cannot match it because the probability of getting that sequence is incredibly low. Suppose that before this exercise, someone had been flipping cards for a year, trying to get that QS, 9D, 2H, AC, etc. sequence. He is frustrated because it hasn't come up. Yet, you flipped it the very first time I told you to flip cards. The other person may sit there exclaiming that this sequence is impossible to get with a probability of 1.24 x 10^-68. Yet, you pulled it off on your first flip. You may sit there wondering, "What's the big deal?"

That's how I can accept evolution as a possibility. I don't view our universe as impossible to do without intelligence. This is what happened on the first flip of the cards, and we are quite lucky to see it happen. Meanwhile, cosmically speaking, other organisms are failing to form because the cards aren't flipping right. Not just organisms; planets, stars, galaxies!

If I can accept that the first flip of a deck of cards has the unlikely probability of 1.24 x 10^-68, then I can accept that we could have just beaten the unlikely odds of evolving to the point where we are now.

If you are unconvinced, then add another deck of cards. Replace the suits with horseshoes, circles, penguins, and cats. Try the exercise again. This time, the probability of getting that sequence is 7.63 x 10^-268. If you're still yet unconvinced, try it with 1000 decks of cards. The probability of your flip being exactly how it plays out is 2.41 x 10^-222652. That's more decimal places than most text fields will allow. But since you already have the sequence in front of you, the probability might as well be 1.00 for all you're concerned.

And that is how I see the world around us. Yes, it is unlikely that it happened. The reason some people cannot accept it as being random is that it did happen, just like the first card sequence with QS, 9D, 2H, AC, etc. did happen without any intelligent thought.

Hopefully, this allows you to appreciate how it is that unlikely events can still occur. This argument won't challenge your faith, and it's not designed to. It is designed to challenge the willful dismissal of evolution based on the notion that improbable equates to impossible. If you must refute evolution, use something more meaningful than, "If you just look around you, you have to agree that it didn't come about by chance."

Answer 7

Kind of a loaded question. When I read a question like this, I have to assume that you are an I.D. advocate. You are suggesting that because the exact understanding of how life began on earth is not fully understood, it somehow translates to proof that God created it. It doesn't.
To prove God exists, you have to prove God exists. Questioning science does not make your case.

Answer 8

The probability is millions to one that the correct conditions-water, amino acids, environment etc.- would exist on any given planet, but then there are millions of planets so the odds aren't an issue. Could it have happened spontaneously given proper conditions-yes-so for me there is no need to look for supernatural causes.

Answer 9

I'm going to make a record of matters improper right here: one million. "Came to the Earth" two. "When Big Bang" three. Evolution has not anything to do with the origins of existence. five. Most atheists do take delivery of evolution. 7. Abiogenesis.

Answer 10

seeing as how there are trillions upon trillions upon trillions of atoms in the universe, I'd say the probability of certain combinations which led to the first nucleic acids and organic molecules is 1:1. And BINGO, here we are! Just cuz it's hard for you to comprehend does not make it impossible.

;)

Answer 11

In as much as I was not around to see how everything came into being (and neither were you),I say, "I don't know ..... YET!" To assume that some god, my less than intellectual ancestors made up, instantaneously farted the universe into being, is absurd