Chemicals + Energy: Could They Have Given Birth to the First Life?

Question

One chemist has calculated the immense odds against amino acids ever combining to form the necessary proteins by undirected means. He estimated the probability to be more than 10 to the 67th to 1 (1067:1) against even a small protein forming by time and chance, in an ideal mixture of chemicals, in an ideal atmosphere, and given up to 100 billion years (an age 10 to 20 times greater than the supposed age of the Earth). Various highly qualified researchers feel they have scientifically proved, beyond question, that the proteins needed for life could never have come into existence by chance or any natural processes.

Evolutionist Paul Erbrich:
"The probability, however, of the convergent evolution of two proteins with approximately the same structure and function is too low to be plausible, even when all possible circumstances are present which seem to heighten the likelihood of such convergence. If this is so, then the plausibility of a random evolution of two or more different but functionally related proteins seems hardly greater."

[Paul Erbrich, "On the Probability of the Emergence of a Protein with a Particular Function," Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 34 (1985), pp. 53-80 (quote is from the abstract emphasis added).]

Answer 1

Odds calculations are completely irrelevant to abiogenesis, because it is not even close to a random process. Chemicals act and react in very predictable ways.

This is an old (you are citing something that is TWENTY-TWO years old, you realize), outdated, LOOONG-refuted, sorry excuse for an anti-evolution argument. You have failed.

See my source for detailed information on why and how exactly you have failed.

Answer 2

Did you know that the building blocks of life - amino acids - form naturally in interstellar dust clouds?

It's not unusual for religious folks to dismiss the possibility of life arising spontaneously as a result of natural chemical processes, but we do know that amino acids, the building blocks of proteins in living organisms, are formed as a by-product of chemical processes that take place naturally in interstellar clouds of gas and dust. It is in the nature of atoms and molecules to bind together into more complex molecules in the presence of a source of energy - In this case, UV radiation. If amino acids can form spontaneously, by common chemistry, then why not more complex organic molecules? Why not, by chance, a self-replicating molecule? Why not, ultimately, life? Even if the chance occurrence of a self-replicating molecule is a very low probability event, what does that matter in a universe of a billion trillion suns and billions of years for chemistry to have its effect? And one such event might be all that's needed to kick-start life.

Think about this though: What's the alternative? If life didn't start by an unthinking, undirected natural process then it had to be the result of an intentional act by an intelligent entity that *already exists* with absolutely no cause, no origin, no explanation, no history, no antecedents of any kind, and that possibility is infinitely more improbable than a particularly complex form of the chemistry that we already *know* exists.

For more information about abiogenesis, start here:
http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/vrchemistry/chapter26/page01.htm

Answer 3

This article you cite is a calculation of how improbable that the presence of similar proteins in two taxa by chance. If the proteins were developed independenly, such as by divine creation, or convergent evolution, the odds of the conservation of sequences seen is virtually nil. This is evidence for divergent evolution, and in no way addresses abiogenesis.

Answer 4

Theo........ there's more and more R&S participants realising that your questions are largely cut and pasted from various creationist quote mine sites, such as http://www.thetribulationforce.com/chemicals.htm

"Emphasis added" is a giveaway on Y!A, which doesn't permit bold or italics.

While quote mining is the strategy of choice for most creationists, you need to realise that we know this, and will check the original alleged quote. You do your own credibilty no favours if you don't do likewise, BEFORE you put your name to such "questions".

Here's a good place to start:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

It won't have all the mined quotes you might want to use, but that doesn't absolve you if you cut and paste without checking the truth of what you're recycling.

Answer 5

Why don't you do real research and check out some of the links in the answers previous to mine. Are you that insecure about your religion that scientific truth will destroy it? Would you rather cling to a myth than know the truth?
Whatever. Your arguments are not convincing when there are people who actually study the science, not just try to poke holes in it using half truths and quote scientists out of context.

Answer 6

What did he say were the odds that a Deity made everything were? Oh, and are there any scientists who aren't employed by answersingenesis that agree with him? Have his results been repeated and verified by other scientists?
Sorry, I don't go to religious websites for scientific knowledge. I also don't go to church for surgery. I'm funny like that.

Answer 7

Just because something is improbable does not make it impossible. Probability doesn't work that way. If you had actually studied probability and statistics rather than copying and pasting from a creationist website you would realize that.

Answer 8

Pretty shallow. Sorry.

Answer 9

Theo.............There's more and more scientists realizing that evolution isn't possible. Only rational explanation, God Created.