Evolutionists and Creationists: What are the chances life could arise from non-life?

Question

We've all seen those impressive calculations by Fred Hoyle and heard Emile Borel's infinite monkeys argument. I was wondering just how valid those arguments were.

Based on what I've read, there are several problems with them, and I was wondering if any Creationists could explain why, in light of those problems, the arguments are still sound.

Here's the list of problems:

1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

The list and a deeper analysis of each problem can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_Fallacy

Creationists wouldn't use a discredited argument, right? So there must be responses to each of the five points. I'm wondering what they are.

Oops, wrong link. The Wiki link I provided only lists the problems. Here's a list that describes them in greater detail:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Globule

Answer 1

Speaking as an inevitability-of-life proponent, I believe that self-replicating complex compounds, a sort of proto-life, can come into existance, given an unlimited amount of time, in any environment in which there exists multiple elements (more than, say, all carbon atoms) and some form of energy (gravity, radiodecay, heat, light, etc.)

I believe life is far more common than we currently understand, and my personal definition of life and protolife includes some items biologists debate whether or not they are life.

My definition is close to the operational definition Freeman Dyson used in a recent essay "life is defined as a material system that can acquire, store, process, and use information to organize its activities."

Answer 2

Its no chance.Take the natural course, we have been through there. We simply doing to know the exact process in scientific terms. We search to find out and answer the questions what,how,where and why all about life! Yes Our life-form came from non-living components. but the point is -it assembled and integrate into a complex form we call life.finally, can evolved into a more higher form I believe.
Take this question for example, Our biological system is carbon based. What about if carbon is replaced by silicon. silicon has similar characteristics with carbon. so how would you describe this possibility.try to propose characteristics inherent to this silicon based biological setup.
Another question comparative to this is :Are there life-forms somewhere in the universe that is different in biological setup here on earth? lifeforms that do not contain carbon nor silicon? we define life as capable of repairing or renewing itself, reproducing and copying the traits of predecessors.

Answer 3

I really wish religion would stay out of science. Sheese - what are they thinking? Bring back the good old days of the inquisition when someone with any opinion that didn't match the Bible was tortured into re-canting.

Oh wait - those were the "Dark Ages" right? hmmmmm

Answer 4

Creationists wouldn't use a discredited argument? Is that sarcasm?

Creationists only argue with straw men in their own heads. They never even approach the actual science. All the points you list are classic examples of this. Whether it's deliberate blockheadedness or just garden variety mental retardation is debatable.

Answer 5

Life is the natural consequence of carbon based organic chemistry. If you put the basic ingredients together in a favorable environment, supply sufficient energy for a long enough period of time, life will arise.

Answer 6

"could evolution be an identical theory if sensible layout have been the perfect rationalization for the beginning place of existence?" the belief of evolution already exists self reliant of abiogenesis, advent, etc. the project is beside the point to evolution.

Answer 7

That second link is a fascinating read.

(1/3 of the way through it now...)

Answer 8

We actually know life came from nonliving self replicating chemical compounds. Its called abiogenesis

Answer 9

Its obvious - they want to refute it so badly, they'll resort to anything.

I've never heard a creationist argue against evolutionary theory... they always argue against some weird creationist version of it.

Answer 10

I'd say the chances are 100%. I'm here aren't I?