Abiogenesis not probable but inevitable, says physicist

tadaman
I thought I would mention one of the worlds foremost biologists to weigh in his statement of not supporting Abiogenesis because of its statistical impossibility. You know the idea speculating about the origin of Biological life.

His opinion is irrelevant in terms of the persons you used in your appeal to authority, i.e. 'world's top mathematicians'.

Well, panspermia is still not in line with Abiogenesis. It tries to explain the dispersal of life, not the origin. It IS in line with evolution since it also states that life evolves in what ever environment life is placed in. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. I think you are confused.

No, I think you may be confused since for panspermia to take place life has to have happened elsewhere first. What was the process?

Also to say he is an atheist really provides no useful background. Creationism is not being discussed here.

Then you should reread the thread as the majority of 'rebuttals' to the abiogenesis hypothesis are coming from the creation camp.

Evolution and creationism are obviously not in line with each other. Your confusing Hoyle´s support of evolution with abiogenesis or a counter argument to creationism.

I think that discredits his proficiency in mathematics. He is a highly respected , world renowned mathematician. He says it is a mathematical impossibility.

He said it was an impossibility on earth. Obviously for him to believe in panspermia the process of life arising must have taken place elsewhere. What is the proposal for that?

Well, placing these many eggs in a basket still being weaved is not very prudent. Especially when the straw is already running out.

The scientific method often is about making mistakes and then looking for a better answer to the question.

What do you propose we do? Sit around until we decipher the answer in some book? Wait until a burning bit of shrubbery instructs us in the finer points of life? Maybe wait until the next 'prophet' shows up?

AugustusMasonicus

vasaga
Why not? And what is it with people comparing politics with science lately..?

Because if you were the man with both arms in the rather poor analogy proposed above you would end up getting convicted due to circumstantial evidence. And who was comparing politics with science?

Maybe. But if you think circumstancial evidence is insufficient, what happens to abiogenesis? It's solely based on circumstancial evidence in the first place...
As for the whole politics vs science thing, court = politics =/= science. But I do get the analogy.

AugustusMasonicus
Are you reading anything that I am posting? This example is about a future event and would be perfectly acceptable to use probability statistics to predict.

The past or future are irrelevant when it comes to statistics. If the universe exists for 1 minute, and the odd of us appearing here is 1 in a million years, the idea that we randomly popped up within that 1 minute is not a realistic hypothesis. Technically it can happen. But technically, your coffee can also fall up instead of down by those same statistics.

AugustusMasonicus

1) If we have an event that occurred, should we investigate how it occurred or why it occurred?

If it is so desired.

Ok.

AugustusMasonicus

2) If we have two possible explanations, and one has a higher probability of being true, is there any reason to pick the other one, if they have the same amount of evidence?

You rely solely on the evidence if it is a past event. Probability statistics will not tell you which one is the actual explanation if it has already occurred. One choice is 1, the other is 0 but the odds are 1 that it occured. If it is a future event then the options can be weighted based on available data.

I am not sure how many more time you would like this explained to you, I think it is rather easy to grasp. Events that have happened are statistically meaningless. Future events can be weighted statistically (although accuracy is based on inputted data).

You did not answer the question.

AugustusMasonicus

3) In case there is only one explanation we can come up with, does that necessarily mean it's true?

If an outcome has occurred (life on earth) then the odds are 1 that it happened, statistics are not concerned with the cause. At this point there are several hypotheses on how this occurred and statistics will neither support nor refute the cause as it happened in the past and is considered irrelevant statistically.

You did not answer the question.

vasaga
Maybe. But if you think circumstancial evidence is insufficient, what happens to abiogenesis? It's solely based on circumstancial evidence in the first place...
As for the whole politics vs science thing, court = politics =/= science. But I do get the analogy.

Irrelevant. Abiogenesis is not misusing probability statistics like creationism to prove a point.

The past or future are irrelevant when it comes to statistics. If the universe exists for 1 minute, and the odd of us appearing here is 1 in a million years, the idea that we randomly popped up within that 1 minute is not a realistic hypothesis. Technically it can happen. But technically, your coffee can also fall up instead of down by those same statistics.

That is a poor analogy for many reasons. Statistics are useful and can be very relevant for calculating future events as this is done daily. Your 'random pop up' comment is absurd. You laid out the parameters as the event could occur once in a million years. Weighted statistically it does not matter if it happens in year one, five hundred thousand or one million, they all have an equal chance of occurring.

You did not answer the question.

Because your question dealt with a future event and is irrelevant to the conversation.

You did not answer the question.

See above. But to humor you there can be an infinite number of reasons supplied for any event if you choose but you still need to be able to repeatably test a hypothesis to prove that it has merit. None of that has anything to do with statistics and using them incorrectly to weight a past event either happening or not happening.

reply to post by tadaman

So since we are measuring ....our brain power... How big is yours?, er, what is YOUR qualification?

My qualification to do what? Post a link to an interesting scientific paper? My membership in this forum is sufficient qualification for that.

and if by some grace of God you are qualified in some field or background even relevant to this, then please, earn that nobel prize proving the probability of what you propose. Because the worlds top mathematicians say after a certain point, its impossible. You say different, ok. PROVE it. If not this is all just a premise without a conclusion. In other words, a fallacy.

I haven't said different. You're assuming that I think like you. I don't.

It seems to me that you have now proved that you are unqualified to comment, not just on this thread topic, but on anything at all.

reply to post by vasaga

So, you're honestly gonna tell me that someone who you consider to be qualified can be someone that does not have a PhD title or a degree in biology or whatever?

I do so tell you. However, given your apparent inability — or rather, I suspect, your unwillingness — to understand a simple fact of statistics that Augustus Masonicus has been trying to drive into your head for the past three pages, I certainly don't expect you either to understand or to believe me.

reply to post by Astyanax


SO you admit that in civil conversation where qualifications are null and void, that you asked for my qualifications without having any of your own. That you simply tried to devalue my comment based on a set of parameters you yourself dont meet, and by your own admission, no one here needs to have. SO you disagreed and instead of a counter argument, you tried to play the expertise card. Which as it turns out was a lie, because you are no more an "expert" than myself.

You have proven that you can post whereever you want, and that no one should engage you in conversation because you dont really talk. You play an ego game where you have to be right. Learning is second to "winning" the argument. You argue. You dont have conversations.

Thanks. Continue to blindly support an Idea that facts have proven is impossible. Because math is really up to interpretation.

Its like poetry.

AugustusMasonicus

vasaga
Maybe. But if you think circumstancial evidence is insufficient, what happens to abiogenesis? It's solely based on circumstancial evidence in the first place...
As for the whole politics vs science thing, court = politics =/= science. But I do get the analogy.

Irrelevant. Abiogenesis is not misusing probability statistics like creationism to prove a point.

Oh so on one side circumstancial evidence is condemned but abiogenesis is allowed to have it. Good to know.

AugustusMasonicus
That is a poor analogy for many reasons. Statistics are useful and can be very relevant for calculating future events as this is done daily. Your 'random pop up' comment is absurd. You laid out the parameters as the event could occur once in a million years. Weighted statistically it does not matter if it happens in year one, five hundred thousand or one million, they all have an equal chance of occurring.

I hope you are aware that in order to prove the event abiogenesis will have to reproduce the results, meaning, you can also see it as a future event....

AugustusMasonicus
Because your question dealt with a future event and is irrelevant to the conversation.

You don't get to decide what's relevant or not in a two-way conversation. Unless of course, it's not actually a conversation but rather an attempt to let others conform to certain views.

AugustusMasonicus
See above. But to humor you there can be an infinite number of reasons supplied for any event if you choose but you still need to be able to repeatably test a hypothesis to prove that it has merit. None of that has anything to do with statistics and using them incorrectly to weight a past event either happening or not happening.

Ok.

Astyanax
reply to post by vasaga

 

So, you're honestly gonna tell me that someone who you consider to be qualified can be someone that does not have a PhD title or a degree in biology or whatever?

I do so tell you.

Ok. Care to give a few examples of such cases?

Astyanax
However, given your apparent inability — or rather, I suspect, your unwillingness — to understand a simple fact of statistics that Augustus Masonicus has been trying to drive into your head for the past three pages, I certainly don't expect you either to understand or to believe me.

That's why I ask. As long as I don't understand, I ask. But apparently that's seen as picking fights by some people.

Gibraltarego
I postulate that Nothing was 'created' for it was always there. The entire universe probably displays a collective intelligence that we are not yet capable to measure.

I'm with you as far as the "always there" aspect is concerned. If a mathematician wants to limit himself to a four-dimensional reality (with linear time as one of the dimensions), then abiogenesis might make the best sense. However, with a little bit more imagination and a broader concept of time that sees it as something more than a river of events, then it's pretty easy to see that creation is a faulty assumption. It makes a lot more sense that everything has always been here, and will always be here. We just get fooled sometimes because our monkey brains are extremely limited.

I'm not sure about the collective intelligence. However, for the universe to exist I can see a kind of "collective perception" causing the old quantum wave function to collapse and making virtual things real.

vasaga
Oh so on one side circumstancial evidence is condemned but abiogenesis is allowed to have it. Good to know.

Show me anyone misusing statistical probability on past occurrences to support abiogenesis and I will denounce that too. Take your time, it may be awhile.

AugustusMasonicus
I hope you are aware that in order to prove the event abiogenesis will have to reproduce the results, meaning, you can also see it as a future event....

Which has nothing to do with phony statistics used to prove creationism by rolling out absurd odds of why things in the past may or may not have occurred.

AugustusMasonicus
You don't get to decide what's relevant or not in a two-way conversation. Unless of course, it's not actually a conversation but rather an attempt to let others conform to certain views.

Seeing that you admitted that you do not know how statistics work, and I do, I most certainly do get to tell you what is or is not relevant in this conversation. That is the crux of the problem, you are arguing from a place of ignorance and I repeatedly explain where statistics are meaningless (proving the past) and it does not seem to be sinking in.

I could not care if you, or anyone else, believes God, Jesus and the Baby Jesus or a magical cabbage created life on earth, just do not use statistics to try and prove it. To do so is intellectually disingenuous and mathematically meaningless. Is this beginning to register yet?

reply to post by tadaman

O you admit that in civil conversation where qualifications are null and void, that you asked for my qualifications without having any of your own.

What? Where did I say I didn't have any (paper) qualifications?

You are no more an "expert" than myself.

Agreed. That is why I have not jumped to any conclusions about this paper. I know some physics, but this is a bit out of my comfort zone.

I haven't said England's hypothesis is true. I think it might be, but in the nature of things it's a little difficult to falsify.

You have proven that you can post whereever you want, and that no one should engage you in conversation because you dont really talk.

We're having a conversation now, so let me ask you a couple of questions.

— Do you think living things are better at dissipating energy than inert matter is?

— If you don't, can you explain why?

— If you do, why do you disagree with this hypothesis?

You argue. You dont have conversations.

Evidently you have not bothered to read the thread.

Now: time to show your 'qualifications'. Answer the questions.

reply to post by vasaga

Ok. Care to give a few examples of such cases?

Oh, go and look in a dictionary. Learn what 'qualification' means.

As long as I don't understand, I ask.

I think you've had your share of answers.

AugustusMasonicus

vasaga
Oh so on one side circumstancial evidence is condemned but abiogenesis is allowed to have it. Good to know.

Show me anyone misusing statistical probability on past occurrences to support abiogenesis and I will denounce that too. Take your time, it may be awhile.

Lol you need look no further than the link at the start of this thread.....

AugustusMasonicus

I hope you are aware that in order to prove the event abiogenesis will have to reproduce the results, meaning, you can also see it as a future event....

Which has nothing to do with phony statistics used to prove creationism by rolling out absurd odds of why things in the past may or may not have occurred.

Show me exactly where I said anything about proving creationism.

AugustusMasonicus

You don't get to decide what's relevant or not in a two-way conversation. Unless of course, it's not actually a conversation but rather an attempt to let others conform to certain views.

Seeing that you admitted that you do not know how statistics work,

I never 'admitted' such a thing, and I do know how it works.

AugustusMasonicus
and I do, I most certainly do get to tell you what is or is not relevant in this conversation. That is the crux of the problem, you are arguing from a place of ignorance and I repeatedly explain where statistics are meaningless (proving the past) and it does not seem to be sinking in.

It seems not to sink in that in order to give evidence, they will have to reproduce the events... The whole past thing becomes irrelevant. Because it will need to happen again in the future. It is a requirement to reproduce to prove the hypothesis it isn't it? Doesn't that mean that proving it has the exact same chance as the event that happened in the past if we are replicating the exact same thing? That means;

1) The chance is so small, that they will not be able to reproduce it, making the hypothesis lack evidence and thus fall on the ground.
2) If anything is reproduced, the chances of it have been made a lot larger by the conditions of the experiment, meaning one can not say that natural processes can produce life, just as much as nature can produce gasoline. It was no longer a natural process but a man-made process. The hypotheses again, is no longer valid.

Either way the hypothesis can not stand. If there are other possibilities I'll gladly hear it.

AugustusMasonicus
I could not care if you, or anyone else, believes God, Jesus and the Baby Jesus or a magical cabbage created life on earth, just do not use statistics to try and prove it. To do so is intellectually disingenuous and mathematically meaningless. Is this beginning to register yet?

Yes. Tell that to the scientist in the first post, talking about 'probable' and 'inevitable', and everyone in here supporting those views...

Astyanax
reply to post by vasaga

 

Ok. Care to give a few examples of such cases?

Oh, go and look in a dictionary. Learn what 'qualification' means.

Let me break down how this went down, just so that people, including you, can see the dishonesty and absurdity of arguing with you.

tadaman: *statement*

Astyanax replies:
Thank you for your expert, considered and highly intelligent reply. And what are your qualifications for having an opinion on the subject?

I reply:
So people need qualifications to have an opinion now? Being qualified or not does not change the validity of a statement. Its truth or falsehood depends on whether it is supported by facts, not whether he has a certificate on the wall or not.

Astyanax replies:
No, of course not. Not unless they hope to be taken seriously. Everybody has a right to make as much of an idiot of himself as he pleases. Is a person qualified to comment on the use of the word 'qualification' unless he understands all the common, current meanings of that word? Doesn't he look a bit of an idiot if he assumes that 'qualification' only means 'certificate'?

I reply:
So, you're honestly gonna tell me that someone who you consider to be qualified can be someone that does not have a PhD title or a degree in biology or whatever?

Astyanax replies:
I do so tell you. I certainly don't expect you either to understand or to believe me.

I reply:
Ok. Care to give a few examples of such cases?

Astyanax replies:
Oh, go and look in a dictionary. Learn what 'qualification' means.

I go and look into a dictionary and find on oxford dictionaries:

qualification
Line breaks: quali¦fi|ca¦tion
Pronunciation: /ˌkwɒlɪfɪˈkeɪʃ(ə)n /
NOUN

1A pass of an examination or an official completion of a course, especially one conferring status as a recognized practitioner of a profession or activity

My question to you now Astyanax is, how is this any different from a certificate, a PhD title or a degree in biology or whatever?

You never give consistent answers, but just dance around the issue to pretend that you are in control, constantly contradicting yourself in the process. No wonder that you can believe some things, since you yourself have no structure at all in your way of thinking. Or maybe you have it, but you simply like to troll others. And people like you are the ones that get stars in this place.

Humanity sucks. I'm ashamed to be part of this species. And I must apologize to all other species in existence, on behalf of my species for all the atrocities we cause.

Astyanax

As long as I don't understand, I ask.

I think you've had your share of answers.

Only dishonest ones, like the one above...

vasaga
Lol you need look no further than the link at the start of this thread.....

I read it when it was first posted. They author does not provide 'odds' like the asinine video you linked does. His explanation is:

One feature common to all such examples of spontaneous “self-replication” is their statistical irreversibility: clearly, it is much more likely that one bacterium should turn into two than that two should somehow spontaneously revert back into one.

This is obviously a true axiom as two bacterium do not revert into one.

Show me exactly where I said anything about proving creationism.

Stop being coy. The video you linked misuses statistics to try and prove that abiogenesis is statistically near-impossible to occur. If not abiogenesis then what?

I never 'admitted' such a thing, and I do know how it works.

If you did then you would not be linking videos that misuses statistically probability to try and prove or disprove past events. You would have known that such methods are statistically meaningless.

It seems not to sink in that in order to give evidence, they will have to reproduce the events... The whole past thing becomes irrelevant. Because it will need to happen again in the future. It is a requirement to reproduce to prove the hypothesis it isn't it? Doesn't that mean that proving it has the exact same chance as the event that happened in the past if we are replicating the exact same thing?

No, owing to the fact that you cannot derive accurate 'odds' since you do not have all the information from that early time, they are only rough estimates and therefore any probability statistics derived from them are not accurate.

That means;

1) The chance is so small, that they will not be able to reproduce it, making the hypothesis lack evidence and thus fall on the ground.
2) If anything is reproduced, the chances of it have been made a lot larger by the conditions of the experiment, meaning one can not say that natural processes can produce life, just as much as nature can produce gasoline. It was no longer a natural process but a man-made process. The hypotheses again, is no longer valid.

Either way the hypothesis can not stand. If there are other possibilities I'll gladly hear it.

So basically what you are saying is that abiogenesis cannot have happened in the past even if it can be replicated today?

Yes. Tell that to the scientist in the first post, talking about 'probable' and 'inevitable', and everyone in here supporting those views...

A find it to be probable based on the hypothesis. I will find it inevitable when we can replicate the process.

AugustusMasonicus

vasaga
Show me exactly where I said anything about proving creationism.

Stop being coy. The video you linked misuses statistics to try and prove that abiogenesis is statistically near-impossible to occur. If not abiogenesis then what?

One does not need a replacement to disagree with something. That would be during slavery saying to someone arguing against slavery "Oh but no one could pick or cotton and we would all be without cloths. What alternative do you propose?". Lack of an alternative is not sufficient to sustain something.

AugustusMasonicus

I never 'admitted' such a thing, and I do know how it works.

If you did then you would not be linking videos that misuses statistically probability to try and prove or disprove past events. You would have known that such methods are statistically meaningless.

Not if the experiment needs to replicate the event.

AugustusMasonicus

It seems not to sink in that in order to give evidence, they will have to reproduce the events... The whole past thing becomes irrelevant. Because it will need to happen again in the future. It is a requirement to reproduce to prove the hypothesis it isn't it? Doesn't that mean that proving it has the exact same chance as the event that happened in the past if we are replicating the exact same thing?

No, owing to the fact that you cannot derive accurate 'odds' since you do not have all the information from that early time, they are only rough estimates and therefore any probability statistics derived from them are not accurate.

If they are not accurate and only rough estimates, it's an inaccurate hypothesis.

AugustusMasonicus

That means;

1) The chance is so small, that they will not be able to reproduce it, making the hypothesis lack evidence and thus fall on the ground.
2) If anything is reproduced, the chances of it have been made a lot larger by the conditions of the experiment, meaning one can not say that natural processes can produce life, just as much as nature can produce gasoline. It was no longer a natural process but a man-made process. The hypotheses again, is no longer valid.

Either way the hypothesis can not stand. If there are other possibilities I'll gladly hear it.

So basically what you are saying is that abiogenesis cannot have happened in the past even if it can be replicated today?

If abiogenesis strictly means the forming of life from non-living matter, adhering to the materialistic view that the planet itself is dead, then yes.

AugustusMasonicus

Yes. Tell that to the scientist in the first post, talking about 'probable' and 'inevitable', and everyone in here supporting those views...

A find it to be probable based on the hypothesis. I will find it inevitable when we can replicate the process.

I find the hypothesis to be possible but unlikely.

vasaga
One does not need a replacement to disagree with something. That would be during slavery saying to someone arguing against slavery "Oh but no one could pick or cotton and we would all be without cloths. What alternative do you propose?". Lack of an alternative is not sufficient to sustain something.

It is not your lack of an alternate hypothesis I take umbrage with, it is your meaningless statistical data that you put forward in an attempt to delegitimize abiogenesis.

Not if the experiment needs to replicate the event.

The experiment would be based on results, not fictitious odds of probability in repeating an event.

If they are not accurate and only rough estimates, it's an inaccurate hypothesis.

No, they are inaccurate odds. The hypothesis can only be inaccurate if it is not repeatable.

If abiogenesis strictly means the forming of life from non-living matter, adhering to the materialistic view that the planet itself is dead, then yes.

So if an experiment shows that abiogenesis is repeatable what is your position on the hypothesis?

I find the hypothesis to be possible but unlikely.

That is a perfectly reasonable stance to have but one cannot use probability statistics of past events as a method of determining how probable or improbable the hypothesis may be.

AugustusMasonicus
So if an experiment shows that abiogenesis is repeatable what is your position on the hypothesis?

Then it must be true.

reply to post by vasaga

go and look into a dictionary and find on oxford dictionaries

qualification
NOUN

1. A pass of an examination or an official completion of a course, especially one conferring status as a recognized practitioner of a profession or activity

Oh, well cut and pasted! It must have taken some slick mouse-work to select just that sentence and leave out the one immediately below it, which is:

1.2 A quality or accomplishment that makes someone suitable for a particular job or activity: (e.g.) 'only one qualification required—fabulous sense of humour.'

Which, of course, is precisely the sense in which I used the word.

As — I am sure — you are well aware.

You never give consistent answers, but just dance around the issue to pretend that you are in control, constantly contradicting yourself in the process. No wonder that you can believe some things, since you yourself have no structure at all in your way of thinking. Or maybe you have it, but you simply like to troll others. And people like you are the ones that get stars in this place.

There, there. I gave you a star for your earlier post. Feeling better now?

Humanity sucks. I'm ashamed to be part of this species. And I must apologize to all other species in existence, on behalf of my species for all the atrocities we cause.

I was unaware that disagreeing with someone on the meaning of a fairly common word was an atrocity.

Still, if you consider yourself qualified to take the sins of the world upon your own shoulders, apologize to your heart's content. Please don't forget to convey humanity's regrets to the malaria mosquito, the plague bacillus, HIV, the genital herpes virus and all the rest of the merry crew.

vasaga
Then it must be true.

Then we are in agreement. When/if abiogenesis can be replicated consistently then it will become a theory on how life formed here and possibly elsewhere.