Zero probability for Evolution

[ChristineM]

As yet there is no scientific explanation for the origin of such biological complexity and specificity and origin-of-life biology are unable to offer an adequate explanation of how life originated.

So lets all guess god dun it...

Oh wait, is that the only other explanation, the one with absolutely no evidence that a god exists, yet alone created a universe to house a single planet on which to plant Adam and Eve... Ok.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The probability, that I exist seems to be near zero because the right sperm-microbe of my father's sperm sample was very lucky to get into the right egg of my mother. However, Science has not proven yet, that soul or consciousness exists at all. Therefore, it is not an objection to my paper.
But even if there is soul, I would reply: God did it, God has bitten the odds.

You exist so it cannot be near zero.

 

[ChristineM]

Some people (not all) lie constantly, other people lie only once a month. All we lie.

Speak for yourself.

 

[McBell]

God is hiding because He does not want to be scientifically proven. He wants to be loved, not proven!

So you really should be doing all your whining and complaining to god then, right?
I mean if god does not want to be proven scientifically, what chance in hell do you have in proving him?

 

[Shakeel]

What evidence do you have that a "who" created life? Did you get that from a book?

It's you again. Of course you didn't focus on what you were replying to again so I'll just ignore you.

 

[firedragon]

Reviewer: the intelligent-seeming math (which has been noted by others who evidently can do math, that it also "fails").
AXIOM: Some people (not all) lie constantly, other people lie only once a month. All we lie.

DEFINITION:
The sense of Theory of Probability is in this: if the probability of an event p is 50 %, then we compare it to the following STANDARD event: one time tossed a coin onto the air falls "head". If the probability of an event is 1/100 then 7 times in the row tossed coin falls "head". We hate it if we need to toss the coin 30 times and constantly get "head". Thus, such an event, assumably, has not happened. Hereby it is forbidden by the theory to repeat the attempts. You need to get 30 heads by one single attempt. You can not repeat the 30 tosses day after day. You have only one time. Try it.

The probability, that I exist seems to be near zero because the right sperm-microbe of my father's sperm sample was very lucky to get into the right egg of my mother. However, Science has not proven yet, that soul or consciousness exists at all. Therefore, it is not an objection to my paper.
But even if there is soul, I would reply: God did it, God has bitten the odds.

PAPER:
The assumption that life has begun accidentally is presented as a scientific fact
by Science, not as an assumption: "the process of Evolution is scientific fact."
Evolution is defined as the accidental process, in
particular, man came from a common ancestor with monkeys by accident.
The modern textbook definition of Evolution says, that Evolution is not directed process.
Thus, accidental.
Therefore, Science is factually against God.
Science does defy the "pseudo-science" creationism, more specifically Young Earth Creationism.
But the YEC is a religion. Thus, at least one religion gets in the way of Science.

Let us consider a group of 10 lifeless similar planets. The probability that
at least on one planet in this group life will begin is P. Let us consider the
lifeless planet Earth, one of the planets in this group. The probability that
life will begin on Earth is p = P/10. Generally, if there are N planets, then
p is about p=P/N (for small p). Indeed, the probability, that life will emerge
on planet A is a, and on planet B the b. Thus, the probability,
that life will emerge in this system of planets is sum a+b. Assuming, that
life will occur only on one planet of these two.

Let the p be the upper limit of probability, it is the probability of life
emergence on a planet best suited for life.
Yes, it is very hard to calculate the p. But one can get some information about it. Namely, assuming, that p is small, the p is less than 100/N, where N is the number of planets suitable for life in the entire Universe and Multiverse.

Life has begun. Therefore, the above statement with probability P was realized
and the second statement with probability p was realized as well. But even if
P is 50%, the second statement is practically impossible if the probability p
is near zero. This means that Jordano Bruno's idea of infinite many planets
suitable for life does not help life to emerge on our planet.

Secondly, the fine-tuning argument/proof for God was debunked by the
Multiverse idea: each universe in the infinite Multiverse is equipped with
slightly different fundamental constants of physics. But due to the present
note, the idea of many universes does not help our universe to have the right
physical constants.

Moreover, it certainly harms the idea of life on Earth to have an entire
lifeless universe-s out there. Because then N=infinity, and so p=0, as p<100%/N.

The original is published in ResearchGate:
(PDF) Zero Evolution probability

DISCUSSION:

Formally speaking:
Situation prior to life emergence in our Universe:
1. There is 50 % probability, that the Universe gets alive.
2. There is zero probability, that Earth gets alive.

Situation after the life emergence in our Universe:
1. There is 100 % probability, that the Universe got alive.
2. There is 100 % probability, that Earth got alive.

But because the event with zero % probability never happens, the Creationists are right: we need God to jump from zero to 100 %.

Analogously the Multiverse and fine-tuning:
There was zero probability, that our Universe will get the right physical constants for life. But then this probability became 100. It is a miracle!

It is really hard to save people these "last days". OK. The probability of simple lifeforms is some p=10 %. However, the probability of technically advanced life is near zero: we didn't get signals from space. So, in my paper, I will write this: "due to paper
https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122/
the p can not be considered the probability of simple life, but rather of the technically advanced one."
God is hiding because He does not want to be scientifically proven. He wants to be loved, not proven!


What method God used to create human beings?
Wonder. Simply - wonder. Because the God is Spirit. For example, the Spirit of Knowledge. God knows even the answer to Riemann Hypothesis, even if God has no proof of it. Because His name is Knowledge. Same way, His name is Creativity. Therefore, He can create man even from nothing.

The difference between Creationism and Neo-Darwinism is the number of kinds.
It is well explained here:
Comprehension of Evolution and Creation

I am not hurt by ANY injustice because I am a loser. Look: if during 10 last years you have faced injustice, then the probability that during the next month you'll face recognition is simply

one month divided by the number of months in 10 years, which is one percent.

Look: the failures in life are making us a loser. And success-es are making from us a Lucky, charismatic person.

Utter nonsense.

 

[HonestJoe]

Formally speaking:
Situation prior to life emergence in our Universe:
1. There is 50 % probability, that the Universe gets alive.
2. There is zero probability, that Earth gets alive.

No, neither of those statements are correct.

You can't make an assertion for any simple fixed probability for life developing in the universe as a whole. There are far too many factors and unknowns. Various people have come up with calculations and estimates but they will always be limited by our knowledge and understanding of all the factors. Regardless, they're all ultimately functions of the probability of life developing on each planet multiplied by the number of planets and time.

The raw probability of life developing on any given planet (Earth or any other) will always be none-zero, regardless of how small that probability might be. Nothing makes it unconditionally impossible. That raw probability for any individual planet is entirely unchanged regardless of how many planets we're considering as a whole.

 

[questfortruth]

That raw probability for any individual planet is entirely unchanged regardless of how many planets we're considering as a whole.

The exact probability of Abiogenesis is unknown in Neo-Darwinism. The lowest limit
is 0, and the upper limit is 1/(250!), where 250 is the number of proteins, the
(!) is factorial of 250. Therefore, mine p=100/N belongs to 0<100/N<1/(250!).

 

[HonestJoe]

The exact probability of Abiogenesis is unknown

That is a meaningless statement on it's own. Abiogenesis is just an abstract concept so you can't assign it a probability on it's own. A probability needs to apply to a defined event.

p=100/N

That is still a flaw in your OP, before or after all of the edits you're making. It is not the right way to represent the combined probabilities of life developing on all planets.

If the probability of life developing on one planet is non-zero, the probability of life developing on any planet must be non-zero too, regardless of how many planets you're considering. You obviously can't reduced the probability by increasing the number of planets. If your maths is telling you that, your maths is wrong.

 

[questfortruth]

You obviously can't reduced the probability by increasing the number of planets. If your maths is telling you that, your maths is wrong.

The formula 100/N comes from the assumption, that probability of life to emerge on Earth was very small. That might not hold for primitive life, like apes, trees, cats. But for technically advanced life this assumption perfectly holds: the SETI has not detected signals of such life.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Reviewer: the intelligent-seeming math (which has been noted by others who evidently can do math, that it also "fails").
AXIOM: Some people (not all) lie constantly, other people lie only once a month. All we lie.

DEFINITION:
The sense of Theory of Probability is in this: if the probability of an event p is 50 %, then we compare it to the following STANDARD event: one time tossed a coin onto the air falls "head". If the probability of an event is 1/100 then 7 times in the row tossed coin falls "head". We hate it if we need to toss the coin 30 times and constantly get "head". Thus, such an event, assumably, has not happened. Hereby it is forbidden by the theory to repeat the attempts. You need to get 30 heads by one single attempt. You can not repeat the 30 tosses day after day. You have only one time. Try it.

The probability, that I exist seems to be near zero because the right sperm-microbe of my father's sperm sample was very lucky to get into the right egg of my mother. However, Science has not proven yet, that soul or consciousness exists at all. Therefore, it is not an objection to my paper.
But even if there is soul, I would reply: God did it, God has bitten the odds.

PAPER:
The assumption that life has begun accidentally is presented as a scientific fact
by Science, not as an assumption: "the process of Evolution is scientific fact."
Evolution is defined as the accidental process, in
particular, man came from a common ancestor with monkeys by accident.
The modern textbook definition of Evolution says, that Evolution is not directed process.
Thus, accidental.
Therefore, Science is factually against God.
Science does defy the "pseudo-science" creationism, more specifically Young Earth Creationism.
But the YEC is a religion. Thus, at least one religion gets in the way of Science.

Let us consider a group of 10 lifeless similar planets. The probability that
at least on one planet in this group life will begin is P. Let us consider the
lifeless planet Earth, one of the planets in this group. The probability that
life will begin on Earth is p = P/10. Generally, if there are N planets, then
p is about p=P/N (for small p). Indeed, the probability, that life will emerge
on planet A is a, and on planet B the b. Thus, the probability,
that life will emerge in this system of planets is sum a+b. Assuming, that
life will occur only on one planet of these two.

Let the p be the upper limit of probability, it is the probability of life
emergence on a planet best suited for life.
Yes, it is very hard to calculate the p. But one can get some information about it. Namely, assuming, that p is small, the p is less than 100/N, where N is the number of planets suitable for life in the entire Universe and Multiverse.
The exact probability of Abiogenesis is unknown in Neo-Darwinism. The lowest limit
is 0, and the upper limit is 1/(250!), where 250 is the number of proteins, the
(!) is factorial of 250. Therefore, mine p=100/N belongs to 0<100/N<1/(250!).
The formula 100/N comes from the assumption, that probability of life to emerge on Earth was very small. That might not hold for primitive life, like apes, trees, cats. But for technically advanced life this assumption perfectly holds: the SETI has not detected signals of such life.

Life has begun. Therefore, the above statement with probability P was realized
and the second statement with probability p was realized as well. But even if
P is 50%, the second statement is practically impossible if the probability p
is near zero. This means that Jordano Bruno's idea of infinite many planets
suitable for life does not help life to emerge on our planet.

Secondly, the fine-tuning argument/proof for God was debunked by the
Multiverse idea: each universe in the infinite Multiverse is equipped with
slightly different fundamental constants of physics. But due to the present
note, the idea of many universes does not help our universe to have the right
physical constants.

Moreover, it certainly harms the idea of life on Earth to have an entire
lifeless universe-s out there. Because then N=infinity, and so p=0, as p<100%/N.

The original is published in ResearchGate:
(PDF) Zero Evolution probability

DISCUSSION:

Formally speaking:
Situation prior to life emergence in our Universe:
1. There is 50 % probability, that the Universe gets alive.
2. There is zero probability, that Earth gets alive.

Situation after the life emergence in our Universe:
1. There is 100 % probability, that the Universe got alive.
2. There is 100 % probability, that Earth got alive.

But because the event with zero % probability never happens, the Creationists are right: we need God to jump from zero to 100 %.

Analogously the Multiverse and fine-tuning:
There was zero probability, that our Universe will get the right physical constants for life. But then this probability became 100. It is a miracle!

It is really hard to save people these "last days". OK. The probability of simple lifeforms is some p=10 %. However, the probability of technically advanced life is near zero: we didn't get signals from space. So, in my paper, I will write this: "due to paper
https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122/
the p can not be considered the probability of simple life, but rather of the technically advanced one."
God is hiding because He does not want to be scientifically proven. He wants to be loved, not proven!


What method God used to create human beings?
Wonder. Simply - wonder. Because the God is Spirit. For example, the Spirit of Knowledge. God knows even the answer to Riemann Hypothesis, even if God has no proof of it. Because His name is Knowledge. Same way, His name is Creativity. Therefore, He can create man even from nothing.

The difference between Creationism and Neo-Darwinism is the number of kinds.
It is well explained here:
Comprehension of Evolution and Creation

I am not hurt by ANY injustice because I am a loser. Look: if during 10 last years you have faced injustice, then the probability that during the next month you'll face recognition is simply

one month divided by the number of months in 10 years, which is one percent.

Look: the failures in life are making us a loser. And success-es are making from us a Lucky, charismatic person.

I can't make heads or tails of this word salad, tbh.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please read a textbook on Neo-Darwinism. Evolution is defined as the accidental process, in
particular, the man came from a common ancestor with monkeys by accident.

By "textbook", do you maybe mean one of the lower tier creationist propaganda works?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But the YEC is a religion. Thus, at least one religion gets in the way of Science.

So, do you also complain about the sciences that address the tides, storms and lightning because it conflicts with the tales of Poseidon, Jupiter and Thor?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Who created life?

Loaded question.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are some 260 species of monkeys and only one species of man.

...that still exists.
There were other species of homo.
Neanderthalis arguably the most famous bunch.

What happened to that one individual that begun to evolve into man?

Populations evolve. Gradually, over generations. Individuals don't evolve. Members of species A do not give birth to members of species B.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The definition of Evolution says, that Evolution is not directed process. Thus, accidental.

Evolution is not directed by an agent with intentions.

Evolution however, is not undirected.
It's just an agent with intentions that is doing the directing.

Instead, it is, in simple and broad terms, the environment.

 

[Suave]

The Creationists say that Neo-Darwinism uses incidents.



See answer:



It is really hard to save people these "last days". OK. The probability of simple lifeforms is some p=10 %. However, the probability of technically advanced life is near zero: we didn't get signals from space. So, in my paper I will write this: "due to paper ... the p can not be considered the probability of simple life, but rather of the technically advanced one."



God is hiding because He does not want to be scientifically proven. He wants to be loved, not proven!

The God hypothesis is neither falsifiable nor verifiable; whereas, evolution is a well-supported, testable explanation of phenomena that have occurred in the natural world, like the theory of gravitational attraction, cell theory, or atomic theory.

Please let us not consider evolution as a challenge to the notion of original sin, but rather please let us consider evolution to be a natural process whereby there are simply significant enough gene pool changes within a species changing over the course of many generations resulting in organisms having genetic traits different enough from their distant ancestors; so that there'd be no possible sexual reproduction occurring between somebody who were to have distant ancestral genetic traits with anybody living in the current population.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God is hiding because He does not want to be scientifically proven. He wants to be loved, not proven!

Interesting how this god always chooses to do what would be inevitable in a universe with no god. One might think that it was impersonating nonexistence. If so, it convinced me it's not there. Hopefully, that was its intention.

Some people (not all) lie constantly, other people lie only once a month. All we lie.

You're projecting. There are people who have no reason to lie. Just live an upstanding life, and lying has nothing to offer you. You seem to consider that impossible, like the faith-based thinkers who assume that everybody else must be thinking like them, unaware that there are other ways of thinking and living.

The exact probability of Abiogenesis is unknown in Neo-Darwinism. The lowest limit is 0, and the upper limit is 1/(250!), where 250 is the number of proteins, the (!) is factorial of 250. Therefore, mine p=100/N belongs to 0<100/N<1/(250!).

This is creationist math. It's Hoyle's fallacy - the junkyard tornado and 747 trope long since debunked.

Of course you didn't focus on what you were replying to again so I'll just ignore you.

He asked you a relevant question. You deflected and fled. Good choice.

 

[questfortruth]

The God hypothesis is neither falsifiable nor verifiable

It is because there are only two sources: God, satan. The Science if not of God, then of satan.
The satan does not want the God to be proven.

I can't make heads or tails of this word salad, tbh.

It is not different from any good scientific paper. I bet, you would say "word salat" to any of Dr. Hawking's papers. Provided, if he is not PhD and not peer-reviewed.

 

[F1fan]

It is linked to consciousness. Science has not proven, that it exists. So, Science has not proven that some YOU exists. After such proof, we need theory for it.

Wait, so you're skeptical than any "YOU" exists? So who is posting under your name? And since scientists are YOUs too, how can we be sure they are doing science since we doubt YOUs exist?

Let's be clear, we have a good working description of what consciousness is, and we observe this phenomenon in many organisms that having functioning brains.