Zero probability for Evolution

[Suave]

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.

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!

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.

"Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are the relics of ancient viral infections preserved in our DNA. Many ERV insertion points are located in exactly the same position on our genome as on the chimpanzee genome! There are two explanations for these perfectly matched ERV locations. Either it is a nearly impossible coincidence that endogenous retroviruses just by chance were inserted in exactly the same location in our genomes, or chimps and humans share a common ancestor. The probability that an endogenous retrovirus was inserted at the exact same location is roughly 0.00003 percent. Chimps and humans share 7 instances of endogenous retroviruses inserted at a perfectly matched location. There is at least a 99.9999999999999999999999999999 percent likelihood that it was a shared common ancestor between chimps and humans that became infected, and both chimps and humans inherited these ERVs."

"Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry strongly suggest chimps and humans share a common ancestry:*

Chromosome 2 in humans

Main article: Chromosome 2 (human)

Further information: Chimpanzee Genome Project § Genes of the Chromosome 2 fusion site

Figure 1b: Fusion of ancestral chromosomes left distinctive remnants of telomeres, and a vestigial centromere
Evidence for the evolution of Homo sapiens from a common ancestor with chimpanzees is found in the number of chromosomes in humans as compared to all other members of Hominidae. All hominidae have 24 pairs of chromosomes, except humans, who have only 23 pairs. Human chromosome 2 is a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.

The evidence for this includes:
The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the common chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.
The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.
The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle.

Chromosome 2 thus presents strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to J. W. Ijdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2."

Figure 1b: Fusion of ancestral chromosomes left distinctive remnants of telomeres, and a vestigial centromere

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_o...on_descent

 

[Sandra Jayne]

An approach the probability of abiogenesis....
- How many possible chemical pathways leading to
abiogenesis are there?
- How many of them exist on the various kinds of
planets?
- How many planets have at least one of these
pathways?
- How many potential chemical reactions that
possibly lead to abiogenesis have occurred?
This one depends upon the number, kind, &
duration of planets & the chemical pathways.

None of those questions are answerable.
Thus it is utterly ridiculously impossible to
calculate any probability that life would arise
by abiogenesis.

As we have no evidence that life exists on any other planets (have some respect for the Fermi paradox) maybe we should only consider the probability of life originating here on Earth.
The building blocks that started the evolutionary process such as DNA, RNA and protein molecules are preconditions to evolution and as life depends on genetic information any theory must provide an account of the origins of such information. To produce even a single functioning DNA molecule or protein in a pre-biotic setting that to put it down to chance even in a thirteen-billion-year-old universe is so small as to be absurd (probability). Even a marginally complex cell requires about one hundred complex proteins all operating in close collaboration. Then there is the chicken-and-egg paradox, proteins cannot arise apart from DNA, yet proteins need DNA to function. 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.

While self-organisation can produce systems of some complexity it doesn’t produce such complex systems as one finds in DNA, RNA and nucleic acids which are information-intensive systems.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As we have no evidence that life exists on any other planets (have some respect for the Fermi paradox) maybe we should only consider the probability of life originating here on Earth.
The building blocks that started the evolutionary process such as DNA, RNA and protein molecules are preconditions to evolution and as life depends on genetic information any theory must provide an account of the origins of such information. To produce even a single functioning DNA molecule or protein in a pre-biotic setting that to put it down to chance even in a thirteen-billion-year-old universe is so small as to be absurd (probability). Even a marginally complex cell requires about one hundred complex proteins all operating in close collaboration. Then there is the chicken-and-egg paradox, proteins cannot arise apart from DNA, yet proteins need DNA to function. 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.

While self-organisation can produce systems of some complexity it doesn’t produce such complex systems as one finds in DNA, RNA and nucleic acids which are information-intensive systems.

Just a little quibble, but it is DNA that requires proteins in its synthesis. Proteins are the expression products of DNA, but they perform their functions without need of DNA apart from that.

We cannot rule out that these things can arise undirected through chains of natural chemical reactions. It has been demonstrated that RNA can behave like an enzyme. That amino acids can form naturally outside of biological systems.

I am not certain the probability is so great it puts it outside of possibility for these things to happen. Spontaneous chemical reactions that create new compounds happen rather frequently.

Just because science does not have a reasonable explanation for life originating does not mean that one does not exist.

 

[Revoltingest]

As we have no evidence that life exists on any other planets (have some respect for the Fermi paradox) maybe we should only consider the probability of life originating here on Earth.

Lacking any real paradox, I prefer to call it the "Fermi Question".
There's one really good answer...
Civilizations would be really really far from each other.
And they'd generally be moving away from each other
at great speed. Space travel between them would take
centuries. That is hard stuff to overcome.

The building blocks that started the evolutionary process such as DNA, RNA and protein molecules are preconditions to evolution and as life depends on genetic information any theory must provide an account of the origins of such information. To produce even a single functioning DNA molecule or protein in a pre-biotic setting that to put it down to chance even in a thirteen-billion-year-old universe is so small as to be absurd (probability).

How can you say the probability is small, given the billions of
years & billions of square miles of real estate full of all sorts
of chemical reactions? We don't even know how many possible
pathways to life there are. We cannot even say whether the
probability of abiogenesis is either high or low.

Even a marginally complex cell requires about one hundred complex proteins all operating in close collaboration. Then there is the chicken-and-egg paradox, proteins cannot arise apart from DNA, yet proteins need DNA to function. 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.

While self-organisation can produce systems of some complexity it doesn’t produce such complex systems as one finds in DNA, RNA and nucleic acids which are information-intensive systems.

Abiogenesis research is a very new field.
I predict that there will be interesting & illuminating discoveries.

 

[F1fan]

The assumption that life has begun accidentally is presented as a scientific fact
by Science,

Right off the start you make a huge error and assumption. Science doesn't say life existing is an accident. To say "accident" suggests that there was some other natural course and something happened outside of the expected and moral process. This is misleading and dishonest.

 

[questfortruth]

Right off the start you make a huge error and assumption.

The Creationists say that Neo-Darwinism uses incidents.

Certainly not you.

How can there be 0% probability when life actually happened. In the whole universe taking every single planet the probability is not zero. It may be small but certainly not zero.

Conditions, entropy etc dictated life emerging on earth, if someone could have worked out the probability of life occuring (yes i know, logical impossibility) given all the variables then for earth would have had a pretty high probability of life.

See answer:

Incidentally, there is interesting work being done that suggests that abiogenesis is inevitable wherever possible: https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122/

If that is the case, the chances of life appearing on earth approaches 100%.

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."

There is at least a 99.9999999999999999999999999999 percent likelihood that it was a shared common ancestor between chimps and humans

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

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I am a mathematical idiot, diagnosed as "learning disabled in the manipulation of numbers". What I can say, in spite of the intelligent-seeming math (which has been noted by others who evidently can do math, that it also "fails") is just a couple points of logic in the OP

 

[F1fan]

The Creationists say that Neo-Darwinism uses incidents.

They also insist a God exists.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

oops! Bumbed <enter> before I completed, so let's try again:

I am a mathematical idiot, diagnosed as "learning disabled in the manipulation of numbers". What I can say, in spite of the intelligent-seeming math (which has been noted by others who evidently can do math, that it also "fails") is just a few points of failed logic by OP:

1) Evolution is not Abiogensis.
2) No one said that life began accidentally; that is a grotesque oversimplification; but that life began following natural laws of chemistry. The fact that acids and bases, when mixed, create a volatile mixture is not an "accident". It just is.
3) Life emerged, regardless of the probabilities, or because of the probabilities.
4) We can not calculate the odds of a given event until we know the exact conditions required for an event to emerge. As we do now know the exact conditions required for life to emerge, we can not calculate the odds of the event occurring.
5) Regardless of probability, there is always the chance that a given thing will happen, based on those same probabilities.
6) If the probability of a given event is 1:1250000000, that does not mean we have to progress through 1249999999 failed attempts before the given event occurs. Regardless of the odds or probabilities, it can happen on the first time.
7) Life emerged.

 

[F1fan]

Abiogenesis research is a very new field.
I predict that there will be interesting & illuminating discoveries.

What abiogenesis has going for it is that it is a plausible and natural process. Creationists like to downplay it, but it actually can work, and is the best explanation of how the building blocks of life emerged. It is superior to creationist claims in that it's actually plausible. All the necessary elements of it working exist in reality. Creationists cant demonstrate their god exists, nor that any supernatural phenomenon exists.

 

[questfortruth]

the intelligent-seeming math (which has been noted by others who evidently can do math, that it also "fails")

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

 

[questfortruth]

4) We can not calculate the odds of a given event until we know the exact conditions required for an event to emerge. As we do now know the exact conditions required for life to emerge, we can not calculate the odds of the event occurring.
5) Regardless of probability, there is always the chance that a given thing will happen, based on those same probabilities.
6) If the probability of a given event is 1:1250000000, that does not mean we have to progress through 1249999999 failed attempts before the given event occurs. Regardless of the odds or probabilities, it can happen on the first time.

Believe me, I am like one of the geniuses, so I have some new breakthroughs on these points.
For example, point number 4. 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.

 

[questfortruth]

5) Regardless of probability, there is always the chance that a given thing will happen, based on those same probabilities.
6) If the probability of a given event is 1:1250000000, that does not mean we have to progress through 1249999999 failed attempts before the given event occurs. Regardless of the odds or probabilities, it can happen on the first time.

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 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.

 

[ecco]

To produce even a single functioning DNA molecule or protein in a pre-biotic setting that to put it down to chance even in a thirteen-billion-year-old universe is so small as to be absurd (probability).

YOU exist. Not someone like you - YOU. YOU are the result of 1 in 100,000,000 sperm fertilizing your mother's egg. If any of those other 99,999,999 sperm got there first, YOU would not exist.
Throw that together with the sperm that created your mother and then your grandmother and then your great-grandmother and so on. If you do the math honestly, you will see that the possibility of YOU existing "is so small as to be absurd (probability)"

While self-organisation can produce systems of some complexity it doesn’t produce such complex systems as one finds in DNA, RNA and nucleic acids which are information-intensive systems.

All these things did not have to happen at the same time.

In any case, what is your alternative theory?

 

[questfortruth]

YOU exist. Not someone like you - YOU. YOU are the result of 1 in 100,000,000 sperm fertilizing your mother's egg. If any of those other 99,999,999 sperm got there first, YOU would not exist.

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.

 

[ecco]

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."

Yes. You are correct. However, perhaps you should show the source for your quote.

Evolution is defined as the accidental process, in
particular, man came from a common ancestor with monkeys by accident.

Where is Evolution defined as an accidental process?

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

Your "thus" is not based in fact. I've told you before that you need to stop thinking nature or anything in it is binary. Good:evil, black:white, etc. is not the reality of the universe.

When two hydrogen atoms pair up with an oxygen atom to create a molecule of water, is that directed or accidental? It is neither. It is a natural process.

Therefore, Science is factually against God.

Your "therefore" is not based in fact.
In reality, Christian Fundamentalism is factually against Science.

 

[ecco]

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.

What are you rambling on about? Do you understand the context in which I made my post? If you want to interject into a conversation, OK. But make your comments intelligible.

 

[questfortruth]

What are you rambling on about? Do you understand the context in which I made my post? If you want to interject into a conversation, OK. But make your comments intelligible.

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.

 

[ChristineM]

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."

Yet it happened so the probability was 100% so your paper is incorrect .

And what "last days". If that's the sort of woo you pepper your papers with then is it any wonder no serious scientific publication with print it.

 

[ChristineM]

Incidentally, there is interesting work being done that suggests that abiogenesis is inevitable wherever possible: https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122/

I saw this on arXiv a few months ago, very interesting.