(April 1, 2016 at 3:53 pm)Esquilax Wrote:It is math, I don't need to appeal to citations because it is universal. If you don't like the math, then point out where it went wrong.(April 1, 2016 at 2:34 pm)AAA Wrote: It isn't too hard to calculate the odds of abiogenesis. This is the probability of a protein with a specific sequence forming by chance alone. Most proteins are hundreds or thousands of amino acids long. Lets use 100 amino acids as an example. There are 20 different amino acids that could possibly be at any position in the sequence. So each position has a one in 20 chance of being the correct amino acid. (1/20)^100 shows how likely it is that all 100 amino acids will be correct. This results in a 100 amino acid protein with a specific sequence forming one out of every 7.89 x 10^131 chances. That is unbelievably improbable. We can go even further than that.
Each chance to get the correct sequence takes 100 amino acids. Multiply that by the number of chances to get the total number of amino acids required to arrive at it and you get 7.89 x 10^133 total amino acids necessary. We can now figure out the mass of amino acids needed. Take the number of amino acid molecules and divide it by avogadro's number to get the number of moles of amino acids. This results in (7.89 x 10^133 molecules / 6.022 x 10 ^23 molecules /mole) = 1.31 x 10^110 moles. The average molar mass of an amino acid is 129.45 g/mole. You multiply this by the number of moles and you get 1.70 x 10^112 total grams of amino acids.
To give you some reference as to how large this mass is, the mass of the earth is 5.97 x 10^27 grams. The mass of amino acids is ((1.70 x 10^112/5.97 x 10^27) =2.84 x 10^84 times more massive than earth. There aren't even that many atoms in the universe.
In other words, the mass of amino acids you would need to get a small functional protein by chance are approximately the number of atoms in the universe times the mass of the earth. There probably haven't even been this many amino acids throughout all of time in the whole existence of the universe.
*Yawn* And you're assuming strict protein chemistry constitutes the origins of life over something simpler... why? Do you have any reason other than that it allows you to produce scary big numbers without appealing to any real citations at all? That's sort of the problem here: do you really think scientists just don't have an answer for your contentions?
Besides, you're a christian! Do you really want to be talking about probabilities when your alternative answer is an eternal space wizard existing outside of time and space that poofed everything into existence with a golem spell? You are aware, it seems, that probabilities are derived from data sets and not just pulled out of empty air, and to have a data set with which to derive positive probabilities you need observations: there are no observations suggesting that any part of your religion's claims are true, and hence no positive probability can be derived.
In essence, your position is that abiogenesis, a hypothesis which uses strictly observed data points about the ways chemicals interact, backed up by experimental results that support this, should be discarded because the probability is too low, but that your god alternative, for which the probability is zero, should take its place. That's... that's seriously what you're suggesting, here.
It doesn't matter if we start with proteins or not, we eventually have to account for there formation. Also how could we start with something similar? DNA and RNA are going to give you the same problem, only worse, because you have to eventually develop a code for proteins with a specific structure that allows them to interact with the DNA/RNA. Also, even attempts to artificially design RNA that is capable of autocatalysis have failed. The reason I chose protein is that they are necessary in every living system that has ever been observed, so to say that we can start with something simpler is speculation. I figured we should start with what we know to exist rather than something we don't know existed (a self replicating RNA). And yes, scientists don't have a counter to this. That why the origin of life issue is so difficult. Most researchers recognize that chance alone is not sufficient. The typical counter is that some simpler self replicating molecules began competing, but these ideas are often vague and chemically impractical.
Also, you saying that I believe a wizard poofed everything into existence is an unfair oversimplification. That would be like me saying that you believe a rock magically turned into a human.
