What can we prove?

I took the liberty of using an article written by an nonbeliever to prove my point.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life

Creationists often claim that the chances of a modern enzyme forming by random means are astronomically small, and therefore the chances of a complete bacterium (which is composed of hundreds or thousands of such enzymes & proteins) is so near to impossible that it would never happen in the 13 billion years or so since the universe took shape.

The main problem with this argument is that it assumes abiogenesis (the initial formation of life from simpler molecules) was a totally random process. It also assumes that in order for abiogenesis to be successful, a complete microbe would have had to form spontaneously. In fact, the same non-random forces which propel biological evolution also propelled abiogenesis. Specifically, Natural Selection.

The calculation which supports the creationist argument begins with the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance. This would be approximately 1 chance in 10390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 1080. So, if a simple protein has that unlikely chance of forming, what hope does a complete bacterium have?

If this were the theory of abiogeneisis, and if it relied entirely on random chance, then yes, it would be impossible for life to form in this way. However, this is not the case.

Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all.

For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 1040, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10390 claim creationists often cite.

Though, to be fair, 1040 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth.

In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 1024 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 1031 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 1040, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem with this theory is that the odds are still against it happening.

What is worse, it cannot be duplicated or observed, so who is to say it could ever be proven?

The article above fails to mention that the chances for the Big Bang to even be able to have a universe in which life could exist is astronomically high.

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe
1.strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
2.weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
3.gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
4.electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
5.ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
6.ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above
7.ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above
8.expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
9.entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
10.mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
11.velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
12.age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
13.initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
14.average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
15.density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
16.average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
17.fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
18.decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
19.12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
20.ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above
21.decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
22.ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
23.initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
24.polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
25.supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
26.white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
27.ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form
28.number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result
29.number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result
30.mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
31.big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
32.size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result
33.uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
34.cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

Originally posted by whodey
The article above fails to mention that the chances for the Big Bang to even be able to have a universe in which life could exist is astronomically high.

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe
1.strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if s ...[text shortened]...
34.cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

1. What was the chance of the Strong nuclear force constant being any different than what it turned out to be?

Repeat and answer this question for points 2 to 34.

Thanks.

Originally posted by whodey
The article above fails to mention that the chances for the Big Bang to even be able to have a universe in which life could exist is astronomically high.

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe
1.strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if s ...[text shortened]...
34.cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

I don't know where you got that list, but half the entries are the same thing. For example, the fine structure constant is the same as the electric charge, Planck's constant and c. So entries in their list are redundant. There are more in there, but here are the overlaps to do with the fine structure constant:

4) Electric force constant. It's not clear what is meant by this. They could mean the permittivity of free space, in which case it is related to the speed of light, or they could meant the charge on an electron. I assume they mean the latter.

11) The speed of light.

17) The fine structure constant. This is basically the charge on an electron, it's a constant made up of the charge on an electron, Planck's constant and the speed of light. In other words it is the same as parameters 4, 11 and 33.

32) Size of dilation effect. This is controlled by (11) the speed of light.

33) Size of uncertainty in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. This is controlled by Planck's constant.

So the person who wrote this is listing the same parameter in multiple entries to make the list seem longer. Also they've included entries that are explained by known physics.

7) Number of electrons to number of protons. Charge conservation is explained by U(1) invariance, which known to be a symmetry of nature. That the overall charge is zero, as far as we can tell, really isn't a surprise.

Fine tuning arguments tell one whether the physics theory is complete or not. Going from that to say that creationism must be true is too wild a leap.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I don't know where you got that list, but half the entries are the same thing. For example, the fine structure constant is the same as the electric charge, Planck's constant and c. So entries in their list are redundant. There are more in there, but here are the overlaps to do with the fine structure constant:

4) Electric force constant. It's not ...[text shortened]... ry is complete or not. Going from that to say that creationism must be true is too wild a leap.

So you are saying that 6 out of the 34 are repetitive?

Originally posted by Great King Rat
1. What was the chance of the Strong nuclear force constant being any different than what it turned out to be?

Repeat and answer this question for points 2 to 34.

Thanks.

You tell me.

I only point these things out to show that believing in a God is not far fetched at all.

For me, thinking that life came from non-life is what seems far fetched. All observation begs to differ.

Originally posted by whodey
I only point these things out to show that believing in a God is not far fetched at all.

For me, thinking that life came from non-life is what seems far fetched. All observation begs to differ.

That doesn't quite work. Let's take A and B as hypotheses, A is prima facie implausible and the alternative B is apparently plausible. On closer inspection B turns out to have some problems. This does not stop A being implausible.

Really, there's no particular reason to think that the laws of physics are applicable outside the universe. I can't think of a good reason to think a Creator God doesn't exist. I also think there's no particular reason to believe that the universe came about for any particular reason - as before there weren't the laws of physics to restrict what could happen so literally anything could, once it's started then what can happen within the universe is restricted by its nature. Life starting on it's own is the tricky one, but again I don't think there is any strong reason to believe it couldn't.

Originally posted by whodey
Yes, but Bush caused it to be his fault.

Well, yes, but it was actually Clinton that caused Bush to cause it to be Obamas fault. And it was Carters fault that Reagan was elected.

Originally posted by whodey
I took the liberty of using an article written by an nonbeliever to prove my point.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life

Creationists often claim that the chances of a modern enzyme forming by random means are astronomically small, and therefore the chanc ...[text shortened]...

What is worse, it cannot be duplicated or observed, so who is to say it could ever be proven?

...the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 1040, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10390 claim creationists often cite.

I'm not sure what is being implied by this claim or its significance. Are they talking about a self replicating peptide existing on its own, all by itself, or as part of a living system?

Even if the various and co-dependent parts of the simplest living thing possible could have formed independently (at different times and/or places) what environment factors would need to exist to hold those parts together in stasis, and prevent them from falling apart? I would have to assume enough time to pass for the independent parts to form. And I would also have assume enough passage of time before those parts were able to come together and begin functioning as a self sustaining and self replicating (living) organism.

It's too big a stretch of the imagination for me to assume all of the necessary parts could been formed at the same time, and then came together and started functioning at the same time. So the meat of my question is: how would those parts be able to sustain themselves over a significant span of time, and avoid being broken down due to normal environmental factors?

It's one thing to speculate over parts of a system being formed over time, but I can't ignore what that same amount of time would likely do to those parts before they were all formed and managed to come together to function as a viable living organism. Self replication doesn't necessarily mean reproduction, so it isn't just a one time thing in the life of an organism... in living organisms repair and self replication of parts are ongoing throughout the life of the organism, which explains how organisms are able to overcome a naturally occurring breaking down of parts, which extends the life of the organism until it eventually expires altogether.

However, if the comment I cut and pasted from your message is meant to suggest a "theorized self-replicating peptide only 32 amino acids long" could be defined as the simplest possible life form, then I'm not buying it. Bits of possible this along with little bits of possible that do not a viable living organism make. They may as well try telling me one or two organic molecules found on a meteorite is a life form...

One notable exception... I do believe in the existence of alien beach balls composed mostly of hot air. I saw one with my own eyes in a movie... it was some kind of outer space documentary, or sumptin like dat.

Originally posted by whodey
By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 1080.

Copy/paste fail. Did you mean 10^80 ?

The problem with this theory is that the odds are still against it happening.
Are they? Please demonstrate this by calculating the odds.

What is worse, it cannot be duplicated or observed, so who is to say it could ever be proven?
The life that formed via abiogenesis can say that it is proven. Its the old philosophers 'I think, therefore I am' claim. Its indisputable.

The biggest problem with probability arguments against life is that they falsely assume that there is only one possible life form and all other chemicals are 'duds'.
I have recently been studying the enzyme that copies DNA. It is a sophisticated molecule that can copy a DNA strand at incredible speeds (100/1000 base pairs per second) with incredible accuracy. Now it is tempting to ask 'how probable is it that such an incredible molecule could form?' and then start working out probabilities based on the number of atoms in the enzyme etc.
But you would be missing the fact that there are actually thousands of known such enzymes, and probably millions in existence and billions possible. This makes your probability calculation somewhat flawed.
The same applies to life. Kelly keeps stating 'everything has to be just right' yet the truth is that every human being on Earth is unique and so is every life form. Clearly 'just right' includes trillions of working configurations that we know of, and trillions of trillions working configurations that we don't.

Originally posted by whodey
You tell me.

No, you tell me.

You are using this list to show that the chance of life coming into existence is "astronomically high". It's up to you to defend it.

So, do tell: 1. What was the chance of the Strong nuclear force constant being any different than what it turned out to be?

Repeat and answer this question for points 2 to 34.

If you can't do this, then the above list tells you nothing about the chance of life.

Originally posted by whodey
I only point these things out to show that believing in a God is not far fetched at all.

For me, thinking that life came from non-life is what seems far fetched. All observation begs to differ.

Yes, it is far-fetched, because you are adding an immensely complicating factor to the equation. The list you copy-pasted above doesn't go away when you say godditit. You just have one more point to add to the list, and that particular point happens to be utterly immeasurable.

Furthermore, the reason why you would believe that god did it - besides being taught that way - is because you want it to be true. You weren't looking objectively to the reality of the universe and then decided that "God" is the only logical conclusion, but you wanted God, Judgement, Eternal life and paradise to be true and you therefore twisted reality in such a way that you could somehow justify "god".

Originally posted by lemon lime
Well, yes, but it was actually Clinton that caused Bush to cause it to be Obamas fault. And it was Carters fault that Reagan was elected.

As we all know, Reagan is at the heart of all Bush blame.

Why without Reagan, we would all have hundred thousand dollar jobs with million dollar homes to boot!