The "unlikelihood" of natural life

[Epicurean]

One common argument for that a god created life I have a lot of problem with, is that life starting naturally would somehow be "extremely unlikely". What follows is what I see as the most likely beginning of life, it is not proven science, but should show that it is by no means unlikely.

If anyone find any problem or mistake in this, please feel free to correct me, I am by no means an expert.

Let's begin at early earth. We know that all basic chemicals and elements that make up all living things could exist here naturally, first produced by natural reactions in stars and then scattered as the stars die. We then know quite a bit about the conditions of early earth, and we know that the basic components of life such as amino-acids could naturally occur in this environment.

Now, the point is, if you accept all of this, that life could begin of its own should not be considered unlikely. First, let's define life as a self-replicating continuing process and let evolution take it from there, and if you disagree with evolution you probably do not accept what I wrote earlier. So, what is the likelihood of a self-replicating process which evolution can take to all that we see today, occurring naturally? Pretty unlikely you might say, given that the basic components must interact in a very specific and complex way. Let's say that the chance of this is one in a billion or even greater (this is the argument I am arguing against).

So then it seems very unlikely that life could occur naturally, but we must consider that this dice roll is not a single event, win or lose. The conditions in which life supposedly began must have covered vast areas, especially compared to the microscopic reactants, so we have billions of these dice rolls occurring simultaneously. And then these areas are not static, they are constantly mixing around and doing so for millions of years. So what we have is billions of dice rolls constantly being rolled for millions of years. So no matter how unlikely you may consider the reaction that is life to have started naturally, when you put things in perspective I don't think you can say that it is unlikely that it started naturally at some point.

Those of you who accept evolution but think it's unlikely to have started on its own, I'm very interested in hearing your opinion of this. Again, this is no fact, but to me it shows that natural life is most probable.

[Col. Tartleton]

Here's my argument:

It happened.

Life ≥ 1: Infinity

Statistical averages saying "can't happen" aren't worth very much when you know it did happen.

Boom.

Did life arise on earth or was it seeded naturally or artificially? I don't know. But it had to come from somewhere (most likely here IMO) and thus odds are it did originate via abiogenesis somewhere.

[SigniferOne]

Statistical averages saying "can't happen" aren't worth very much when you know it did happen.

What a nonsensical argument. If you take 6-sided dice, and from the first throw it lands on the number you wanted, that means the odds WEREN'T in fact 1-in-6?

[Col. Tartleton]

What a nonsensical argument. If you take 6-sided dice, and from the first throw it lands on the number you wanted, that means the odds WEREN'T in fact 1-in-6?

No I'm saying that if the odds are one in a million and it came up on the first throw claiming its too unlikely to happen is plain dumb.

My point is it happened and that statistics could produce the result regardless of likelihood. Sorry if I was unclear.

I will say I doubt life is common and that I would not be awestruck if we were the most advanced species in this galaxy. But I'm also open to the possibility that every star system has at least microbes in it. I'm also open to the possibility that life so advanced as to appear godlike may have cultivated life on earth over billions of years, but life must be assumed to have formed abionically originally, unless we get clear evidence to the contrary.

[Vir Triumphalis]

What a nonsensical argument. If you take 6-sided dice, and from the first throw it lands on the number you wanted, that means the odds WEREN'T in fact 1-in-6?

The point is it did happen. So his proposition stands. The Dice example is hypothetical.

[Epicurean]

Yeah life happened. I'm arguing against that it happening naturally would be too unlikely to be considered true, which is an not too uncommon argument for god.

[Helm]

The odds for life forming were in fact 100% seeing as the cionditions were apparently right for it, seeing as we're here.

[Ancient Aliens]

Scientists have already produced synthetic life. This shows just how easily created life is.

A Harvard study is currently attempting to create proto-single cellular organisms out of clay, water, and electricity. They have already succeeded in creating strands of RNA. I believe that the results of this experiment will finally put this inane claim (that life is somehow rare, or unique to Earth) to rest once and for all, as life that originates from clay will undoubtedly prove that life can arise in common circumstances.

[SigniferOne]

Scientists have already produced synthetic life. This shows just how easily created life is.

By a self-directed, rational force, yes.

You just advocated intelligent design.

[Ancient Aliens]

By a self-directed, rational force, yes.

You just advocated intelligent design.

Wrong. Scientists are replicating the conditions for life to arise, and they are common conditions at that.

Miller-wutwut (or something like that) experiment has happened, and no success in creating life from purely biological sources.

And Siggy's right. Except the argument concerned is wrong at the source: life could only be synthesized using the material of pre-existing living organisms.

You mean "abiological", I assume. The experiment is still ongoing. The experiment that you were refering to, the Miller-Urey experiment, was a success. He produced more than what he attempted to produce: 22 amino acids (more amino acids than are present in terrestrial life). He only expected to produce simple carbonic beta-strands.

[SigniferOne]

Wrong. Scientists are replicating the conditions for life to arise, and they are common conditions at that.

Umm no. It seems you don't know much about what they're doing. They're putting the actual protons together, etc, and that's what they mean. There has not been any recorded instance of abiogenesis yet.

[generalveers]

By a self-directed, rational force, yes.
You just advocated intelligent design.

I fail to see how this advocates intelligent design. Rather, it dismantles the case, since if humans without a perfect understanding and view of the universe can recreate the conditions that allowed life to come into being, it could easily have happened on its own.

[SigniferOne]

I fail to see how this advocates intelligent design. Rather, it dismantles the case, since if humans without a perfect understanding and view of the universe can recreate the conditions that allowed life to come into being, it could easily have happened on its own.

Yeah that's the only thing that can cut across statistically impossible odds: self-determined action. I can either launch a 6-headed die and hope it lands on my number, or -- put it on that number The scientists are putting the die on the number they want, there's no big deal about that at all.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Miller-wutwut (or something like that) experiment has happened, and no success in creating life from purely biological sources.

And Siggy's right. Except the argument concerned is wrong at the source: life could only be synthesized using the material of pre-existing living organisms.

A weak argument, akin to a God of the Gaps, of course. A real argument of this sort would stand like this: does existence happen through inertia, or do we depend on God to exist? The answer is: God.

[Epicurean]

Miller-wutwut (or something like that) experiment has happened, and no success in creating life from purely biological sources.

And Siggy's right. Except the argument concerned is wrong at the source: life could only be synthesized using the material of pre-existing living organisms.

A weak argument, akin to a God of the Gaps, of course. A real argument of this sort would stand like this: does existence happen through inertia, or do we depend on God to exist? The answer is: God.

As far as I'm aware the basic components of life have been shown to occur in early earth environment. Then even if the chanse of them creating life is very small, the chance that it happened naturally at some point is still very great, that was my argument, did you read it? At no point is the answer god.

[Squiggle]

Those of you who accept evolution but think it's unlikely to have started on its own, I'm very interested in hearing your opinion of this. Again, this is no fact, but to me it shows that natural life is most probable.

That is an entirely fallacious and poorly thought out conclusion. If we are to accept your argument [and I dont care either way on the question of abiogenesis] it doesnt make it more likely than not that life occurred naturally. Not within that particular and focused examination of the evidence, let alone when we examine other areas. Which is precisely why abiogenesis does not matter, and is not frequently argued by theists. The theist argues for a god of the gaps, and the atheist argues for a position that at best brings him to neutral. No pertinent information is ever discussed.

[Portuguese Rebel]

We can't calculate the odds here. We know it happened. The thing is, even a very small success odd will eventually produce a result given enough time and dice rolls.
Another thing to have in mind is that because we do not know something it is no reason to believe the Big JuJu up in the mountain created us from dust.

[Himster]

"likelyhood" and "Probability" are fancy words for educated guesses: they have no real bearing on reality. But they are ueful in revealing the biases the users of these words truly have.

[Jack04]

How can we possibly argue about the probability of life emerging naturally when we are so ignorant of both the processes by which it occurs and the conditions those processes require?

[Himster]

How can we possibly argue about the probability of life emerging naturally when we are so ignorant of both the processes by which it occurs and the conditions those processes require?

A fair and essential point.
I'm rather shocked nobody posted a similar point earlier, but at least now we have a comprehensive list of a number of TWC user's blatant biases: every cloud.....eh.