UFO Disclosure Thread

[WillBrink]

From what I read, abiogenesis seems like a near impossibility from a statistical standpoint. I will have to dig the numbers up, but I want to say it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 1x10^-80 for a single complex protein to form. Let alone a self replicating organism. You then run into the essentially impossible to overcome problem of irreducible complexity. The chances of this happening once, in a single "perfect" environment are well beyond astronomical, the chances of it happening many times are simply inconceivable.

But remember, even at near impossible, the shear numbers suggest it would happen more than once. The numbers for it, are not pulled from thin air or the imagination and bias of anyone with a particular personal/religious bias.

There's nothing inconceivable about it other than someone not liking the concept, at least at this time. "It's too complex to ever happen so it didn't happen and here's my invented model of probability that I made up the figures for to prove it" is not science. It's simply someone trying to mumbo jumbo their way into convincing others of that belief. I have also read the counter arguments to that hypothesis.

To be clear, I don't have any issues per se with other possibilities as mentioned before, and am especially fascinated by the fine tuned universe and anthropic principle which if one is not careful, could conclude the existence of the universe and us so unlikely, there's some intent there...

[TomMcC]

From what I read, abiogenesis seems like a near impossibility from a statistical standpoint. I will have to dig the numbers up, but I want to say it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 1x10^-80 for a single complex protein to form. Let alone a self replicating organism. You then run into the essentially impossible to overcome problem of irreducible complexity. The chances of this happening once, in a single "perfect" environment are well beyond astronomical, the chances of it happening many times are simply inconceivable.

I've read that a probability less than about 10 to the -50 is considered impossible.

What I find interesting is the belief that an un-thinking universe somehow can cobble together an organism of extreme complexity from chemicals. No process is ever really described (I think for obvious reasons). It's just believed that it happened. On top of that, this "creating" of organisms would have to be in a very high number just to offset the probable non self replicating aspect of the very first organisms. The supposed extreme harshness of the developing earth wouldn't bode well for the first living things. What chance creates, chance can just as well destroy.

[WillBrink]

I've read that a probability less than about 10 to the -50 is considered impossible.

What I find interesting is the belief that an un-thinking universe somehow can cobble together an organism of extreme complexity from chemicals. No process is ever really described (I think for obvious reasons). It's just believed that it happened. On top of that, this "creating" of organisms would have to be in a very high number just to offset the probable non self replicating aspect of the very first organisms. The supposed extreme harshness of the developing earth wouldn't bode well for the first living things. What chance creates, chance can just as well destroy.

All interesting points, just remember, those numbers you're using are complete fabrications based on nothing at all but the wishful thinking of the person who invented it. Number could be even larger, could be smaller, but without known variables to plug in, of no predictive value at all.

That is you can't calculate probability for something you don't know how it actually happens as there's no known mechanism for it to happen.

So, either it happened (cuz here we are) or it didn't happen, but it can't be calculated at this time.

However, in favor of can be calculated, but with a huge margin of possibilities that can't be plugged into probability calcs at this time.

[georgeib]

But remember, even at near impossible, the shear numbers suggest it would happen more than once. The numbers for it, are not pulled from thin air or the imagination and bias of anyone with a particular personal/religious bias.

There's nothing inconceivable about it other than someone not liking the concept, at least at this time. "It's too complex to ever happen so it didn't happen and here's my invented model of probability that I made up the figures for to prove it" is not science. It's simply someone trying to mumbo jumbo their way into convincing others of that belief. I have also read the counter arguments to that hypothesis.

To be clear, I don't have any issues per se with other possibilities as mentioned before, and am especially fascinated by the fine tuned universe and anthropic principle which if one is not careful, could conclude the existence of the universe and us so unlikely, there's some intent there...

I'm not sure you understood what I posted. The statistical probability of a single protein forming are 1x10^164. A single protein. In a single place. The "shear numbers" suggest that this wouldn't happen even once. The chances of multiple proteins necessary for even the most rudimentary replicating organism, which would need to include DNA, and several molecular machines necessary for metabolism, all gathering at the same place inside of a membrane are absurdly low. So low as to essentially be incalculable. Say somewhere in the 1x10^999^999 range.

I don't see how this absurdly improbable occurrence becomes significantly more likely because of the "shear numbers." The number of potentially life sustaining planets in the universe has been estimated at between 40 and 60 billion. Or between 4 and 6x10^10. That number is so incredibly tiny in comparison to the probabilities I'm talking about, as to be no more significant than a rounding error.

The theory of abiogenesis is logically unsupportable.

[WillBrink]

I'm not sure you understood what I posted. The statistical probability of a single protein forming are 1x10^164. A single protein. In a single place. The "shear numbers" suggest that this wouldn't happen even once. The chances of multiple proteins necessary for even the most rudimentary replicating organism, which would need to include DNA, and several molecular machines necessary for metabolism, all gathering at the same place inside of a membrane are absurdly low. So low as to essentially be incalculable. Say somewhere in the 1x10^999^999 range.

I don't see how this absurdly improbable occurrence becomes significantly more likely because of the "shear numbers." The number of potentially life sustaining planets in the universe has been estimated at between 40 and 60 billion. Or between 4 and 6x10^10. That number is so incredibly tiny in comparison to the probabilities I'm talking about, as to be no more significant than a rounding error.

The theory of abiogenesis is logically unsupportable.

And I will repeat that is a completely fabricated number based on nothing, as it can't be predicted without a known mechanism. Per comment in #823, covers the rest of that reality.

To be clear, there's no scientific support that demonstrates abiogenesis ever took place on this planet. It's simply the default position until/unless some other compelling answer exists that can be supported by evidence.

Short of a time machine, or God or an alien race saying "we did it, and here's the proofs" abiogenesis will remain the default.

[georgeib]

And I will repeat that is a completely fabricated number based on nothing, as it can't be predicted without a known mechanism. Per comment in #823, covers the rest of that reality.

Actually that's not true. The number is based on the number of amino acids (20) and the statistical chance of them forming a chain that lines up with other aminos that they can attach to, and then folding correctly to join to other correct aminos in the chain. It's math, and not even complicated math. The answer may not be what you like, but it's still a fact.

[WillBrink]

Actually that's not true. The number is based on the number of amino acids (20) and the statistical chance of them forming a chain that lines up with other aminos that they can attach to, and then folding correctly to join to other correct aminos in the chain. It's math, and not even complicated math. The answer may not be what you like, but it's still a fact.

And it's of no actual relevance or predictive value to abiogenesis happening on this planet, much less another, for the reason explained. It has nothing to do with whether I like the answer or not, and as explained repeatedly, really does matter to me one way or another. In fact, it's a far more interesting and exciting concept that a higher consciousness with intent was involved in the process vs the boring abiogenesis theory, which is my least favorite.

But, if one wants to go the "it's math" as the new metric, than we must add some known variables:

"...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." (1)

Where does that get us? No place really. One needs a mechanism for abiogenesis to take place and we aint got one, so it's not predictable via math.

(1) https://thomism.wordpress.com/2018/1...n-abiogenesis/

[TomMcC]

Here...you can read to your hearts content the new religion of scientism.

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-fact-...m-of-evolution

The conclusion of all this is of course that nature creating life isn't actually very very VERY hard, but is incredibly easy, and creationists are stupid.

[georgeib]

And it's of no actual relevance or predictive value to abiogenesis happening on this planet, much less another, for the reason explained. It has nothing to do with whether I like the answer or not, and as explained repeatedly, really does matter to me one way or another. In fact, it's a far more interesting and exciting concept that a higher consciousness with intent was involved in the process vs the boring abiogenesis theory, which is my least favorite.

But, if one wants to go the "it's math" as the new metric, than we must add some known variables:

"...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." (1)

Where does that get us? No place really. One needs a mechanism for abiogenesis to take place and we aint got one, so it's not predictable via math.

(1) https://thomism.wordpress.com/2018/1...n-abiogenesis/

The difference between a peptide and a protein is critically important. Peptides consist of between 10 to 50 or so aminos, where as even simple proteins are 100-200 aminos long. The quantum difference between even a simple protein and ones complex enough to carry information is staggering. You're comparing apples to solar systems. Basically a category error.

[WillBrink]

The difference between a peptide and a protein is critically important. Peptides consist of between 10 to 50 or so aminos, where as even simple proteins are 100-200 aminos long. The quantum difference between even a simple protein and ones complex enough to carry information is staggering. You're comparing apples to solar systems. Basically a category error.

Ok, I give up. I can add nothing additional of value at this point. Back to UFOs.