It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Abiogenesis not probable but inevitable, says physicist

page: 5
35
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 11:13 AM

vasaga
Oh I don't know, the one presented in the opening post maybe..?

Then show me where I said it was.

Yes. Life is here. I can agree with that. The odds being 1:1 is not true though. That would be saying that life was always here and will always be here. But I'm not debating whether life is here or not. I'm debating the method as to how life got here... Odds of life occurring randomly are still relevant. You only want to look at life being here and ignore the why. Again, you're trying to hamper investigation.

The 'why' is irrelevant in statistics when dealing with the past. Either the odds are 1, it happened, or 0, it did not. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

No
But If I'm wrong feel free to say so, and I'll apologize for it.

So saying that I 'hate religious people' is backed up by what statements of mine?

See above.

I am looking above, I see no quotes from me that you linked supporting your argument.

Uh... That's false. Statistics can disprove a hypothesis.

If the event in the past never occurred (statistical 0) then who would postulate a hypothesis around a non-event? Statistics of past events cannot be used to prove or disprove anything.

The opening post is not the video you linked, answer the question.

Except they aren't. If that was the case why do we have statistics in the first place? It's funny that you claim I don't understand statistics btw...

Statistics, used temporally, are solely to calculate future events and the probability of them occurring or not occurring. Statistics are never used to correlate to a past event's likelihood to have either occurred or not occurred. It is like saying the odds of the earth being destroyed by an asteroid in 165,000,000 BCE was 1^1,765,345,389,234. That number is irrelevant, the earth was not destroyed so the odds automatically revert to 0. The fact that you admit to not understanding statistics and yet choose to argue against what I am saying only reinforces argumentum ad ignorantiam. How can you tell me that this is not accurate when you have never taken a course in statistics or even understand their application?

So you're actually saying you did not make ANY assumption whatsoever?

No. I made no assumptions. If you have evidence to the contrary then link it.

Uh... Again... You're categorizing the hypothesis as an event... You're saying hypothesis = what happened. Then you claim you're not... *sigh* Whatever dude. You're right, I'm wrong. This exchange is over.

I am not saying anything about how life started. I said using statistics to prove or disprove how life started based on past events is useless. You cannot prove or disprove either creationism or abiogenesis by using statistics of the likelihood of either one occurring based on past events. Is this sinking in yet?

edit on 24-3-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer

posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 11:16 AM

SO maybe, but definitively yes..."Science!" ....*jazz hands

60% of the time, it works every time.....

No.

It is a mathematical impossibility. Proven such too many times, by too diverse a grouping of peers.

This young 31 YO needs to calm down and drink some more chocolate milk.

posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 12:10 PM

And what are your qualifications for having an opinion on the subject?

edit on 24/3/14 by Astyanax because: it's like that.

posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 12:41 PM

So people need qualifications to have an opinion now? Being qualified or not does not change the validity of a statement. Its truth or falsehood depends on whether it is supported by facts, not whether he has a certificate on the wall or not.

posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 12:52 PM

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 01:34 PM

Agreed wholeheartedly. I wish more people would walk the talk.

posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 01:44 PM

Ah, there you are again, still doing your best to derail this thread with irrelevancies.

So people need qualifications to have an opinion now?

No, of course not. Not unless they hope to be taken seriously. Everybody has a right to make as much of an idiot of himself as he pleases.

Here's an interesting question: is a person qualified to comment on the use of the word 'qualification' unless he understands all the common, current meanings of that word? Doesn't he look a bit of an idiot if he assumes that 'qualification' only means 'certificate'?

edit on 24/3/14 by Astyanax because: I wished to qualify my earlier statement.

posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 02:14 PM

So since we are measuring ....our brain power...

How big is yours?, er, what is YOUR qualification?

and if by some grace of God you are qualified in some field or background even relevant to this, then please, earn that nobel prize proving the probability of what you propose.

Because the worlds top mathematicians say after a certain point, its impossible. You say different, ok. PROVE it. If not this is all just a premise without a conclusion. In other words, a fallacy.

edit on 3 24 2014 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 02:22 PM

Because the worlds top mathematicians say after a certain point, its impossible.

Please link to the 'world's top mathematicians' and what they have said. Thank you.

posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 02:34 PM

well here is this guy

Jacques Monod, Nobel laureate has said that the odds of life arising by chance are "virtually ZERO". He is a highly respected biologist.

Then this man

Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer and mathematician, who calculated the odds at 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power against the proteins serving as enzymes in a cell all forming by chance.

There are more, but I dont feel like going through the motions.

Will there be a response from anyone with any evidence supporting this hypothesis?

edit on 3 24 2014 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 02:51 PM

Jacques Monod, Nobel laureate has said that the odds of life arising by chance are "virtually ZERO". He is a highly respected biologist.

Biologist? So not one of the 'world's top mathematicians'?

Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer and mathematician, who calculated the odds at 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power against the proteins serving as enzymes in a cell all forming by chance.

Hoyle was a proponent of panspermia and an avowed atheist so he would not be supporting creationism.

There are more, but I dont feel like going through the motions.

I think if you want to prove your point you should since the first two did not meet the criteria.

Will there be a response from anyone with any evidence supporting this hypothesis?

A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested so as soon as their has been extensive and repeatable testing on the several hypotheses I am sure it will be shared with you and everyone else who wishes to view the results when/if it becomes a scientific theory.

posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 03:08 PM

AugustusMasonicus

I am not saying anything about how life started. I said using statistics to prove or disprove how life started based on past events is useless. You cannot prove or disprove either creationism or abiogenesis by using statistics of the likelihood of either one occurring based on past events. Is this sinking in yet?
So... Let's translate this into an allegory to show that what you're saying doesn't make sense.
If we know someone was shot in the head, and there are three suspects, one is blind, one has no arms and one is deaf, we should not be looking at the statistics of who could most likely do the shooting, because the shooting already happened?
Sorry, but, that simply does not make sense and does not follow.

What method would you use to determine how life started then?

posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 03:11 PM

Astyanax

Ah, there you are again, still doing your best to derail this thread with irrelevancies.

So people need qualifications to have an opinion now?

No, of course not. Not unless they hope to be taken seriously. Everybody has a right to make as much of an idiot of himself as he pleases.

Here's an interesting question: is a person qualified to comment on the use of the word 'qualification' unless he understands all the common, current meanings of that word? Doesn't he look a bit of an idiot if he assumes that 'qualification' only means 'certificate'?
Someone is ingrained into the matrix... Anyway.

So, you're honestly gonna tell me that someone who you consider to be qualified can be someone that does not have a PhD title or a degree in biology or whatever?

posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 03:13 PM

vasaga

AugustusMasonicus

I am not saying anything about how life started. I said using statistics to prove or disprove how life started based on past events is useless. You cannot prove or disprove either creationism or abiogenesis by using statistics of the likelihood of either one occurring based on past events. Is this sinking in yet?
So... Let's translate this into an allegory to show that what you're saying doesn't make sense.
If we know someone was shot in the head, and there are three suspects, one is blind, one has no arms and one is deaf, we should not be looking at the statistics of who could most likely do the shooting, because the shooting already happened?
Sorry, but, that simply does not make sense and does not follow.

What method would you use to determine how life started then?

Using your example, AugustusMasonicus is only saying that the probability of a murder having taken place is 100%. He hasn't commented on who the murderer is. You on the other hand seem to think he is commenting on who the murderer is and that is where you two are having a breakdown in understanding each other.

posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 03:16 PM

vasaga
So... Let's translate this into an allegory to show that what you're saying doesn't make sense.
If we know someone was shot in the head, and there are three suspects, one is blind, one has no arms and one is deaf, we should not be looking at the statistics of who could most likely do the shooting, because the shooting already happened?
Sorry, but, that simply does not make sense and does not follow.

You should be looking at the evidence, which, calculating the odds of past events (particularly those that may have happened 3.5 billion years ago) does not provide.

What method would you use to determine how life started then?

The scientific method.

posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 03:24 PM

AugustusMasonicus
You should be looking at the evidence, which, calculating the odds of past events (particularly those that may have happened 3.5 billion years ago) does not provide.
So... Odds are not evidence...?

AugustusMasonicus
The scientific method.
There is more than one scientific method.
edit on 24-3-2014 by vasaga because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 03:30 PM

vasaga
So... Odds are not evidence...?

Would you allow your defense attorney to argue that they were?

There is more than one scientific method.

Is that so?

Maybe you can outline something other then the commonly accepted usages which all yield the same results:
2.Do Background Research
3.Construct a Hypothesis
4.Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
5.Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion

-or-

1.Make observations.
2.Propose a hypothesis.
3.Design and perform an experiment to test the hypothesis.
4.Analyze your data to determine whether to accept or reject the hypothesis.
5.If necessary, propose and test a new hypothesis.

posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 03:50 PM

AugustusMasonicus

vasaga
So... Odds are not evidence...?

Would you allow your defense attorney to argue that they were?

Why not? And what is it with people comparing politics with science lately..?

Odds still play a role. If we have two hypotheses of event X occuring. A has a probability of 1 in 5 and B has a probability of 1 in 50000, A will be taken as cannon. Unless of course, only the 1 in 50000 will raise millions of dollars and A gives nothing, but that's another story for another time.. Going back... Let me ask it this way...

1) If we have an event that occurred, should we investigate how it occurred or why it occurred?
2) If we have two possible explanations, and one has a higher probability of being true, is there any reason to pick the other one, if they have the same amount of evidence?
3) In case there is only one explanation we can come up with, does that necessarily mean it's true?

AugustusMasonicus

There is more than one scientific method.

Is that so?

Maybe you can outline something other then the commonly accepted usages which all yield the same results:
2.Do Background Research
3.Construct a Hypothesis
4.Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
5.Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion

-or-

1.Make observations.
2.Propose a hypothesis.
3.Design and perform an experiment to test the hypothesis.
4.Analyze your data to determine whether to accept or reject the hypothesis.
5.If necessary, propose and test a new hypothesis.

I'll just leave this here...
edit on 24-3-2014 by vasaga because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 04:35 PM

vasaga
Why not? And what is it with people comparing politics with science lately..?

Because if you were the man with both arms in the rather poor analogy proposed above you would end up getting convicted due to circumstantial evidence. And who was comparing politics with science?

Odds still play a role. If we have two hypotheses of event X occuring. A has a probability of 1 in 5 and B has a probability of 1 in 50000, A will be taken as cannon. Unless of course, only the 1 in 50000 will raise millions of dollars and A gives nothing, but that's another story for another time.. Going back... Let me ask it this way...

Are you reading anything that I am posting? This example is about a future event and would be perfectly acceptable to use probability statistics to predict.

1) If we have an event that occurred, should we investigate how it occurred or why it occurred?

If it is so desired.

2) If we have two possible explanations, and one has a higher probability of being true, is there any reason to pick the other one, if they have the same amount of evidence?

You rely solely on the evidence if it is a past event. Probability statistics will not tell you which one is the actual explanation if it has already occurred. One choice is 1, the other is 0 but the odds are 1 that it occured. If it is a future event then the options can be weighted based on available data.

I am not sure how many more time you would like this explained to you, I think it is rather easy to grasp. Events that have happened are statistically meaningless. Future events can be weighted statistically (although accuracy is based on inputted data).

3) In case there is only one explanation we can come up with, does that necessarily mean it's true?

If an outcome has occurred (life on earth) then the odds are 1 that it happened, statistics are not concerned with the cause. At this point there are several hypotheses on how this occurred and statistics will neither support nor refute the cause as it happened in the past and is considered irrelevant statistically.

I'll just leave this here...

The overall take away from that article is that they are still testing their hypotheses as is outlined in the scientific method. That is the major determiner of whether something can hold up to scrutiny and advance towards becoming a theory.

edit on 24-3-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer

posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 08:24 PM

Biologist? So not one of the 'world's top mathematicians'?

I thought I would mention one of the worlds foremost biologists to weigh in his statement of not supporting Abiogenesis because of its statistical impossibility. You know the idea speculating about the origin of Biological life.

Hoyle was a proponent of panspermia and an avowed atheist so he would not be supporting creationism.

Well, panspermia is still not in line with Abiogenesis. It tries to explain the dispersal of life, not the origin. It IS in line with evolution since it also states that life evolves in what ever environment life is placed in. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. I think you are confused.

Also to say he is an atheist really provides no useful background. Creationism is not being discussed here.

Evolution and creationism are obviously not in line with each other. Your confusing Hoyle´s support of evolution with abiogenesis or a counter argument to creationism.

I think that discredits his proficiency in mathematics. He is a highly respected , world renowned mathematician. He says it is a mathematical impossibility.

A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested so as soon as their has been extensive and repeatable testing on the several hypotheses I am sure it will be shared with you and everyone else who wishes to view the results when/if it becomes a scientific theory.

Well, placing these many eggs in a basket still being weaved is not very prudent. Especially when the straw is already running out.

edit on 3 24 2014 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

35