# How Does Life Come From Randomness?

Page 3 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

#### Wolf28

There are an infinite set of types of infinity and each set is infinitely bigger than the preceding one, the size being called cardinality. The lowest cardinality called aleph 0 is also called 'countable infinity'' this includes the set of natural numbers because you can start counting them, the next size up is called uncountable infinity or the continuum infinity, this set includes all rational numbers. Its's easy to visualise with a ruler. The countable infinity is whole number divisions 1, 2, 3, etc while the continuum infinity is represented by the space between the whole numbers. Each of these spaces can be divided indefinitely, you can always divide any division indefinitely, and this continuum infinity is infinitely bigger than the countable infinity. Don't ask me what the next level is, I don't know.

Before any one jumps down my throat, I'm not an expert but I think I've got the essence of it right if not the details.

Back to your sums. An infinite number of finite universes (u) belong to the countable infinite set ie the smallest cardinality. The number of variations (or paths and potentials as you put it) for each universe (u) belongs to the continuum infinity and is thus infinitely bigger than the countable infinity of finite universes (u) and so won't fit in. All possible variations cant fit in all at once in the Universe (U).

Another way of looking at it is to imagine that I can always add another unique universe (u) to your Universe (U) because there's an infinitely greater number of variations for me to choose from. So, because another different universe (u) can always be added to your Universe (U) proves it didn't contain all possibilities to start with, and nor can it ever do so.

The bottom line is that our Universe (U) is only playing out one scenario of a continuum type infinity of other possible scenarios. This really bugs me, I'm lost from here on.
Then therefore, if the possibilities are endless, a creator also exists?

#### Ken Fabian

You may as well call the belief in spontaneous life a religion all it's own. It is nothing less than faith.
Oh, it is a lot more than faith; the elements the universe is made of and how they act and react under conditions such as a primordial Earth allow the possibility. And accepting that possibility is very different to religious belief.

I would say that, by your own calculations, the possibility of an intelligent "creator" is more, or at the very least, equally plausible.

I used "bacteria" as a rough estimate of the amounts of precursor chemicals. Those numbers were never intended to estimate the odds of a bacteria coming into existence fully formed, directly, but of much simpler biochemistry that had the ability to reproduce and evolve. Not "pure" chance, but combinations of chemical reactions for which the pre-life chemicals and conditions are compatible - within the known physical limitations of the universe as we know it. Such chances are (bio)chemical, not cosmological; the only way they could be precursors to a "life creating" intelligence is for that creator to be (or begin) as biological.

My calculations - really just a demo of how likely unlikely (but physically possible) chemical occurrences are when considering whole planet's worth of water and hundreds of millions of years - do not make occurrences of intelligent creators plausible.

Last edited:
David-J-Franks

#### Helio

Oh, it is a lot more than faith; the elements the universe is made of and how they act and react under conditions such as a primordial Earth allow the possibility. And accepting that possibility is very different to religious belief.
This seems trickier than it looks. Abiogenesis is certainly logical and would seem plausible given the objective evidence found so far, but it is yet to be a hard theory - one that makes very specific predictions that allow very specific tests. I think many would disagree with me on this as I may be a bit too pedantic in these requirements.

We, so far, have yet to take chemicals, working within a process with proper energy included, that has produced a "living" cell. I think I would have heard it if we had.

So there is some belief (confidence, faith, trust, etc.) that abiogenesis will, eventually, produce a working model, and not a general one, and perhaps more than one model will be discovered. On the other hand, it's also not a religion, or a set of religious beliefs, as it is objective-based, primarily.

My calculations - really just a demo of how likely unlikely (but physically possible) chemical occurrences are when considering whole planet's worth of water and hundreds of millions of years ...
Yes, it's helpful to know that Darwin's theory demonstrates how changes can be self-supporting that allows, over incredible lengths of time, even more successful progress. This cuts those infinity-like probabilities into something manageable given billions of years if only passive evolution is allowed to work. Breeders and labs know how to speed such things up, of course.

David-J-Franks

#### Wolf28

Oh, it is a lot more than faith; the elements the universe is made of and how they act and react under conditions such as a primordial Earth allow the possibility. And accepting that possibility is very different to religious belief.

I used "bacteria" as a rough estimate of the amounts of precursor chemicals. Those numbers were never intended to estimate the odds of a bacteria coming into existence fully formed, directly, but of much simpler biochemistry that had the ability to reproduce and evolve. Not "pure" chance, but combinations of chemical reactions for which the pre-life chemicals and conditions are compatible - within the known physical limitations of the universe as we know it. Such chances are (bio)chemical, not cosmological; the only way they could be precursors to a "life creating" intelligence is for that creator to be (or begin) as biological.

My calculations - really just a demo of how likely unlikely (but physically possible) chemical occurrences are when considering whole planet's worth of water and hundreds of millions of years - do not make occurrences of intelligent creators plausible.
We can agree to disagree but I hope you take the time to read all of this. I took the time to write it after reading all you've said. And I understand what you're saying please believe that. But...

Even the most fundamental building blocks of life have to organize from randomness if we are to believe that life can self manifest. And at some point they make the leap to an actual life form, where more than combinations of cosmochemicals, biochemicals, and their reactions need to be in place before the algorithms (code) and the platforms (software) on which they run arrive on the scene at the exact random moment that all the physicals also coalesced to make anything resembling life emerge.

Our understanding of the universe precludes a creator simply because we don't know how to study it nor how it could have come into being without a "precursor". Our "science" seems to have this rule that nothing outside our understanding of physics and reality can exist, while at the same time we can posit universes where the laws of physics might be different. We have the perfect example of such differences when we look beyond the macroworld we live in and peer into the quantum universe. Yet we fail to take the hint that our perception limits us. Spooky action at a distance, telepathy, telekinesis, the mysteries are endless and evidence to so much that we do not yet understand.

No, you're not going to find a creator sitting on his throne on some planet in a remote region of our universe. But, for argument's sake - and speaking of religious beliefs - he/she/it (the creator) may be Time itself. Time may be the intelligence that created us and we just see it as some perceived dimension. Did it have a precursor? Anti-time? I mean, time is a thing right? So how did it come into existence? What was it's precursor? Was there a point in history where entropy simply did not exist or has it always been here with no beginning, no end? When the last dying ember of the universe winks out does time end - or does it march on with nothing to mark it's passage? Is it, after all, just a figment of our imagination? Isn't entropy just a reaction? And without any reactions left, where does time go? Does it march on to create another universe where time doesn't even exist or does it continue on? Is today's "date" really Nov. 8th, 202000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000? Is the past another universe with different time or is it the same universe in a different time? Unknown. Is the future really there? Does a "present" even exist since it's the past before you can even think about the present? Who knows? all speculation. Unsolvable, for now. Yet time exists to us and we accept it and live by it religiously, without really quantifying what it is, how it works, where it came from, nor where it goes.

Believe it or not I am not arguing the existence of a creator. How would I know? But I am arguing against ruling one out as we do. It just seems so anti-science to say that something can't exist simply because we don't understand its science, its physics. Right now, spooky action at a distance is completely untouchable. We don't even know how to go about studying it yet. We just know it happens for no understandable reason at all. We also know that other unexplained things, "just happen". Like life (it's just randomness - really?) That's the best we got? Let's be honest here - let's just say we don't know. Because if we did we could reproduce it, and we can't - and after all, isn't that science? Reproducing something and making it work? No one has yet taken chemicals and turned it into life, have they? Or how about the "miracle" of consciousness? No one knows what it even is. If we could take all of our thoughts, all of our memories, our experiences, our everything and upload it to a computer before we die, is it still us? Will I wake up as me again in a computer? No. Why not? And if not, what is me? What is my consciousness? What is my life?

Look, it's the easy thing to do to just discount things outside our laws of physics as "faith" or "religious", somehow unworthy of our thought or study. But that's just because we don't even know how to study them... yet. They are outside our understanding. But if we truly believe in infinite possibilities then we have to allow for all possibilities or we're just picking and choosing to the detriment of science. We simply do not have the mental faculties to solve the problem of whether or not an omnipotent creator can create a rock so big that even he cannot lift it. To us, it's spooky action at a distance - but to an omnipotent creator, to Time, it's a simple thing, really.

Obviously, I'm sure I haven't budged your position. I never do when I talk about this stuff. And some might say it's because it cannot be proven so you tend to overexplain. You do not have to reply. I understand where you're coming from, I really do. I know more about science than I ever did about religion. But I have come to see religion as an unexplored branch of a science that we lack the tools with which to explore it. It ties into our consciousness and who we are. And I believe that before we can upload our consciousness, our true selves, to some android or main frame, we will have to understand the science of spirituality/religion. I wonder how many alien species have already made the leap to an everlasting lifeform through the incorporation of their spirituality into their science. Take care, all the best to you.

Last edited:

#### David-J-Franks

Randomness and inevitability can only do so much. The problem with the theory of the self-manifestation of life is that - not only does the preciseness of the inanimate ingredients but also the billions of lines of code needed to operate life's "machinery" all need to come together in one instant in time. The idea of randomness spontaneously generating working algorithms and the platforms needed to run them (the software) and then all the precise chemicals in their precise amounts and form (the hardware).... If one ingredient is missing or one character of code is off the whole thing falls apart and you have to start all over. Most theories of the origins of the universe tell us that time is not infinite and that the universe "ends". Some theories say it keeps repeating, but always from another diffuse "beginning". Have you ever seen a cell at work at the electron microscopic level? It's a veritable factory fine tuned for a highly specific and specialized function. Many, many parts working harmoniously with precision and "intelligence", if you will. Knowing just what to do. You may as well call the belief in spontaneous life a religion all it's own. It is nothing less than faith. I would say that, by your own calculations, the possibility of an intelligent "creator" is more, or at the very least, equally plausible.
Randomness and inevitability can only do so much.
I set my thoughts out about randomness in posts above, so I won't repeat (you have read the whole thread?).
The problem with the theory of the self-manifestation of life is that - not only does the preciseness of the inanimate ingredients but also the billions of lines of code needed to operate life's "machinery" all need to come together in one instant in time.
I think you're being a bit dramatic here, the first life would not instantly contain billions of lines of code -that's enough for a rabbit. I don't think anyone is saying that life evolved spontaneously. I suggest life evolved very gradually maybe from short replicating strands of RNA with just a few lines of code and then becoming DNA later. The complexity would build up very slowly. Cell walls may not even have been necessary to start with if these chemicals formed in the pores of thermal vents.

In any case, there isn't a universally accepted definition of life, there isn't a well-defined line between non-living and living things, so I don't think spontaneity has much to do with it.
and then all the precise chemicals in their precise amounts and form (the hardware)....
I don't understand why everything needs to be exact, does it matter if there's an excess of one ingredient, and does it matter if one ingredient arrives a bit late?
If one ingredient is missing or one character of code is off the whole thing falls apart and you have to start all over.
I don't think you would have to start all over. I think there would be many processes going on side by side in the same pond, and it's the one that hits on the right code that goes to the next stage.
Most theories of the origins of the universe tell us that time is not infinite and that the universe "ends". Some theories say it keeps repeating, but always from another diffuse "beginning".
Interesting, but I can't see what that's got to do with life?
It's a veritable factory fine tuned for a highly specific and specialized function. Many, many parts working harmoniously with precision and "intelligence", if you will. Knowing just what to do.
I would not agree that the parts have intelligence and knowledge, for example, some parts are just following a concentration gradient. Overall the cell is just a machine with all its constituents following cause and effect. Completely astonishing never the less.

Always nice to see someone else's thought-provoking views

Ken Fabian

#### David-J-Franks

Then therefore, if the possibilities are endless, a creator also exists?
Absolutly not. All the endless possibilities must still be within the laws of physics and our current laws don't seem to allow a creator. I don't think the laws we don't know about yet are suddenly going to change that IMO.

What do you mean by 'creator'? Creator of earth, the solar system, the galaxy, the contents of our big bang or the whole infinite Universe? or just the creator of life in an already existing world?

#### David-J-Franks

This seems trickier than it looks. Abiogenesis is certainly logical and would seem plausible given the objective evidence found so far, but it is yet to be a hard theory - one that makes very specific predictions that allow very specific tests. I think many would disagree with me on this as I may be a bit too pedantic in these requirements.

We, so far, have yet to take chemicals, working within a process with proper energy included, that has produced a "living" cell. I think I would have heard it if we had.

So there is some belief (confidence, faith, trust, etc.) that abiogenesis will, eventually, produce a working model, and not a general one, and perhaps more than one model will be discovered. On the other hand, it's also not a religion, or a set of religious beliefs, as it is objective-based, primarily.

Yes, it's helpful to know that Darwin's theory demonstrates how changes can be self-supporting that allows, over incredible lengths of time, even more successful progress. This cuts those infinity-like probabilities into something manageable given billions of years if only passive evolution is allowed to work. Breeders and labs know how to speed such things up, of course.
This seems trickier than it looks. Abiogenesis is certainly logical and would seem plausible given the objective evidence found so far, but it is yet to be a hard theory - one that makes very specific predictions that allow very specific tests. I think many would disagree with me on this as I may be a bit too pedantic in these requirements.
Strickley speaking you're right, but since your using the word logical I, personally, would use logic without any further evidence to say this is definitely what happened, simply on the basis that there are no other logical alternatives, good enough for me to move on. A creator is neither logical nor plausible IMO.

#### Wolf28

Absolutly not. All the endless possibilities must still be within the laws of physics and our current laws don't seem to allow a creator. I don't think the laws we don't know about yet are suddenly going to change that IMO.

What do you mean by 'creator'? Creator of earth, the solar system, the galaxy, the contents of our big bang or the whole infinite Universe? or just the creator of life in an already existing world?
So you know enough about our laws of physics that you can categorically deny the existence of being(s) unlike ourselves? And our laws of physics can never change, like near or in a black hole or the quantum universe? By "creator" I mean an intelligence behind everything we perceive in our very limited way. And you absolutely nailed it when you used the word "currently".

#### Wolf28

I think you're being a bit dramatic here, the first life would not instantly contain billions of lines of code -that's enough for a rabbit. I don't think anyone is saying that life evolved spontaneously. I suggest life evolved very gradually maybe from short replicating strands of RNA with just a few lines of code and then becoming DNA later. The complexity would build up very slowly. Cell walls may not even have been necessary to start with if these chemicals formed in the pores of thermal vents.
I assume then you have never seen a living cell operate with it's many parts intelligently knowing just what to do? That doesn't happen randomly. It's coded behavior - yes, a single cell needs billions of lines of code to do what it does. Even the most primitive. A rock cannot "know" to take fuel and transform it into energy. But an ameba does. Have you ever coded a simple webpage?

#### Wolf28

I don't understand why everything needs to be exact, does it matter if there's an excess of one ingredient, and does it matter if one ingredient arrives a bit late?
Cells die all the time because they are not perfect. Go ahead, make some life - use whatever you need. Since it can be so random and non-precise, anyone should be able to do it. Know anyone who can?

#### Wolf28

Interesting, but I can't see what that's got to do with life?
The theory goes that infinite time and possibilities can create life. But time is not infinite. Most, if not all theories of the universe predict a beginning, and an end.

#### Wolf28

I would not agree that the parts have intelligence and knowledge, for example, some parts are just following a concentration gradient. Overall the cell is just a machine with all its constituents following cause and effect. Completely astonishing never the less.

Always nice to see someone else's thought-provoking views
I used the word intelligence loosely. Never-the-less, they know just what to do. It's that coding thing.

#### Helio

Strickley speaking you're right, but since your using the word logical I, personally, would use logic without any further evidence to say this is definitely what happened, simply on the basis that there are no other logical alternatives, good enough for me to move on. A creator is neither logical nor plausible IMO.
The abiogenesis question is a very simple one given that it's a broad claim. Either some sort of intelligent being intervened to make life happen or incredible, but not impossible, circumstances did. The scientific evidence continues to grow and come closer and closer to offering conjectures that make the later case more plausible, IMO.

But, those incredible circumstances arguing for Nature to be the cause doesn't remove the question of how Nature became perhaps even more incredibly fine-tuned to allow abiogenesis. It's not just taking hydrocarbons, amino acids, etc. from the cosmos, it's also the near-perfect circumstances to make stars and wet planets like Earth, even if earth's are extremely rare. The dozens of parameters and force values that come out of the Big Bang appear to be wonderfully made, which suggests something more divine than random. The idea of an infinity no. of universes, admittedly, would make divinity appear less likely, yet we have no way to discover more than our own universe. So it will likely always be a matter of belief one way or another. These areas aren't within the confines of science, but metaphysics or pseudoscience.

Last edited:
David-J-Franks

#### COLGeek

Moderator
What came first? The intelligent being or the egg?

rod

#### rod

There is a problem with post #64 question. It is abiogenesis turning non-living matter into life. How long did it take abiogenesis to convert non-living matter into life on Earth? We have 4.352 x 10^17 seconds for the age of the universe (since the big bang), that places a time constraint using c.g.s. units. You cannot have abiogenesis take 10^18 seconds, that would be older than the universe. There is another problem, no one has observed abiogenesis take place anywhere on Earth, including Louis Pasteur experiments about spontaneous generation.

#### Helio

There is a problem with post #64 question. It is abiogenesis turning non-living matter into life. How long did it take abiogenesis to convert non-living matter into life on Earth? We have 4.352 x 10^17 seconds for the age of the universe (since the big bang), that places a time constraint using c.g.s. units. You cannot have abiogenesis take 10^18 seconds, that would be older than the universe.
I'm missing your point here. Why would we need to add 18 billion years (1E18 sec - 4.352E17 sec) to the BBT age to get abiogenesis?

The first 8 or 10 billion years might prevent life's beginnings since hydrogen and helium alone aren't going to produce much. Those first stars had no planets. Earlier forming galaxies may have some advantage, but we don't really know yet.

There is another problem, no one has observed abiogenesis take place anywhere on Earth, including Louis Pasteur experiments about spontaneous generation.
Right, so abiogenesis would be a very special event and process or a long set of processes. That's a good thing else we might be bombarded with homemade alien stuff all the time and not all of it friendly. Perhaps it has happened in the distant past?

What we do know is that the universe is very finely tuned and it appears, at least, that abiogenesis is an idea with merit thanks to all those incredible ingredients that were formed in space and the various ways energy can work in useful ways.

#### Helio

What came first? The intelligent being or the egg?
You ask the egg and I'll ask the big guy. *wink* [I get what you're saying. If a creator's hand began it all then where'd the creator come from? It pushes things back, very similar to using a multiverse to push that same question back.]

#### rod

Helio in post #66 said "Right, so abiogenesis would be a very special event and process or a long set of processes"

My question and use of time in c.g.s. units is specific. How long does it take abiogenesis to create life from non-living matter? 10^18 seconds as a process is too long because it is longer than the age of the universe in the BB model so that and the time elapsed in seconds since the BB event, place time constraints on how long the abiogenesis process(s) can take to create life from non-living matter. I use descriptive stats in MS ACCESS and MS Excel Data Analysis pack. tmin = how many seconds, tmax = how many seconds?

Helio, your answer does not provide tmin or tmax in seconds for abiogenesis to create life. Your answer basically says abiogenesis could be a single, unique event or an event that works over long time spans without time constraints defined. There is also the problem of observations documenting abiogenesis creating life from non-living matter, e.g. Louis Pasteur did not see spontaneous generation but life from life. No one has observed a gas cloud with various chemical elements turn into life, even meteorites that hit the earth today and are recovered, the chemical elements in the meteorite do not undergo abiogenesis and evolve into life

#### Wolf28

You ask the egg and I'll ask the big guy. *wink* [I get what you're saying. If a creator's hand began it all then where'd the creator come from? It pushes things back, very similar to using a multiverse to push that same question back.]
An example of something that has always been and will always be is the passage of time. Whether or not anything ever exists, has ever existed, or will ever exist has nothing to do with whether or not time exists. Nothing can "happen" for eons and yet, those eons passed. The death of the universe could have happened trillions of years ago, the formation of it may not have occurred a near infinite amount of time, and yet - time passed. It has always been and will always be. We take for granted that something can exist without a precursor. Time. So where'd a creator come from? Perhaps it takes the mind of a creator to know. He/she may be able to tell us what was here before time as well.

My point? Just because we do not know doesn't mean we're smart enough to and just don't get it yet. It may just mean that it is beyond our comprehension altogether. Repeating loop questions and other such paradoxes should not be used to discount or support anything. They are thought experiments and serve to induce "gotcha" moments, but just like the question itself, they neither prove nor disprove anything. So, I ask again, where did the creator come from? The question is as relevant to us as - how many times can you divide the number one?

rod

#### rod

Post #69 says, "It has always been and will always be." Wolf28, this thinking about time can also be applied to thinking about a creator too, FYI.

#### Atlan0101

Where does a creator come from? Any creator is in the creation. Any creation is in its creator. The tree is always in the forest, the forest is always in the tree.

The 10-dimensional universe (a.k.a., possibly, the Big Bang) is in the 26-dimensional universe (a.k.a., possibly, the Big Crunch). The 4-dimensional universe (ours) is in the 10-dimensional universe.... thus in the 26-dimensional universe.

The 26-dimensional universe is in..... Somewhere along the way, though, massive complexity would collapse to a foundational dimensionality. Thus the Big Crunch might not be 26-dimensional but be 1-dimensional. Any creator is in the creation. Any creation is in the creator. There is a difference, but really what is the difference? Is there life in the Universe? Is the Universe in life?

#### Helio

My question and use of time in c.g.s. units is specific. How long does it take abiogenesis to create life from non-living matter? 10^18 seconds as a process is too long because it is longer than the age of the universe in the BB model so that and the time elapsed in seconds since the BB event, place time constraints on how long the abiogenesis process(s) can take to create life from non-living matter. I use descriptive stats in MS ACCESS and MS Excel Data Analysis pack. tmin = how many seconds, tmax = how many seconds?
Are you saying you have some sort of program that gives 10E18 sec. for the time for abiogenesis? If so, throw it away, and not just because it is obviously flawed by your argument alone.

[When the expansion rate for the universe was determined from Hubble's work, it gave us an age that was less than the age of the oldest stars. It was obvious something was in error. The problem was found by Hubble, IIRC, in that he used the wrong class of Cepheids for the one he discovered in Andromeda.]

Helio, your answer does not provide tmin or tmax in seconds for abiogenesis to create life. Your answer basically says abiogenesis could be a single, unique event or an event that works over long time spans without time constraints defined.
Yes, but there are some time constraints in accord with what I said earlier. There would likely need to be a terrestrial planet, which requires billions of years from the BB moment to form. There would have been no chance of life in the first moments of the BB with billions of degrees of temperature. [The Pope, when he learned of Lemaitre's theory (now BBT) declared it as the Genesis moment. Lemairte, later a church abbot, wrote the Pope and rightfully convinced him otherwise. IMO, the birth of the solar system keeps looking better and better as fitting the Genesis story.]

The time issue for abiogenesis has something to do with it not being a solid theory or model. It is still more an extremely logical idea. Even Darwin's logical evolution model was mostly rejected until genetics was recognized.

There is also the problem of observations documenting abiogenesis creating life from non-living matter, e.g. Louis Pasteur did not see spontaneous generation but life from life. No one has observed a gas cloud with various chemical elements turn into life, even meteorites that hit the earth today and are recovered, the chemical elements in the meteorite do not undergo abiogenesis and evolve into life
Right, abiogenesis is something incredibly special and likely can only take place in special places. It's like the ham sandwich story I should learn to forget -- if we had some ham, we could make a ham sandwich, if we had some ham. The right stuff is required for abiogenesis, and I doubt anyone questions that simple argument.

But direct observations of an actual abiogenesis event aren't required to offer hypotheses. Black holes will never be observed directly, but they are now so easily inferred that they are considered factual. Abiogenesis, of course, isn't there yet. It can easily be inferred but factual it is not. Will science be able to advance the perhaps million of special circumstances necessary to see chemicals take us to "life"? I suspect so. I think this partly because we are now learning that the number of exoplanets are about the same number as stars and we have evidence for about 2 trillion galaxies in the observable universe.

I'm mindful of story about Ptolemy in his solar system model. He had to decide where to place the orbit of Venus -- inside the Sun or outside the Sun. He chose the inside arguing that it would be a waste of space for God to not have Venus in that gap between us and the Sun. It would be a bigger waste if intelligence is not out there even if only on a tiny fraction of planets out there.

#### rod

Interesting thinking presented by Helio in post #72. The problem I see is mixing apples and oranges - again. Ptolemy had direct observations of the planet movements supporting his geocentric system with circles and direct observation of the Sun moving across the sky, thus moving around the Earth. Interesting comment Helio said, "Abiogenesis, of course, isn't there yet. It can easily be inferred but factual it is not. Will science be able to advance the perhaps million of special circumstances necessary to see chemicals take us to "life"? I suspect so."

I agree, abiogenesis is not a *fact*. Arguing for a multitude of special conditions for abiogenesis to take place, lacks observations like Ptolemy had, and time measurements that clearly define constraints on abiogenesis and Ptolemy geocentric solar system had time constraints too when certain planetary alignments would be visible. Pointing to exoplanets documented today (more than 4300), does not show abiogenesis is at work on any of those exoplanets or abiogenesis took place in the past on them. The observations of Ptolemy for his geocentric solar system are better supported than speculations about abiogenesis working on exoplanets to create life on them - my view.

#### Helio

Interesting thinking presented by Helio in post #72. The problem I see is mixing apples and oranges - again. Ptolemy had direct observations of the planet movements supporting his geocentric system with circles and direct observation of the Sun moving across the sky, thus moving around the Earth.
Well, Venus was easily observed in his day but he had no way of determining its orbit -- whether it was inside the Sun's orbit around us or outside the Sun. He argued it was inside else it was wasted space. [He failed to argue how the "wasted" space was to be considered between the Sun and Mars. He was using teleology which existed into the days of Galileo. Science included purpose, namely the "why" part of God's actions. Modern science is no longer asks"why" (and for good reason), but "how".]

I agree, abiogenesis is not a *fact*.
I favor the idea of facts referring only to objective evidence. Evolution, for instance, isn't a "fact" (contrary to many) because it is a theory, which uses facts. I don't mind using the term "factual" if it is fact-based. The efforts to develop abiogenesis into a working theory is fact-based and it helps justify its likelihood. Even if people agree that it's not a solid theory (yet), it's still a true scientific effort.

Arguing for a multitude of special conditions for abiogenesis to take place, lacks observations like Ptolemy had, and time measurements that clearly define constraints on abiogenesis and Ptolemy geocentric solar system had time constraints too when certain planetary alignments would be visible.
Yes, Ptolemy gets a lot of credit for his model, but he developed it not as a scientific model but simply as a tool that would allow some accuracy on those alignment dates. Tables had to be done on a routine basis since their accuracy would be off by several months over time. Copernicus, IMO, felt a better model should exist and this encouraged him, along with his ability to read Greek and learn of Aristarchus and other heliocentrists.

The basis to abiogenesis has plenty of "observations", however. Evidence, for instance, suggests that the undersea world had locations more favorable than the idea of tidal areas.

Pointing to exoplanets documented today (more than 4300), does not show abiogenesis is at work on any of those exoplanets or abiogenesis took place in the past on them.
Yes, of course. I was tip-toeing into the religious argument that there ought to be (IMO) other worlds with life, which, given a crude estimate on the order of 10E23 exoplanets, is enough to deal with the extreme number of limiting conditions abiogenesis attempts to demonstrate. A choice of a Creator-made universe favors, IMO, one who is an uber engineer more than an interventionist for normal (not "living souls") life forms. If so, then life forms elsewhere are more likely than not.

The observations of Ptolemy for his geocentric solar system are better supported than speculations about abiogenesis working on exoplanets to create life on them - my view.
Ptolemy's model was falsified. Galileo, arguably the father of modern science, was able to demonstrate that the scientific Geocentric model was false with his observations of Venus.

Similarly, observations are being found that either favor or falsify some abiogenesis hypotheses. This is why the undersea ideas (if not true hypotheses) seems today more favored than the tidal locations.

#### rod

Helio said in post #74, "Ptolemy's model was falsified. Galileo, arguably the father of modern science, was able to demonstrate that the scientific Geocentric model was false with his observations of Venus.

Similarly, observations are being found that either favor or falsify some abiogenesis hypotheses. This is why the undersea ideas (if not true hypotheses) seems today more favored than the tidal locations."

I agree about Ptolemy and Galileo but again, mixing apples and oranges. Galileo documented the small lights moving around Jupiter like his observations of Venus using his telescope. Others followed up and observed those same lights moving around Jupiter and Venus phases as well. Who has observed and documented abiogenesis at work in tidal locations today? And I add, abiogenesis at work undersea too. That is my problem when using Ptolemy and Galileo astronomical observations as a good parallel to abiogenesis observations.

Last edited: