Based upon the evidence, the answer is obviously: 100%. Next question?Hi, what are the Odds of life coming into existence by chance alone?
That sentence is self-contradictory. I'll start by giving the idiot who wrote it a break and assume it was a typo, that he meant to say, "the odds against life evolving by chance..." Nonetheless, he needs to make up his mind. Are the odds against life evolving by chance merely "so high," which means that the odds of life evolving by chance are very low, but not zero? Or is the probability of life actually zero, which means that the odds against it are not merely "very high," but 100%? Whoever wrote this doesn't understand probability, and also isn't very fluent in English.There are claims by some disbelievers in evolution that the odds of life evolving by chance are so high that the probability is zero.
You seem to not grasp the concept that complex bodily systems and structures evolve from simpler bodily systems and structures. We've had billions of years to evolve and lots of perfectly fine systems and structures were lost along the way because they were not followed by a fortuitous mutation. But every now and then one is, and eventually you have animals and plants and fungi and algae and bacteria and archaea. People who can't grasp this are innumerate: they don't understand the possibilities that unfold in an extremely large time continuum. Similar phenomena occur over and over, until finally one is followed by another phenomenon that makes the whole system more stable. Then that one dies off and another pairing occurs. A million years later you finally get seven of them in a row and you've got an eye or a heart or a digestive tract.The theory of evolution is based upon random mutations and survival of the fittest – i.e. a genetic mutation occurs, and if it is beneficial the organism prospers, but if it is detrimental the organism struggles, and the mutation dies out along with the organism. It sounds like a reasonable theory for explaining how small changes occur, e.g. to gradually adapt to changing environmental conditions. But it completely fails to address how complex bodily systems and structures form or how life began in the first place.
"Generally" is the vocabulary of the innumerate. For every "generally" there exists an uncountable number of exceptions. It's the exceptions that got us here.Mutations are generally associated with detrimental effects like cancer and radiation sickness, not with intelligent design or positive evolution.
You have no idea what you're talking about and you're embarrassing yourself. Your grasp of probability theory, statistics, and the mathematics of extremely large numbers is, to put it politely, a little shaky.They add chaos to a system; not order. Random mutations quite clearly did not give rise to human beings.
We didn't. Our broadcasts are represented by the little blue dot in the middle of that square.
Grumpy
It sounds like a reasonable theory for explaining how small changes occur, e.g. to gradually adapt to changing environmental conditions. But it completely fails to address how complex bodily systems and structures form
or how life began in the first place.
Mutations are generally associated with detrimental effects like cancer and radiation sickness, not with intelligent design or positive evolution.
They add chaos to a system; not order. Random mutations quite clearly did not give rise to human beings.
Mutations are generally associated with detrimental effects like cancer and radiation sickness, not with intelligent design or positive evolution.They add chaos to a system; not order
Random mutations quite clearly did not give rise to human beings.
Hi, what are the Odds of life coming into existence by chance alone? There are claims by some disbelievers in evolution that the odds of life evolving by chance are so high that the probability is zero What do you think; I will add my take on the matter after the first few replies
There's one thing I wonder though, why is there only life from one source? Or has it happened several times?
I know that the odds are slim that it would happen even once,
Yet we still have single-cell organisms, so it doesn't prove anything at all. I don't see how it couldn't have evolved in some niche that it could survive in, if it indeed did exist, it isn't too much different than different species of the same life after all.It has probably happened many billions of times- the problem is that any new life would naturally be out-competed by the more established life that has had more time to adapt to the environment.
Imagine coming into existence as this nude self replicating molecule with no defenses, no motility, and surrounded by hungry microorganisms that have motility, defenses, and a substantial arsenal of organelles evolved to eat things like you.
As I said before, all life works that way, yet we still have single-cell organisms. As you say the line blurs as different origins could have been setup much the same way, which might lead us to the idea that there is a preferred way of life configuration.In the very early stages, life probably originated at multiple points on Earth, and a number of times. It competed until one, or a few, gene pools won out. Very primitive life also tends to share DNA, so... it would really blur the line as to which was the first, and where each came from. Evolution from there also adds too much white noise to make sense of the very beginnings (wherein the DNA simply wasn't complex enough to be unique).
Sorry, let me rephrase that to say that they are slim in our perspective (taking a lot of time), of course the earth is very old and has enough time even though odds are low in our perspective.What makes you feel that you know this? Why do you think the odds are slim?
You’re right about that one. The ToE addresses the how life adapts to environmental selective pressures, not how it arose in the first place.
Yet we still have single-cell organisms, so it doesn't prove anything at all.
I don't see how it couldn't have evolved in some niche that it could survive in, if it indeed did exist, it isn't too much different than different species of the same life after all.
As you say the line blurs as different origins could have been setup much the same way, which might lead us to the idea that there is a preferred way of life configuration.
Sorry, let me rephrase that to say that they are slim in our perspective (taking a lot of time), of course the earth is very old and has enough time even though odds are low in our perspective.
May I see a proof of this please from mainstream articles and an explanation as to why TOE does not address how life began?
The Harvard University Origins of Life Initiative is an interdisciplinary center unlike any other in the world. It studies everything from planet formation and detection to the origin and early evolution of life.
http://origins.harvard.edu/
May I see a proof of this please from mainstream articles and an explanation as to why TOE does not address how life began?
Thanks