The Statistical Odds of Random Scientific Events

[scoobydooby67]

Originally Posted by nitrum

The Earth isn't perfectly fined tuned for us, we are perfectly fine tuned for the Earth. Of course the Earth is hospitible for humans. We evolved here! So how about life as we "don't" know it? I'm sure most aliens wouldn't find Earth very appealing.

no we're not.

we're a fucking virus to this planet.

cancer also "evolves" and takes control of someone's body, that doesnt mean its "perfectly fine tuned".

[Jimbozu]

Originally Posted by morphyx

Good point. So, wouldn't it be realistic to logically assume the plausibility of finely tuned life forms existing on ANY planetary body including moons and stars? If life forms in fact "evolve" to the body mass' environment (as opposed to the inverse) there is no need for oxygen, water, vegetation, photosynthesis, etc. to necessarily be present since that would only apply to "our" life forms, right?

For example, a life form theoretically should have adapted to life on our moon that requires no oxygen, heat, water, or vegetation after all these billions of years. It certainly wouldn't be a life form that could survive on earth, but it would be a life form solely adapted to the moon; or venus; or mars;....or even the sun?

By the same logic, some sort of life form should have adapted to thrive and multiply in the gaseous formation of Jupiter?

How do we know it hasn't. If it is completely different from life on earth in every way possible, we would have no way of recognizing that it was life. When we look for life elsewhere in the universe, we look for life similar to our own, because we have to compare it with things that we know. Since we've only seen lifeforms that are carbon based, and need water to survive, we pretty much have to assume that all life is like this, or at least that this is a common form of life. Since other forms of life haven't seemed to spring up on other bodies in our solar system, we can also assume that life forms that COULD survive in those environments, are either impossible, or uncommon.

Anyways. We are, in NO uncertain means, NOT perfectly tuned to this planet. 71% of the earth's surface is covered in water. It would make much more sense if we spent 71% of our lives in water. It would make use of the resources we have to offer much easier. Also, the earth's atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, but our bodies don't use nitrogen to make energy do they? No, we use oxygen, along with like 45%(I pulled this number out of my ass, the other two % I looked up.) of all other life on earth. The most plentiful thing on earth is silicon, and yet we are constructed out of carbon. Does that make sense? Not to me.

Evolution doesn't create organisms perfectly suited for their environment, but organisms that are about as well suited to the environment they live in as all the other organisms on earth. A life form that is perfectly suited for earth could live in our out of salt, and fresh water, is constructed primarily of silica, and uses nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide to generate energy by reacting them with some silica food source. Nanobots, for example, would be "perfectly" suited for the environment (thats what Grey Goo theory is all about.)

[nitrum]

Originally Posted by morphyx

Good point. So, wouldn't it be realistic to logically assume the plausibility of finely tuned life forms existing on ANY planetary body including moons and stars? If life forms in fact "evolve" to the body mass' environment (as opposed to the inverse) there is no need for oxygen, water, vegetation, photosynthesis, etc. to necessarily be present since that would only apply to "our" life forms, right?

For example, a life form theoretically should have adapted to life on our moon that requires no oxygen, heat, water, or vegetation after all these billions of years. It certainly wouldn't be a life form that could survive on earth, but it would be a life form solely adapted to the moon; or venus; or mars;....or even the sun?

By the same logic, some sort of life form should have adapted to thrive and multiply in the gaseous formation of Jupiter?

Seriously, did you even read my post? Look what I posted a just a few lines above that comment:


"Don't get me wrong. There are factors that are probably necessary for all forms of intelligent life (liquid water, organics, an atmosphere, a stable orbit) but other ones are only necessary for life on Earth."


I never said that life can evolve on the moon. Like I said, there are obviously going to be some factors that are essential for life. But that certainly doesn't mean that conditions have to be EXACTLY like Earth. In fact, we are finding more and more life that thrives in environments that used to be considered inhospitable.

You should read about extremophiles. At the bottom of the ocean there are bacteria that grow on hydrothermal vents. These vents are as hot as boiling water, and colonies of bacteria thrive in the minerals and heat. But its not only bacteria. The vents sustain a small ecosystem. Tube worms have a symbiotic relationship with the bacteria. The sulfurous emissions that would harm or kill most kinds of life are metabolized by the bacteria and used as nutrients by the tube worms. The most amazing thing about this ecosystem is that it is entirely independent from the suns energy. It is one of the few.

Life can is amazingly resilient and creative in its survival techniques. Of course organics molecules, an energy source, and long term stability is necessary for the evolution of life, but other than that, the possibilites are wide open. To think that the life we see on Earth is the only possible form is completely absurd.

Look at oxygen. It is the most reactive element after fluorine. It is so reactive that most metals will spontaneously oxidize to some extent at room temperature. It has a sustainable combustion reaction with numerous materials too. The only reason it isn't tremendously deadly to life on Earth is because we evolved here.

And please read my whole post next time.

[morphyx]

Originally Posted by Jimbozu

How do we know it hasn't. If it is completely different from life on earth in every way possible, we would have no way of recognizing that it was life. When we look for life elsewhere in the universe, we look for life similar to our own, because we have to compare it with things that we know. Since we've only seen lifeforms that are carbon based, and need water to survive, we pretty much have to assume that all life is like this, or at least that this is a common form of life. Since other forms of life haven't seemed to spring up on other bodies in our solar system, we can also assume that life forms that COULD survive in those environments, are either impossible, or uncommon.

Anyways. We are, in NO uncertain means, NOT perfectly tuned to this planet. 71% of the earth's surface is covered in water. It would make much more sense if we spent 71% of our lives in water. It would make use of the resources we have to offer much easier. Also, the earth's atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, but our bodies don't use nitrogen to make energy do they? No, we use oxygen, along with like 45%(I pulled this number out of my ass, the other two % I looked up.) of all other life on earth. The most plentiful thing on earth is silicon, and yet we are constructed out of carbon. Does that make sense? Not to me.

Yeah, I didn't say I agree; just running with his theory. However, as spontaneous generation theories go (and origin of organic matter, for that matter?...if it matters) the conditions were somehow perfectly balanced to produce the life forms we do know about. If evolutionary theories were true they certainly wouldn't be restricted to "our environment" or even the same exact list of chemicals, matter and elements present on earth. In fact, who's to say that the periodic table represents every element in the universe or even our solar system? I'm certain there are gases, metals, liquids, matter, or whatever that exist of which we know nothing about.

Originally Posted by Jimbozu

Evolution doesn't create organisms perfectly suited for their environment, but organisms that are about as well suited to the environment they live in as all the other organisms on earth. A life form that is perfectly suited for earth could live in our out of salt, and fresh water, is constructed primarily of silica, and uses nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide to generate energy by reacting them with some silica food source. Nanobots, for example, would be "perfectly" suited for the environment (thats what Grey Goo theory is all about.)

Then why didn't a more suitable life form spontaneously generate as opposed to what is believed to have done so?

On the topic of the statistical odds, what do you make of the argument from the article?

[morphyx]

Originally Posted by nitrum

Seriously, did you even read my post? Look what I posted a just a few lines above that comment:

I didn't say you said that, I was suggesting the plausibility based on the logic of life coming into existence based on local environment.

ie. You said, "So how about life as we "don't" know it? I'm sure most aliens wouldn't find Earth very appealing."

[Floydian]

Originally Posted by morphyx

Good point. So, wouldn't it be realistic to logically assume the plausibility of finely tuned life forms existing on ANY planetary body including moons and stars? If life forms in fact "evolve" to the body mass' environment (as opposed to the inverse) there is no need for oxygen, water, vegetation, photosynthesis, etc. to necessarily be present since that would only apply to "our" life forms, right?

For example, a life form theoretically should have adapted to life on our moon that requires no oxygen, heat, water, or vegetation after all these billions of years. It certainly wouldn't be a life form that could survive on earth, but it would be a life form solely adapted to the moon; or venus; or mars;....or even the sun?

By the same logic, some sort of life form should have adapted to thrive and multiply in the gaseous formation of Jupiter?

I didn't read the thread, but I just saw something on GC about scientists learning how to grow plants out of moon soil, though I wouldn't hold much hope for life on the moon. If it's there, the odds are it certainly isn't surface life.

As for the gas giants, where life was presumably impossible, now theories are abundant on how they could evolve and live there.

The sun, I doubt. It's a place where the very atoms life is made up of are under constant torment. But, still, if not for super-nova capable stars (I don't recall our sun being one, unfortunately...) are the entire reason life has been able to spring out of the darkness, being that only they create the elements heavier than Iron.

Even with billions of years though, it obviously takes many millions of years for full stages of evolution to go by... even if things can evolve on other bodies, Earth is somewhat of a prime place for life, so the scales we think of life evolving on may be exadgurated.

[nitrum]

Originally Posted by Jimbozu

How do we know it hasn't. If it is completely different from life on earth in every way possible, we would have no way of recognizing that it was life. When we look for life elsewhere in the universe, we look for life similar to our own, because we have to compare it with things that we know. Since we've only seen lifeforms that are carbon based, and need water to survive, we pretty much have to assume that all life is like this, or at least that this is a common form of life. Since other forms of life haven't seemed to spring up on other bodies in our solar system, we can also assume that life forms that COULD survive in those environments, are either impossible, or uncommon.

Anyways. We are, in NO uncertain means, NOT perfectly tuned to this planet. 71% of the earth's surface is covered in water. It would make much more sense if we spent 71% of our lives in water. It would make use of the resources we have to offer much easier. Also, the earth's atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, but our bodies don't use nitrogen to make energy do they? No, we use oxygen, along with like 45%(I pulled this number out of my ass, the other two % I looked up.) of all other life on earth. The most plentiful thing on earth is silicon, and yet we are constructed out of carbon. Does that make sense? Not to me.

Evolution doesn't create organisms perfectly suited for their environment, but organisms that are about as well suited to the environment they live in as all the other organisms on earth. A life form that is perfectly suited for earth could live in our out of salt, and fresh water, is constructed primarily of silica, and uses nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide to generate energy by reacting them with some silica food source. Nanobots, for example, would be "perfectly" suited for the environment (thats what Grey Goo theory is all about.)

I'm sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with most of what you said.

When you consider the possible conditions that could have been on Earth, we are VERY fine tuned to this planet. We are confortable at a temperature of 75* which is about average Earth temperature. If oxygen levels fluctuate even slightly we could die within minutes. We are resistant to water, oxygen, and CO2.

And elements that are rarely found in Earths ecosystem are often poisonous. Rare elements like mercury, lead, arsenic, barium, and berylium are VERY toxic. But the metals we commonly come in contact with (sodium, iron, calcium, potassium) are not only harmless, they are essential to our health.

And nitrogen is useless for breathing because organics cannot be metabolized by it to any extent. Also, I doubt silicon can make life. It is really bad at making chains and doesn't even have close to the diversity as carbon chemistry. Maybe, life can live without water, but I would say never without carbon.

And just because people can't breathe under water doesn't make us less adapted. A species will only retain abilities that are necessary or beneficial to its survival. Having unnecessary traits requires a lot of energy, and animals would starve in this case.

It is undeniable that we are fine tuned for Earth. That is just how evolution works.

(Oh, and one correction. Most of the Earth is actually made of oxygen. The mantel is made of silicates which is silicon dioxide. So there is about twice as much oxygen in the Earth than silicon. But you were still right about there being relatively little carbon)

[Jimbozu]

Originally Posted by morphyx

Yeah, I didn't say I agree; just running with his theory. However, as spontaneous generation theories go (and origin of organic matter, for that matter?...if it matters) the conditions were somehow perfectly balanced to produce the life forms we do know about. If evolutionary theories were true they certainly wouldn't be restricted to "our environment" or even the same exact list of chemicals, matter and elements present on earth. In fact, who's to say that the periodic table represents every element in the universe or even our solar system? I'm certain there are gases, metals, liquids, matter, or whatever that exist of which we know nothing about.

Evolutionary theory isn't restricted to our environment, its restricted to "life like our own" in which organisms reproduce using a self replicating molecule (like DNA) that screws up every so often (or every time we reproduce). "Survival of the fittest" was never mentioned in On the Origin of Species and isn't really part of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory states that the MOST fit (not the perfectly fit) organism will survive.

I tell you with no form of uncertainty, that the Periodic table of the Elements contains every atom with 1-114 (excluding 113) protons is on the periodic table, and therefore, there cannot be any other elements on the table unless that have MORE protons than any of the existing elements.

Then why didn't a more suitable life form spontaneously generate as opposed to what is believed to have done so?

On the topic of the statistical odds, what do you make of the argument from the article?

A life form more suitable for what? We know that the composition of the Earth's atmosphere can change quite rapidly, in fact, we're responsible for some drastic changes in the atmospheric composition (global warming). The heat produced by the sun is always changing, the very ground we stand on is now moving. Tell me, which "earth" would this perfect organism be perfect for? Would it, in itself, change the environment it lives in to the point that it can no longer survive? What if some meteor or something came and killed it off?

Or, if you don't want to even get into the discussion about evolution, I can answer your question with another question. Why did we invent dynamite before we invented the Fusion(Hydrogen) Bomb?

As far as the article goes, I find it rather stupid. We can look at any extraordinarily unlikely event after the fact and say, "The odds of this happening are astronomical, therefore it must not have happened." But we can plainly see that it DID happen, so the odds of it happening are inconsequentially. We're here, we're god fucking damn LUCKY that we're here, but thats all that the statistical probability of our being here tells us.

Originally Posted by nitrum

I'm sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with most of what you said.

When you consider the possible conditions that could have been on Earth, we are VERY fine tuned to this planet. We are confortable at a temperature of 75* which is about average Earth temperature. If oxygen levels fluctuate even slightly we could die within minutes. We are resistant to water, oxygen, and CO2.

And elements that are rarely found in Earths ecosystem are often poisonous. Rare elements like mercury, lead, arsenic, barium, and berylium are VERY toxic. But the metals we commonly come in contact with (sodium, iron, calcium, potassium) are not only harmless, they are essential to our health.

And nitrogen is useless for breathing because organics cannot be metabolized by it to any extent. Also, I doubt silicon can make life. It is really bad at making chains and doesn't even have close to the diversity as carbon chemistry. Maybe, life can live without water, but I would say never without carbon.

And just because people can't breathe under water doesn't make us less adapted. A species will only retain abilities that are necessary or beneficial to its survival. Having unnecessary traits requires a lot of energy, and animals would starve in this case.

It is undeniable that we are fine tuned for Earth. That is just how evolution works.

(Oh, and one correction. Most of the Earth is actually made of oxygen. The mantel is made of silicates which is silicon dioxide. So there is about twice as much oxygen in the Earth than silicon. But you were still right about there being relatively little carbon)

All I was saying is that it is feasible to think of organisms that would be better suited to live on earth. I also doubt the viability of silicon in forming life, but that isn't to say that life that WAS made out of silicon wouldn't be better suited to live on earth. If we COULD use nitrogen to create energy, wouldn't that be much more beneficial to us than just using oxygen? How about the (slightly) more realistic proposition of having chloroplasts in our skin cells. That would DEFINITELY make us more fit to survive than the rest of the animal kingdom, as well as the rest of the plant kingdom, but evolution doesn't work like that.

[nitrum]

Originally Posted by Jimbozu

All I was saying is that it is feasible to think of organisms that would be better suited to live on earth. I also doubt the viability of silicon in forming life, but that isn't to say that life that WAS made out of silicon wouldn't be better suited to live on earth. If we COULD use nitrogen to create energy, wouldn't that be much more beneficial to us than just using oxygen? How about the (slightly) more realistic ,proposition of having chloroplasts in our skin cells. That would DEFINITELY make us more fit to survive than the rest of the animal kingdom, as well as the rest of the plant kingdom, but evolution doesn't work like that.

Yeah, I guess I buy that argument. Fair enough.

And Morphyx, I'm leaving right now and won't be by a computer for a few days. So don't think I've given up on this thread

[enevitable]

Haha did you find this article here?
http://www.thischristianjourney.com/...e_The_Odds.htm

Seems pretty funny that you post an article that claims to have scientific background, from a site that clearly tries to convert people to christianity

Furthermore I find it rather ironic that you posted an article that claims to have scientific background, from a source obviously so biased.

Just out of curiousity, do you think biased information is a great way to base our opinions? Do you think it would be intelligent to base the status of the war on iraq off of information from china?

The moment a scientist confuses his obligations towards the non-biased acquirement of knowledge(Science) with the obligations of God and bases his assumptions on the divine, he is no longer a scientist.

[Liquidtruth]

Originally Posted by enevitable

The moment a scientist confuses his obligations towards the non-biased acquirement of knowledge(Science) with the obligations of God and bases his assumptions on the divine, he is no longer a scientist.

This is true. Sadly, it will not allow me to rep you.

[enevitable]

Originally Posted by Liquidtruth

This is true. Sadly, it will not allow me to rep you.

Aye, does it also greatly offend you that scientists defame their profession by posting misleading facts(actually opinions) based solely upon their beliefs?

While parts of this article are true, there are also many parts that are misconstrued only to use the article as a vehicle to drive the point of creationism. I said this in an earlier post and I'll say it again:

The universe is so fucking big that statistical impossibilities are not impossible.

Any one with half a brain can tell you that on a long enough time line, anything can happen. (And that anything just so happens to be the parasitic animal we call Humans)