# Chances of life appearing **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 8, 2009, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737 "2009-05-08T10:40:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2009, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/21 "2009-05-08T15:10:56Z")
> [@JohnClay](#): > > Assuming that the Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, there are many versions of Earth - not just one. Watch that first step - it’s a doozy! ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2009, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/22 "2009-05-08T15:19:48Z")
> [@JohnClay](#): > > The reason why I think life seems incredibly unlikely and yet it happened is because I think there are a near-infinite number of parallel histories of the universe and therefore whatever could happen did in some of the parallel histories. What does “near-infinite” mean? And is there any evidence for these “parallel histories”? And even if there is, there’s no reason to assume “whatever could happen did.” And even if it did in “some of the parallel histories,” what about the others? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2009, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/23 "2009-05-08T19:45:22Z")
Quoth **Jonathan Chance** : > [@](#): > > However we have a sample size of one (Earth) and life occurred here. So in places with conditions in which life could appear it has appeared 100% of the time. We need more empirical data before any real judgment can be made. Maybe there’s something evolved on Europa. The only real way to add to the data is to get out there somehow and see if there’s anything there. And not only did life arise on the one planet we know of that could have supported it, it also arose pretty much as soon as that one planet could have supported it. If the origin of life were unlikely, then one would expect that, most places where it did arise (like, any place where people end up thinking about it), that it would have taken a few billion years of false starts before it happened. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2009, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/24 "2009-05-08T19:51:11Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > As I understand it, there are several problems with the theory you propose. > > First of all, there’s no reason to believe that early earth contained a ready supply of amino acids, much less that it contained the right amino acids, in the right proportions, with the right orientation. (Or rather the left orientation, as **John Clay** mentioned already.) Like most people I was taught about the Miller-Urey experiment in school, and was told that this produced all 20 amino acids necessary for life. But my science teacher did not mention that the conditions of the experiment were highly idealized, and not at all relevant to early earth. The experiment used a mixture of methane and ammonia, but the early earth atmosphere was actually a mixture of carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Let’s stop right here. [Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment) ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2009, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/25 "2009-05-08T20:22:32Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > Let’s stop right here. [Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment) Due respect, I really don’t think “simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time” marks a point at which scientific inquiry must stop to declare that the truth has been found. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2009, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/26 "2009-05-08T20:58:11Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > Let’s stop right here. [Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment) Why are we stopping, exactly? That page confirms exactly what I said in my post, namely that the evidence is against early earth having a supply of amino acids, much less a supply dense enough and varied enough to provide a good breeding ground for primitive life. The only thing on the Wikipedia page that might challenge that result is this paragraph > [@Wikipedia](#): > > Originally it was thought that the primitive secondary atmosphere contained mostly ammonia and methane. However, it is likely that most of the atmospheric carbon was CO2 with perhaps some CO and the nitrogen mostly N2. In practice gas mixtures containing CO, CO2, N2, etc. give much the same products as those containing CH4 and NH3 so long as there is no O2. There are two problems with this paragraph. First of all, the source cited to back it up does not exist. Second, it is wrong. The source is linked to in footnote 19 of the Wikipedia page, or at least that’s how it appears. In reality, when I click on the link, I get an error. To double-check, I searched on Google for the title “PHYSIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY of MICROORGANISMS: The Origin of Life” and all that came up was copies of the Wikipedia article. Now, what actually happens when people duplicate the Miller-Urey experiment with a mixture that includes nitrogen? The answer is that they don’t get _any_ amino acids. From [this article in the Journal of the American Chemical Society](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja00844a007), we learn that “no amino acids were detected when nitrogen was added to the reaction mixture”. There’s actually even more about this experiment that the atheists would prefer people not know. In the original versions of the experiment, no amino acids were produced at all. In order to get any amino acids at all, Miller had to use an artificial device called a [cold trap](http://www.answers.com/topic/cold-trap), which separates out liquids and solids from permanent gases by running the mixture through a vacuum tube surrounded by liquid nitrogen. This was the only way that Miller could get any amino acids from the reaction ([cite](http://whiteman0o0.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/millerurey-experiment-fact-or-fraud/)). On early earth, there was no cold trap, hence there would be no amino acids even if the atmosphere was methane and ammonia, which it wasn’t. To summarize, the first step in **Half Man Half Wit** ’s explanation of the origin of life is based on junk science. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2009, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/27 "2009-05-08T21:13:09Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Due respect, I really don’t think “simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time” marks a point at which scientific inquiry must stop to declare that the truth has been found. I just meant that it looked like ITR champion was about to build some reasoning on faulty premises. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > To summarize, the first step in **Half Man Half Wit** ’s explanation of the origin of life is based on junk science. The original experiment was flawed, but hardly ‘junk science’. In any case, it’s not as if the Miller-Urey experiment is the only one ever done, and it does demonstrate that amino acids can arise on their own without being designed or anything like that. > [@ITR champion](#): > > There’s actually even more about this experiment that the atheists would prefer people not know. You’re so cute with your insulting insinuations. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2009, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/28 "2009-05-08T21:27:13Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > The original experiment was flawed, but hardly ‘junk science’. In any case, it’s not as if the Miller-Urey experiment is the only one ever done, and it does demonstrate that amino acids can arise on their own without being designed or anything like that. Perhaps I’m missing something here. Let’s recap the relevant portion of the thread. I began by saying “there’s no reason to believe that early earth contained a ready supply of amino acids”. You responded by demanding that I “stop” based on a link to the Wikipedia article about the Miller-Urey experiment. I then posted an in-depth discussion explaining why the Miller-Urey experiment told us nothing about conditions on early earth, and why the real research tells us that early earth did not have a rich supply of amino acids. And then you respond by saying that Miller-Urey is only meant to demonstrate that amino acids can arise randomly. So then, are you asserting that there were amino acids on early earth? If so, where’s the evidence? Or are you not asserting that? In which case, when was I building “reasoning on faulty premises”? ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2009, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/29 "2009-05-08T23:06:09Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I then posted an in-depth discussion explaining why the Miller-Urey experiment told us nothing about conditions on early earth, and why the real research tells us that early earth did not have a rich supply of amino acids. Shrug, now all you have to do is debunk the dozens of other such experiments, and you might have a point. The Miller-Urey experiment wasn’t perfect, but it gave a starting ground. The earth didn’t have to have a rich supply of amino acids, it only had to have the supplies necessary to build them, and the correct conditions to do so in at least one place. There are dozens of ideas about how this could have happened, the Soup theory being only one, and not a very currently popular one. I’ve read about experiments that caused complex organic molecules to form in the middle of ice. > [@](#): > > There’s actually even more about this experiment that the atheists would prefer people not know. What does this mean? Are you using some weird definition of the word ‘atheist’ that hinges on the Miller-Urey experiments? Or maybe you’re just whipping out the ole great big paintbrush and splattering ignorance all over something that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand? Hmm? Which could it be… ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2009, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/30 "2009-05-08T23:29:05Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > The MWI is an untestable philosophical proposition that just sounds science-y. There’s no real difference between saying “all these events are happening in an infinitude of unreachable other universes,” versus “all these events are happening in the mind of God.” Well there are some documentaries about it: Parallel Universes - BBC Horizon Parallel Worlds - Parallel Lives History Channel - The Universe s03e02 - Parallel Universes I’m not sure if all of those shows talk about MWI though or are about unrelated universes. > **[Many-worlds interpretation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation)** > > The many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts that the universal wavefunction is objectively real, and that there is no wave function collapse. This implies that all possible outcomes of quantum measurements are physically realized in different "worlds". The evolution of reality as a whole in MWI is rigidly deterministic: 9  and dynamically local. Many-worlds is also called the relative state formulation or the Everett interpretation, afte In modern v... > [@](#): > > “Many worlds”-like interpretations are now considered fairly mainstream within the quantum physics community. For example, a poll of 72 leading physicists conducted by the American researcher David Raub in 1995 and published in the French periodical Sciences et Avenir in January 1998 recorded that nearly 60% thought many worlds interpretation was “true”. > though it also says > A 2005 minor poll on the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics workshop at the Institute for Quantum Computing University of Waterloo produced contrary results, with the MWI as the least favored. > [@](#): > > One of MWI’s strongest advocates is David Deutsch. According to Deutsch, the single photon interference pattern observed in the double slit experiment can be explained by interference of photons in multiple universes > [@](#): > > However Stephen Hawking is on record as a saying that the “other worlds are as real as ours” > **[Lone voices special: At play in the multiverse](https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225811-800-lone-voices-special-at-play-in-the-multiverse/)** > > Note: We asked you for your questions for David Deutsch . His answers to the best questions are now on this page . In 1985, David Deutsch turned physics upside down by describing a universal quantum computer, pioneering the field of quantum... see “How does quantum computation shed light on the existence of many worlds?” ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2009, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/31 "2009-05-08T23:53:29Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > What does “near-infinite” mean? A very big number. > [@](#): > > And is there any evidence for these “parallel histories”? See previous post. > [@](#): > > And even if there is, there’s no reason to assume “whatever could happen did.” That’s how the MWI is defined… the parallel histories branch off at every possibility. e.g. like a coin being flipped and there being a tree of every possible combination of coin tosses - including a branch that is all heads, etc. > [@](#): > > And even if it did in “some of the parallel histories,” what about the others? In the others there would just be boring stuff happening - like a regular series of coin tosses with no amazing pattern. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2009, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/32 "2009-05-09T00:41:59Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Shrug, now all you have to do is debunk the dozens of other such experiments, and you might have a point. The Miller-Urey experiment wasn’t perfect, but it gave a starting ground. The earth didn’t have to have a rich supply of amino acids, it only had to have the supplies necessary to build them, and the correct conditions to do so in at least one place. There are dozens of ideas about how this could have happened, the Soup theory being only one, and not a very currently popular one. I’ve read about experiments that caused complex organic molecules to form in the middle of ice. I don’t suppose you could provide a link to any of the “dozens of other such experiments”, by any chance? After all, I’ve already linked to the article in the Journal of the ACS saying that amino acids don’t form when nitrogen is present. If you have an article that says the contrary, I’d be happy to read it. I will warn you in advance, though, that I’m not impressed by experiments that produce “complex organic molecules” but not amino acids. Any of my tenth-grade chemistry students would be happy to explain that many organic molecules are unrelated to life. Indeed, some of the variants of the Miller-Urey experiment using methane and water end up producing formaldehyde and alcohol–complex organic molecules, sure, but they’re the components of embalming fluid. (See the same article for an example of that.) As for you saying that the amino acids only needed to form “in at least one place”, that obvious runs contrary to the spirit of the main argument for abiogenesis. That main argument is that even though the formation of a particular molecule may be highly unlikely, if you have a huge number of molecules combining and recombining over long time periods the overall probability may swing in favor of formation. However, if the necessary conditions prevail only in a small place for a short time, the argument obviously breaks down. Furthermore, as I mentioned above, the absence of amino acids is just one of many barriers to abiogenesis. Even if some nook or cranny of the early earth had amino acids, it wouldn’t have the right distribution of amino acids with the right (left) orientation. Even if it had the right distribution of amino acids with only left orientations, it wouldn’t have the ribose necessary for RNA. Even if it had both the right distribution of amino acids and the ribose, they wouldn’t form nucleotides. Even if nucleotides formed, they wouldn’t form into chains. Even if chains of RNA formed, they wouldn’t form into self-replicating chains. > [@](#): > > What does this mean? It means that when I was taught about the Miller-Urey experiment, the cold trap was never mentioned. And it means that in the dozens of conversations I’ve had on the topic on this board and elsewhere, I’ve never seen any atheist mention the cold trap. And it means that the sources most frequently quoted around here, like Wikipedia and Talk Origins, conveniently fail to mention the cold trap. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2009, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/33 "2009-05-09T01:34:12Z")
OK, **ITR** , you got us. We admit, it’s all just a hoax. Life doesn’t really exist. ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2009, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/34 "2009-05-09T01:43:24Z")
This has a lot of material about probabilities of life appearing: > **[Addendum B: Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept? »...](https://infidels.org/library/modern/addendum-b-are-the-odds-against-the-origin-of-life-too-great-to-accept/)** > > Bad Science, Worse Philosophy: the Quackery and Logic-Chopping of David Foster’s The Philosophical Scientists (2000) Richard Carrier The following material examines arguments officially and formally refuted in Richard Carrier, “The Argument from... ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2009, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/35 "2009-05-09T01:45:13Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > OK, **ITR** , you got us. We admit, it’s all just a hoax. Life doesn’t really exist. Isn’t there a difference between saying that something doesn’t exist, and saying that something might be unrecognizable? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2009, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/36 "2009-05-09T02:12:10Z")
> [@JohnClay](#): > > This has a lot of material about probabilities of life appearing: > [Addendum B: Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept? » Internet Infidels](http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html) Well yes, it does, but it’s basically a rehash of what’s already been said in this thread. It appears that we’re all in agreement about one thing. A modern-day, single-celled lifeform could not arise by pure chance, with the hundreds of proteins and thousands of DNA strands simple coalescing from simple molecules at exactly the same place and time. Those who reject the notion of an intelligent designer are hoping to work around this difficulty by the RNA world hypothesis: first a self-replicating RNA enzyme coalesced by pure chance, then it gradually evolved and grew more complex, and eventually out came something that we’d recognize as a single-celled life form. I am challenging the idea that the original RNA enzyme could have coalesced by pure chance, and now I’m waiting to see whether anyone will address the scientific points that I’ve made. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2009, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/37 "2009-05-09T02:17:34Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I don’t suppose you could provide a link to any of the “dozens of other such experiments”, by any chance? [Here’s](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) a good start. I’m sure an intelligent eager person like yourself can find more if they really want to learn. > [@](#): > > After all, I’ve already linked to the article in the Journal of the ACS saying that amino acids don’t form when nitrogen is present. If you have an article that says the contrary, I’d be happy to read it. Please read your article again. Amino acids don’t form when _the particular circumstances of that experiment include nitrogen_, not anytime nitrogen is present. > [@](#): > > As for you saying that the amino acids only needed to form “in at least one place”, that obvious runs contrary to the spirit of the main argument for abiogenesis. That main argument is that even though the formation of a particular molecule may be highly unlikely, if you have a huge number of molecules combining and recombining over long time periods the overall probability may swing in favor of formation. However, if the necessary conditions prevail only in a small place for a short time, the argument obviously breaks down. In one small place for a short time? Hmm, no I don’t see that anywhere in my argument. You want to show me where you got that? I said ‘at least one place’, because that was the only condition. It could have been lots of places (like deep sea vents), or one big place, or whatever. And even if it was only in one small place for a short time, that wouldn’t make it impossible, just more improbable. Even if the odds are really really long, it still only had to happen once. And guess what? It did. > [@](#): > > Furthermore, as I mentioned above, the absence of amino acids is just one of many barriers to abiogenesis. Even if some nook or cranny of the early earth had amino acids, it wouldn’t have the right distribution of amino acids with the right (left) orientation. Even if it had the right distribution of amino acids with only left orientations, it wouldn’t have the ribose necessary for RNA. Even if it had both the right distribution of amino acids and the ribose, they wouldn’t form nucleotides. Even if nucleotides formed, they wouldn’t form into chains. Even if chains of RNA formed, they wouldn’t form into self-replicating chains. Shrug, again, more improbable. It doesn’t have to probable, just possible. And just because we don’t have the answer right now doesn’t mean we won’t ever. Just because right now we don’t know how the process was able to occur without all the ribose, or where the ribose came from, doesn’t mean that’s not how it happened, it just means we don’t know yet. > [@](#): > > It means that when I was taught about the Miller-Urey experiment, the cold trap was never mentioned. And it means that in the dozens of conversations I’ve had on the topic on this board and elsewhere, I’ve never seen any atheist mention the cold trap. And it means that the sources most frequently quoted around here, like Wikipedia and Talk Origins, conveniently fail to mention the cold trap. Oh please, the cold trap is [right in the diagram](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_urey). It’s right there. I’m guessing there weren’t a lot of vacuum pumps or sensing probes in ancient seas, maybe we should knock him for that too? It was a simulation. For the billionth time, no it wasn’t perfect, no it didn’t prove anything. Did it help? Yes. It helped give us more ideas about how to go about it, how to simulate the conditions better, and maybe a few things that should be avoided in the future. Your nit pick, and that’s all it is, is only valid if the Miller Urey experiment is offered as proof of something, and it isn’t. It’s just a bit of evidence. And besides, what does that have to with atheism? Cuz I’m not seeing any discussion of the existence of god in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2009, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/38 "2009-05-09T02:26:44Z")
[QUOTE=ITR champion] It appears that we’re all in agreement about one thing. A modern-day, single-celled lifeform could not arise by pure chance, with the hundreds of proteins and thousands of DNA strands simple coalescing from simple molecules at exactly the same place and time. [/QUOTE] Wrong. If you have proof that hundreds of proteins and thousands of DNA strands are required before self-replicating molecules can exist, please present it. > [@](#): > > Those who reject the notion of an intelligent designer are hoping to work around this difficulty by the RNA world hypothesis: first a self-replicating RNA enzyme coalesced by pure chance, then it gradually evolved and grew more complex, and eventually out came something that we’d recognize as a single-celled life form. No we aren’t, that’s just one way it could have happened. You throw down a bunch of nit picks about current theories, and then expect people to just accept intelligent design? Please. When we have evidence of an intelligent designer, then you can start talking about the existence of one. Until then, evolution is the only side in this discussion that has any evidence behind it. Oh hey look, there’s god in the discussion. And you brought him in. You have evidence for a intelligent designer? Bring it. Otherwise, the idea has no place here. > [@](#): > > I am challenging the idea that the original RNA enzyme could have coalesced by pure chance, and now I’m waiting to see whether anyone will address the scientific points that I’ve made. You want to challenge it, you have to show that’s it’s impossible, not improbable. It doesn’t matter how improbable it is, it only had to happen once. And since we’re here debating this, we know it happened. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2009, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/39 "2009-05-09T03:28:47Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Perhaps I’m missing something here. Let’s recap the relevant portion of the thread. > > I began by saying “there’s no reason to believe that early earth contained a ready supply of amino acids”. > > You responded by demanding that I “stop” based on a link to the Wikipedia article about the Miller-Urey experiment. > > I then posted an in-depth discussion explaining why the Miller-Urey experiment told us nothing about conditions on early earth, and why the real research tells us that early earth did not have a rich supply of amino acids. > > And then you respond by saying that Miller-Urey is only meant to demonstrate that amino acids can arise randomly. > > So then, are you asserting that there were amino acids on early earth? If so, where’s the evidence? Or are you not asserting that? In which case, when was I building “reasoning on faulty premises”? Could you just give us the Bible verse you have in mind that refutes everything humans know about the existence of life and be done with it ? (I’m guessing something from Genesis, but your mental gymnastics might be more advanced than that). Quoting Chapter and Verse is a lot more concise, wastes less of our time, and is just as authoritative as your efforts to use pseudo-scientific jibber-jabber to assert that We came forth from abracadabra, POOF! ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2009, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/40 "2009-05-09T04:13:08Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > I strongly strongly recommend the book “At Home in the Universe” by Stuart Kaufmann, which examines this question in detail. He presents some very compelling arguments, backed up by some very clever computer modeling, that life is not only wildly unlikely, but possibly all but inevitable given a complex enough system. I highly recommend Kaufmann. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737.md?page=3)