Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

If you don’t believe that all complex life on earth depends on a single, freakish accidental event …

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

But according to Nautilus, “life on the planet Earth may owe its existence to one freakish event”:

There are many possible explanations, but one of these has recently gained a lot of ground. It tells of a prokaryote that somehow found its way inside another, and formed a lasting partnership with its host. This inner cell—a bacterium—abandoned its free-living existence and eventually transformed into the mitochondria. These internal power plants provided the host cell with a bonanza of energy, allowing it to evolve in new directions that other prokaryotes could never reach.

If this story is true, and there are still those who doubt it, then all eukaryotes—every flower and fungus, spider and sparrow, man and woman—descended from a sudden and breathtakingly improbable merger between two microbes. They were our great-great-great-great-…-great-grandparents, and by becoming one, they laid the groundwork for the life forms that seem to make our planet so special. The world as we see it (and the fact that we see it at all; eyes are a eukaryotic invention) was irrevocably changed by that fateful union—a union so unlikely that it very well might not have happened at all, leaving our world forever dominated by microbes, never to welcome sophisticated and amazing life like trees, mushrooms, caterpillars, and us. More.

This is, of course, belongs to the “just by chance” school of thought on origin of life. Of course, symbiosis probably sometimes occurred. But put in this grandiose way, the theory suffers from the same limitations that all such theorizing about human history does. (For example, if George Washington had never been born, other Americans would never have thought of the idea of a democratic republic …)

More sophisticated approaches to history, of life or humans or nations, tend to assume that things follow certain patterns, triggered at times by individuals or events—but not simply at random.

Anyway, for more on “pure chance” theories of origin of life, check out: Can all the numbers for life’s origin just happen to fall into place?

and

Origin of life: Could it all have come together in one very special place?

Anyway, this new theory sure won’t be lonely. See: Maybe if we throw enough models at the origin of life… some of them will stick? Just look at all the ones that have been thrown!

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
#77 Q You may check this out: https://uncommondescent.com/off-topic/ba77s-off-topic-thread-volume-5-aerobatic-ballet-what-id-has-done-for-me-cid-charisse-tango-jealousy-butterfly/#comment-514336 :)Dionisio
September 12, 2014
September
09
Sep
12
12
2014
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT
#77 Q Yes, amazing. :) Soli Deo Gloria. Thank you for referring to those timely verses. I believe the restoration will be done by the One Who created all (John 1:3; Hebrews 10:14; Philippians 1:6), Who uniquely claimed to be "VIA, VERITAS, VITA" (John 14:6). We shall enjoy His glorious presence all eternity. But while we're still here, in this age of grace, we want to proclaim His good news, so all His sheep hear His voice and turn to Him for salvation. 1 Thessalonians 5:22-24. Rejoice! :)Dionisio
September 12, 2014
September
09
Sep
12
12
2014
02:57 AM
2
02
57
AM
PDT
Which fits together nicely with
Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness. 2 Thess. 2:8-12 (NASB)
And also in Romans 8 . . .
Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
and while we suffer, all of nature is suffering as well!
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.
Amazing. I expect that the genomic deterioration we currently observe in nature will be fully repaired. Who knows, maybe we'll be doing the repairing! Wouldn't that be fabulous! :-) -QQuerius
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT
#74 Querius What is Truth?
Then Pilate said to Him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?” John 18:37-38 (ESV)
What is truth. Truth does not matter to those who, like Pilate, are motivated by expediency. Likewise, truth does not matter to skeptics who have despaired of knowing it. [Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries]
Dionisio
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT
#74 Querius Yes, yikes! Thank you for quoting that powerful reminder here. No one else could have said it better than the Prince of peace, Light of the world, Giver of Life, Lord of lords, King of kings. Still as valid today as it was in the first century of this age of grace. Rev. 22:21 to you. :)Dionisio
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT
Dionisio, Yes, I'm also glad for gpuccio's ability to explain things and patience in consideration for the casual reader. I keep getting a picture in my mind of some of the things that Jesus had to say to the religious leaders of his day. For example in John 8:42-47 (NIV), we read:
Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."
Yikes! -QQuerius
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT
Sorry Mung, maybe you should read along. I clearly stated that the real probability of BA77 existing was 1. The example I provided was intentionally absurd (which I also mentioned several times) to demonstrate that probability is often used improperly, sometimes innocently, sometimes intentionally.Acartia_bogart
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT
Arcatia_bogart:
But I did notice that, rather than answer my question, or seriously critique my probability estimates that BA77 exists (other than to say that I was wrong because I said 10^17 rather than 10^-17, even though this was a convention used by The Great Behe)...
Was it Behe who pointed out that people who didn't understand probability arguments should not be critiquing them? For example: P(A) where A means "BA77 exists." All probabilities are CONDITIONAL. Yet it's not always the case that the condition is explicitly stated, but it's UNDERSTOOD to be there. So to continue: P(A|A) where A means "BA77 exists" and the conditional is "BA77 exists." Probability = 1. P(A|!A) where A means "BA77 exists" and the conditional is that BA77 does not exist. Probability = 0. Why do my numbers differ so much from those given by A_b?Mung
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT
#70 Querius I have noticed that gpuccio has a special gift to explain complex things very patiently and in a very clear manner. Definitely I lack such ability. I have learned quite a bit by reading his posts. Perhaps it's sad that some folks don't take advantage of such an opportunity. But that's out of your and my control, hence there's nothing we can do to correct that situation, except pray. :( However, I'm glad gpuccio keeps posting his insightful comments, despite the reaction of his interlocutors, because the rest of us, including the lurkers (anonymous visitors), benefit.Dionisio
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT
gpuccio, I made one last attempt to appeal to reason with Acartia_bogart with similar results to what you've received. I regret the complete waste of time this has turned out to be. Personally, I don't think A_B has anything higher than a HS diploma and access to the internet. Feel free to continue, but I'd say you're also wasting your time. -QQuerius
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
Acartia_bogart: I am afraid that you still miss the point: a) If I define a result as "any number from 1 to 10000 which, if pre-specified, would have a 1:10000 probability of being extracted", then the probability is 1. Any number is part of the defined set. b) If I define a result by pre-specifying one number, like 3256, that number jas a 1:10000 probability of being extracted (in one attempt). c) If I define a functional subset of the search space, like: "any number from 1 to 10000 which is part of the Fibonacci sequence", that subset has a probability of 19:10000 of being extracted in one attempt, and that simple fact does not change, either I pre-define or post-define. The functional specification remains alaways valid, because it depends on an objective property, and it is not a list of the individual results. d) If I define the result as the exact sequence of the 20 Fibonacci numbers, extracted in 20 attempts in the right order, then that result has a probability of 1e-80 of being found in 20 consecutive extractions. So, as I have said in my post, if I observed that result I would seriously consider some non random explanation, and that is completely independent from the fact that I may have defined the result before or after observing it. This is the simple point about ID, and Behe, that you seem not to understand. As I have said, you are simply recycling the old "deck of cards" argument, which is false and silly. In practice, it just states that what happens in a) (a result of probability 1) is a very improbable result. That is not true, and it is a complete distortion of probability.gpuccio
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
gpuccio #36 - thanks for that explanation. My math is a little rusty. That was helpful.Silver Asiatic
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
Acartia_bogart: The difference between the numbers provided by Beje is that he is assuming no intelegent actor is involved and numbers you provided on the chances of our indvidual existence is that an inteligence IS involved.alan777
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
A_B: and why the extrapolation from the improbability of Behe’s chloroquine resistance to the improbability of any complexity is also wrong. Joe: No one does that.
Sorry Joe. I meant to say "and why the extrapolation from the improbability of Behe’s chloroquine resistance to the improbability of the natural evolution of complexity is also wrong". Acartia_bogart
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
Acartia_bogart:
This is the same reason why the fine tuning of the universe argument is wrong,
The two- your attempt at an analogy and fine-tuning- have nothing in common.
and why the extrapolation from the improbability of Behe’s chloroquine resistance to the improbability of any complexity is also wrong.
No one does that.Joe
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
Gpuccio
If you define a partition after the event, simply by describing the result, the event has obviously already taken place. The probability has meaning only as the probability of getting that same result again.
That is why I used that absurd example. This is the same reason why the fine tuning of the universe argument is wrong, and why the extrapolation from the improbability of Behe's chloroquine resistance to the improbability of any complexity is also wrong. Obviously, I wasn't seriously trying to prove that BA77 can't exist. You are absolutely correct, my back of the napkin was just the probability of a person identical to BA77 occurring again. And, in reality, the probability is much much lower than I indicated.Acartia_bogart
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
Querius,
Credentials: a qualification, achievement, personal quality, or aspect of a person's background, typically when used to indicate that they are suitable for something : recruitment is based mainly on academic credentials.
Which is exactly what I have. My credentials in biology are the ones that are on diplomas. My credentials in statistics were obtained by experience gained through over 30 years of use as part of my education and work experience. My current job has to do with applying statistical procedures to large and small laboratory data sets compiled from over 300 laboratories throughout the world. These are my credentials. But I did notice that, rather than answer my question, or seriously critique my probability estimates that BA77 exists (other than to say that I was wrong because I said 10^17 rather than 10^-17, even though this was a convention used by The Great Behe), you jump all over an inconsistency in how I used the word credentials in two different comments, separated by over one month. I have been told by Barry that people who falsely accuse someone of being a liar are banned from posting on UD. Yet, you continue to call me a liar for claiming that I am a biologist and a statistician, all based on a typo. And then every time I comment, you keep bringing this point up. I know that Barry would never ban you from posting on UD because you are a staunch supporter of creationism, but that just demonstrates that his criteria for banning have nothing to do with falsely calling someone a liar. But getting back to my previous request. I have laid my education and experience on the table for everyone to review. This will allow people to place any of my comments in better context and call me on any that they feel are beyond my knowledge level. Why are you afraid to do the same? If you are going to call me a liar on my stated credentials it only seems fair that I be given the same opportunity.Acartia_bogart
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
Acartia_bogart: Sorry to repeat myself, but... What about my posts #32 and 36?gpuccio
September 11, 2014
September
09
Sep
11
11
2014
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT
Acartia_bogart, When you responded to the topic, “Why do we need to make a decision about common descent anyway?” in comment 43, posted on August 5, 2014 at 9:59 pm, you wrote the following:
Jerry, actually A_B is a biologist and a statistician, but what are a couple credentials between friends?
Let that sink in. This is in direct and obvious conflict with what you wrote in comment 55 above:
I have not hidden my expertise (only you said ‘credentials’, I never did), but I have never heard what yours are.
and then later in the same post you continued:
. . .with a smattering of statistics (no degree as you keep stating).
But you just stated that you had a couple of credentials! You said that you are a statistician, which implies more than a smattering in the mind of any reasonable person! Ouch. Ok, you obviously wrote your post with a sense of frustration, and you may well have the degrees and experience you claim, but I can't believe you and I don't believe you. There are three reasons why. 1. Most of your posts here are condescending, disparaging, and lacking any support for your statements. For example, in that same post 43, you wrote the following:
The difference between the statistics behind evolutionary theory, and Behe’s voodoo magic pseudostatistics is that one is defensible and testable. And the other one is creationism.
You never supported your accusation, even when asked, which should be easy for anyone claiming to be a “statistician.” 2. I tested you with a simple probability problem and you got it wrong in two ways: the answer, which you claim was a typo (yeah, try that excuse on a midterm), and your fundamental misconception of calculating the probability of simultaneous versus sequential events. Granted some probability calculations can be pretty tricky, but this was not one of those. 3. A lack of any technical detail in your objections and explanations—at least the ones that I read. If you're passionate about tintinnids, great! I'd expect to occasionally run across something about them, or some other aspect of marine biology that you studied. Information like that would enrich the dialog here, and I'm sure it would be appreciated. For what it's worth, I actually purchased a Zeiss stereo zoom microscope when I absolutely could not afford one primarily to go “small game hunting” for what used to be called protozoa, to key small flowers and insects, and occasionally to remove splinters. What can I say? Without any rancor intended, I confess that I feel sorry for you. If you relaxed from your tense, combative style, I think you'd have a more pleasant, enlightening dialog with people that you fundamentally disagree with, and it would be ok. If you can't let yourself relax, then go ahead and plaster me with ad hominems. But at least consider what I said. -QQuerius
September 10, 2014
September
09
Sep
10
10
2014
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PDT
A_B:
That is not what I am saying. I used that absurd example that the probability of BA77 existing is effectively zero (it is actually 1 because he exists)...
I think I see the problem.Phinehas
September 10, 2014
September
09
Sep
10
10
2014
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
If this story is true, and there are still those who doubt it, then all eukaryotes—every flower and fungus, spider and sparrow, man and woman—descended from a sudden and breathtakingly improbable merger between two microbes.
Is it unreasonable to find this breathtakingly improbable merger breathtakingly improbable? Is it more or less unreasonable to find it otherwise?Phinehas
September 10, 2014
September
09
Sep
10
10
2014
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
wd400:
Others here (and Behe elsewhere in his book) try to extrapolate that fact to conclude increases in complexity or adaptation are always improbable.
Reference please. I know we do ask for and never receive any evidence that unguided evolution can produce complex protein machinery. Why is that?Joe
September 10, 2014
September
09
Sep
10
10
2014
03:18 AM
3
03
18
AM
PDT
Acartia_bogart: What about my posts #32 and 36?gpuccio
September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT
wd400 at #46: So, just to understand, could you please show how ATP synthase arose without any "ultra-specified outcome"? Thank you.gpuccio
September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT
Querius: "So Acartia_bogart’s figure of 10^19 (which, apparently due to another “typo,” should be 1/10^19 or 10^-19" Nope. No typo. But just basic shorthand. If you actually knew anything about statistics and probability, you would know this. " is actually ten times greater than Mike Behe’s calculation for the probability of the evolution of chloroquine resistance in malaria!" A great example of quote mining out of context. Even ignoring the odds of two people hooking up in a moderate sized city (which I mentioned but agreed to ignore) Querius completely ignores the increasing improbabilities with ever generation that you go back in time. Which completely dwarfs the improbability provided by Behe. Since you are quick to call someone a liar (which, apparently is grounds for being banned from UD, unless, of course, you are an ID supporter), I would like to give Barry another chance to show that he is not a hypocrit I have not hidden my expertise (only you said 'credentials', I never did), but I have never heard what yours are. Care to share? I will expand on mine if you would like. Two degrees in marine biology (hence the passion for tintinnids), with a smattering of statistics (no degree as you keep stating). Twenty years in environmental chemistry (there were no jobs in marine biology, who'd a thunk), and the last 15 years in statistics and chemistry, including, currently, part of an ISO working group drafting an international standard on statistics (ISO 13528, part of TC69, if you would like to investigate). So, what are your credentials? Or are you afraid to mention them in fear that someone may call you on them based on a typo? Cheers.Acartia_bogart
September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT
Folks, please notice these two statements by Acartia_bogart: @17
>Given that Querius knows so much more about probability than I do, I will let him tell us what the probability is. But I am pretty sure that it makes Behe’s 10^20 seem like a certainty.
and @37
And just to keep Querius happy, 1) Probability of BA77?s parents hooking up 1/3,000,000,000 x 1/3,000,000,000 ~10^19. But, obviously, the odds of them hooking up are not random events. Not all of the female population is available to all of the male population.
So Acartia_bogart's figure of 10^19 (which, apparently due to another "typo," should be 1/10^19 or 10^-19) is actually ten times greater than Mike Behe's calculation for the probability of the evolution of chloroquine resistance in malaria! It certainly doesn't make "Behe’s 10^20 seem like a certainty." And the math is the same "voodoo" as Behe used! Querius is a pretty craft fellow, no? ;-) The result also underscores just how improbable that the evolution of major structures were due to random changes. -QQuerius
September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT
Joe:
And exactly what type of math does evolutionism use?
Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution http://www.darwinsmaths.com/Mung
September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
Jehu, It's a vey off teh cuff estimate in a single paper. Getting an accurate esimate would be quite hard. But, we can ignore the precise estimate and agree any specific change that requires two mutations in a specific order, with the first being deleterious, is quite improbable. Something require two of those scenarios much more so. Others here (and Behe elsewhere in his book) try to extrapolate that fact to conclude increases in complexity or adaptation are always improbable. To do that you'd have to prove that complexity can only increase through such pathways.wd400
September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
wd2000 Behe's 10^20 figure is the number of reproductive events for a novel instance of chloroquine resistance becoming fixed in a population This number was established through observation and Behe works backwards from there to arrive at why it is so rare. The answer, as established in Summers, is primarily because it takes two mutations before any selective advantage occurs. Wishing there was an easier route doesn't make it so.Jehu
September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
A-b #13 “The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster),.... 'I was wondering when someone would bring Behe’s voodoo statistics into the discussion. But what does it have to do with endosymbiosis?' ---------------------- You omitted the ROFL part: '.... 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by accident) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.” ---------------- 'But what does it have to do with endosymbiosis?' Did I say it had anything to do with 'endosymbiosis'? Or, indeed, the price of fish and chips? I think not.Axel
September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply