0

If the earth was literally a year old, would that make it more likely that life’s origins were designed?

The reason I ask is simple: given that the earth is claimed to have existed for 4+ billion years, despite the origin of life being considered improbable, it is hypothesized that given the age of the earth, life starting once, even if by luck, isn’t terribly low.

However, on the day there was some sort of special reaction that sparked life, the probability of that reaction occurring would be the same, whether one day, a year, or 4 billion have passed.

As such, the P(life arising by chance on that day|1 year) seems to be the same as P(life arising by chance on that day|4 billion years).

As such, we are only left with comparing P(designer exists who would design life|1 year) and P(designer exists who would design life|4 billion years).

Should these probabilities of design depend upon the probabilities given chance defined earlier?

Should the first be higher? Why or why not? If this cannot be justified, does this mean that the earth being a year old compared to the 4+ billion years of age claimed today, wouldn’t increase the probability of design?

  • 1
    Not if you include extraterrestrial origins. – D. Halsey May 04 '23 at 01:37
  • 1
    What is the probability that, by chance, a designer just happens to decide to design life? More importantly, why should this probability be well-defined? – Sandejo May 04 '23 at 02:56
  • Previously-believed-impossible events imply unknown principles, but that doesn't seem to be what you're asking. – g s May 04 '23 at 04:55
  • Isn't that question assuming that the designer happening to decide to design life would happen by chance? @Sandejo –  May 04 '23 at 08:54
  • Everything can be said to happen "by chance," because, as I've pointed out multiple times in comments on your previous questions, that phrase doesn't really mean anything by itself. However, the main purpose of my comment here was to ask why the probability that a designer just happens to decide to design life should be well-defined. – Sandejo May 04 '23 at 20:00
  • @Sandejo I don't think it should be. Personally, I am of the belief that it is meaningless to talk of such a concept. The only thing we know is that a designer does or does not exist. There is no such thing as the probability of a designer existing. Certain pieces of evidence may indicate a designer or might not with varying levels of subjectivity. The answer to that likely depends upon instinct and what you believe and accept –  May 05 '23 at 02:50
  • What is the probability of life starting by design? –  May 05 '23 at 23:26

4 Answers4

4

The probability of me winning the lottery is around 1 in ten million, say. The probability of me not winning the lottery after billions of entries becomes vanishingly low. Over a suitably long time, I become almost certain to win it. Ditto with life evolving. If it has a certain probability P of happening on a given day, then the chance of it not happening on a given day is 1-P, which might be close to one. However, the chance of it not happening over n days is (1-P) to the power of n, which will always approach zero if n is suitably large.

Marco Ocram
  • 20,914
  • 1
  • 12
  • 64
  • I think you have the right approach here by showing that you can say the same of everything and it makes probability too insane to make sense of. Could be clearer though –  May 04 '23 at 07:02
  • It is true that the probability of life evolving at SOME time over a span of many years is higher compared to one year. But what matters is the probability of life arising BY chance compared to design. The reason why it seems like the probability of life arising BY chance is higher the more time goes by, is NOT because of the monkeys on typewriters phenomenon. Rather, it should be the case only if a designer is more likely to exist and design life on a day during the first year than on a day after many. Without this assumption, life arising BY chance given one year vs. many isn't lower. –  May 04 '23 at 08:57
  • I think you are confusing two points. The probability of life arising by chance increases over time- indeed, over sufficient time it becomes a virtual certainty if it is possible at all. If what you want to know is the relative possibility of out happening by chance or by design, then that is a purely subjective question, given that the nature of the supposed creator is entirely unknown, so you can give it any probability you like. Personally, I would consider it odd if a creator had decided to create us through such a tortuous process as evolution. – Marco Ocram May 04 '23 at 11:11
  • "The probability of life arising by chance increases over time". I simply don't agree with this, although I believe you mean "given" chance, not "by" chance. The probability of life arising by chance is the inverse of the probability of life not arising by chance. If, say, life not arising by chance is impossible such as a designer not existing and no other non random processes explaining it, then it must have arisen by chance, regardless of how much time has gone on. –  May 05 '23 at 02:52
  • @MarcoOcram "If [abiogenisis] has a certain [fixed] probability P of happening on [any] given day..." I'm sure you know that that's not true. I understand why you framed your answer this way, given the question, but I think basing your Then on a false If doesn't provide a useful answer. – g s May 05 '23 at 04:01
  • @gs indeed. I was simply trying to illustrate that an event with a low probability of happening in unit time becomes a virtual certainty ofver a sufficiently long period of time. Clearly in reality it would be a gross simplification to model the development of life in that way. – Marco Ocram May 05 '23 at 04:52
0

on the day there was some sort of special reaction that sparked life, the probability of that reaction occurring would be the same, whether one day, a year, or 4 billion have passed.

As such, the P(life arising by chance on that day|1 year) seems to be the same as P(life arising by chance on that day|4 billion years).

You do seem confused here, despite making sense. What probability is it that, in that year, the conditions existed making life probable or even necessary? Do you see how the chance that it is the day life begins is lower the less time that passes?

I don't know what fallacy you have here, but it is a fun one.

  • "Do you see how the chance that it is the day life begins is lower the less time that passes?" I don't think this is true, assuming days are independent of each other, and would be committing the gambler's fallacy ironically. It is true that as more time arises, life may arise eventually, but that probability in my eyes is irrelevant –  May 04 '23 at 08:43
  • but it makes a mockery of all probability @thinkingman it's tougher to show without determinism, but i think one probably still could –  May 04 '23 at 08:45
0

The probability of life starting by design is zero. Besides Earth ( which has not been shown to have developed life by design), where has life arisen from design? You are trying to establish the probability of an event with no sample set.

0

If our earth had existed for only one year, and it is filled with complex life as it is now, then the probability of that life having evolved would be zero. Evolution requires deep time. If deep time is not available, then evolution cannot take place, and a well populated earth would need explaining, and design and evolution ar ethe only options we have come up with to explain it.

In this scenario, if complex life were created, then certainly the FIRST LIFE would have been created too, so the probability of life having been created would be 1.0.

If you are postulating an earth with only one or a few proto-bacteria, rather than OUR earth of today, then we will have to work thru the possible ways that the proto-bacteria could get there. These are creation, panspermia, and incremental natural abiogenesis.

Panspermia would be a possibility. One would have to examine the proto-bacteria, to see how well adapted they seem to be to their environment, and to deep space. If they are deep-space resistant, and not very well adapted to this raw earth, then panspermia would be more than plausible, it would start to look likely.

For design, one would again need to look at the proto-cells. Are the optimally adapted to some reasonable purpose? If so, then they would satisfy the predictions of the design hypothesis, and design would be likely.

For natural process abiogenesis, the current models we have of how this might work, require deep time, just like evolution does. For an earth that is only one year old, there is no deep time, and therefore no such incremental probabilistic process could be its origin.

Dcleve
  • 13,610
  • 1
  • 14
  • 54