|
Nastra, you asked the question "why" an awful lot in that post. Well, I can make life a lot easier for you right now: never ask "why", only "how". The question "how" is simply an investigation into what's happening, where as the question "why" is exactly the same only it implies (often without foundation) the intentional, directed or conscious origin of an event. We can never know "why" (because there usually isn't a legitimate answer to the question "why" -- as there may not be any directed purpose behind an event) only the "how". (If you can answer a question that begins with the word "why" it's usually only because the word "why" is wrongly used in place of the word "how".) Better yet, just ask the question "what".
| quote: | | There's no such things as molecules...everything is atoms. |
Actually, all matter is quarks (red, yellow, blue, up, down and strange). 
| quote: | | Each of these molecules are combinations of different atoms, some of which came into existence fairly late in the history of the universe (the part starting with the big bang). Now considering that the average density of mass in the entire universe is less than what we can achieve in vacum-chambers on earth, you'll realise that the probability that these exact kinds of atoms met up as to form the first cell is very unlikely (we're talking the odds of you winning the lottery every week for the rest of your life or something). |
Yeah interesting point, but I don't think it quite works like that. You've got to understand and appreciate just how much matter there is in the universe. When the universe was about 300,000 years old, it was cool enough to allow the formation of molecules. Now you've got to understand firstly that there is a hell of a lot of matter condensed into a relatively tiny space: basically 100% of the universes matter compressed into a miniscule 0.002% of the area (assuming a constant rate of expansion). That, coupled with the fact that it is the natural tendancy for matter to clump together in large groups, it should come as little suprise that galaxies, then solar systems, then planets, then living cells came into existence (yes, in that order). Looking deep into space, we knew that fully formed galaxies (i.e. with alight stars and definable structure) had already formed some 10-12 billion years ago, just a couple of billion years after the big bang.
Also you mention the average density of the universe being incredibly low: this is perfectly understandable and explicable - matter, as I said forms in clumps (i.e. it is inclined to attract other matter) which travel together through space in very, very large numbers (our galaxy is part of a super-cluster of galaxies containing dozens of similar bodies). This large degree of "clumping" ensures that even though the density of the universe is overall very low, it is due to the fact that huge amounts of space exist between these galaxy clusters, but the fact that these pockets of clumped matter do exist, ensures that the density in some places of the universe is enough to allow complex, large bodies of matter to accumulate.
And on the odds of the first living cells forming? Well, we know that amino acids (the fundamental building blocks on DNA and thus life) could have very easily been created -- primarily from sugar particles -- on early Earth, as they have formed in laboratory experiments replicating these same conditions.
So let's look at the numbers quickly. Assume that one in four stars has a planetary system (a gross underestimate, but it'll do for the sake of this argument). Assume then, that of these planetary systems, one in a hundered contain a planet in a suitbale position to be able to sustain life (right distance from the sun, right size, etc.). Then, of these hundered, assume that one in a hundered again have adequate conditions to allow the formation of amino acids (which, as I said before, have been created in laboratory conditions, so this is probably a gross overestimate too). Then, of these hundered, assume that only one in a thousand allow the exact perfect conditions to create life (i.e. self replicating cells, perhaps forming more complex animals). Then, of these planets that sustain life, assume that one in 1,000 again allow for the evolution of intelligent life. Multiply all those averages out and you get the number one in 40,000,000,000. One star in 40 billion is capable of sustaining intelligent life, according to these. That may seem like overwhelming odds to overcome, but keep in mind that there 3-4 times that many stars in this galaxy alone, and god knows how many galaxies there are -- estimates range anywhere from 10 million to 10 billion. Now there's not 100 billion stars in every galaxy, but if we take another conservative estimate and assume that the average number of stars in any given galaxy is 5 billion, this means that according to my (fairly conservative) odds, we should expect that there be anywhere from 1.25 million stars supporting inelligent life to 1.25 billion. Though I'd guess that the eariler number is more accurate, those are still pretty high figures. One million, two hundred and fifty thousand civilisations: we just happen to be one of them.
Now the size of space means we probably won't be able to meet any of these aliens, but still, mathematically, the odds of our existence isn't all that bad - especially when we encorporate the anthropic principle.
Basically, this theory states that the sole reason that the universe appears finely tuned towards out existence is because if it were any different, we would not be here to observe that we weren't here....if you get my drift. We see the universe the way it is only because we exist: we can only measure occurances, not non-occurances. So, for instance, let us assume that the odds of the universe existing with the configuration it has today (i.e. allowing for our existence) are one in 250 billion. That is, that there are 250 billion possible ways that the universe could have been configured initially, yet only one of those allows for the development of human life.
Some would say, that because the odds are so small, that this is evidence of a divine creator. But this is the easy way out. The fact is, there were 249,999,999,999 non-occurences. Now we can't measure these, because they didn't happen. Thus, they are quite useless as a mathematical tool, but still serve a useful hypothetical purpose. But just think, if the universe had ended up in one of those 249,999,999,999 other configurations, there would probably be some intelligent animal standing on his wierd planet saying: "of all the 250 billion possible occurances, isn't it amazing that this is the one! There's only one explanation - a god must have put us here!". But the fact is, his reality never occurred, and he doesn't know that it hasn't occurred. The only beings that can possibly question the universe that they live in ones that exist, so, by definition, they must be living in the universe perfectly suited to them (or, in actual fact, they just happen to be perfectly suited to the universe).
Think of it like a man playing golf: he tees off, hits the ball 150 yards down the fairway, and when it lands he goes and chases it. When he finds his ball he gasps and exclaims: "Oh my god! Of all the blades of grass on this golf-course it just happened to land on that one! The odds are millions to one! It must be a miracle!". We, of course, know that this is silly seeing as the ball had to land somewhere, yet try explaining it to the blade of grass who is struggling to understand why the ball should have landed on him instead of the millions of others. We, in case you haven't worked it out, are the one blade of grass that had the freak occurance of the ball landing on it, in a sea of non-occurances. The impartial observer, however, understands that the ball had to land somewhere, so the fact that it landed on that blade of grass as opposed to any other is quite unremarkable. But it's still something that the blade of grass struggles to understand, and that's where we stand right now.
Of course, this entire argument assume that there is only one universe (ours) and it is finite - that is, it has a beginning and an end. If there are 250 billion universes or the universe is infinite (that is that it keeps on expanding and contracting with a new configuration each time, for all eternity) then the chances of humans existing become exponentially more probable - possibly even more probable than not.
Fuck, look at the time, I've gone way too far yet again. Just quickly, I reccomend that you all pick up "A Brief History of Time" by Steven Hawking. It explains all this sort of stuff, really interesting.
Anyway, I hope you found this all very informative, I'll probably be back here in a day or two to post another long, slightly pointless message. Until then...... 
|
