The Chances of Life Starting Spontaneously

As this article shows, contrary to the assertions of people such as Stephen Hawking, the chances of spontaneous production of life are so remote as to be laughable. Yet here we are-- lucky break or hint of a Creator?

Hawking claims that life can form by chance
Aliens probably do exist says top cosmologist

by Dominic Statham

Stephen Hawking was, for thirty years, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, and is one of the world’s foremost cosmologists. He regularly features in popular science television programmes, and his phenomenally successful book, A Brief History of Time, has over nine million copies in print.1 His latest book The Grand Design declares that no creator was necessary (see detailed refutation).

In one of his most recent broadcasts, Stephen Hawking’s universe,2 he unequivocally subscribes to the view that extraterrestrials are probably common place. Since our galaxy is just one of 100 billion, he argues, “the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational.” Indeed, he claims, “Stars Wars and Star Trek … may be closer to reality than we think … in our vast, ancient universe, almost any form that is physically possible is likely to exist or have existed somewhere.”

Hawking offers two explanations as to how life might have begun on Earth. The first is that this happened by accident—that random collisions of amino acids in a primordial soup, over millions of years, just happened to produce the right combination of molecules. This he describes as “the ultimate, lucky break that started the chain of life.” In making this statement, he demonstrates that he is unaware of the simple chemical fact that amino acids in a soup would not spontaneously link up; rather, any chains would break down—see Origin of life: the polymerization problem. Furthermore, there are other components of any primordial soup that would block chains from growing or destroy the amino acids. But this article is concerned mainly with his probability fallacies.

Although he accepts that the chance of life arising spontaneously is very small, he does not feel that this is a problem for this theory. “It’s like winning a lottery” he claims. “Although the odds are astronomical, most weeks, someone hits the jackpot.”

The second explanation he gives is panspermia—that life was seeded on earth by asteroids—a view shared by fellow atheist Francis Crick (see Designed by aliens? Discoverers of DNA’s structure attack Christianity). However, as we have pointed out many times before, all this does is transfer the problem of life’s origin to another time and place in the universe. See also Panspermia theory burned to a crisp: bacteria couldn’t survive on meteorite.

Given Hawking’s mathematical background, his treatment of the probability of life beginning in the way he suggests is astonishing. Moreover, his confusing the issue with a lottery beggars belief.

Given Hawking’s mathematical background, his treatment of the probability of life beginning in the way he suggests is astonishing. Moreover, his confusing the issue with a lottery beggars belief. In a typical lottery, with say a million participants, where each person buys just one ticket and the winning number is drawn from the numbers purchased, the probability of a particular participant winning is one in a million. However the probability that there will be a winner is one (a guaranteed certainty!). There is no certainty that life will arise from a pool of amino acids. Hawking is really just ‘cheating with chance’. Other lotteries are organised slightly differently, and it is possible that the winning number will not have been purchased. However, the fact that “most weeks, someone hits the jackpot” shows that there is still a high probability of someone winning.

For life to begin through the random shuffling of chemicals in a primordial soup, many exceedingly unlikely events must take place. Not just one, but many particular combinations of molecules must be formed. The probability of just one protein forming from amino acids is tiny. The probability of many forming is too small to be considered credible. Let’s have a look at a few simple calculations.

As everyone knows, the probability of tossing a coin and it landing ‘heads up’ is 1 in 2 (i.e. 0.5). The probability of two coins landing ‘heads up’ is 1 in 4 (i.e. 0.52 = 0.25). The probability of three coins landing ‘heads up’ is 1 in 8 (i.e. 0.53 = 0.125). The probability of a hundred coins landing ‘heads up’ is 0.5100, that is around 1 in 1030. (1030 is 1 followed by 30 zeroes.) A similar calculation might be made for amino acids forming proteins (the building blocks of life).

Amino acids (except the simplest, glycine) come in two forms—‘left-handed’ and ‘right-handed’. This is known as chirality (see diagram, right). For a number of amino acids to form a functional protein, they must all be like-handed (or homochiral). In actual fact, proteins in living organisms have all left-handed amino acids. For a short protein of only 100 amino acids, the probability of this occurring is the same as a hundred coins landing ‘heads up’, i.e. 1 in 1030. (The homochirality problem is even more acute for RNA and DNA, which contain all right-handed sugars. One wrong-handed molecule can disrupt replication by terminating the growing chain.)

The minimum number of proteins required to assemble a working, self-replicating cell is estimated to be at least 387 (see How simple can life be?). Let us be particularly generous to evolution theory and say that only 300 are required. What is the probability of 300 amino acid chains arising with the characteristics outlined above? Again, the calculation is easy. It is 1 in 10(30 x 300), i.e. 1 in 109,000.

Full article here