Godless Dave

Because we don't know the exact starting condition. There are way too many variables.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

I DID.

Quantum mechanics IS just that--entirely probabilistic. What value you will get when you run an experiment once--entirely probabilistic. To test your wave function, you have to build hundreds of identical ones and test them all, and plot the distribution.

And on the small scale, EVERYTHING obeys quantum mechanics.

False--gravity is not constant. We approximate it as such, but it isn't really. The force of gravity is given as:

F=GmM/r^2, where G is the universal gravitational constant, m is the smaller mass, M is the larger, and r is the distance between them.

Further, the actual distance fallen is in dispute on a fine scale. There exists a certain amount of uncertainty in the posistion (and the time, and the energy change, and the momentum) of the object. THis effect is small most visible objects, but still exists.

Since it's only an approximation....
Hint: you're wrong.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

What raw materials? What conditions? This includes concentration of numerous chemicals, the atmospheric makeup and pressure, influx of every form of solar radiation, energy from exothermic reactions and volcanic activity...

You nail those conditions, I'm sure you can get a result.
Isn't life only 2.5 billion years old? The earth is 4.5--so you have approximately 2 billion right there.

yguy

You did no such thing.

Fine, but that has nothing to do with what I said.

As I said, the correctness of the equation to the nth degree is not the issue. Modify it so as to provide absolute theoretical accuracy, and the answer is still false.

DrLao

Because we don't know the precise conditions that existed when life first arose. But there are scientists testing various potential scenarios.

For whom? It isn't as if there was some pre-amoeba watching the clock saying, "Oops, not time to evolve yet."

yguy

If it were me, I'd break down the simplest known single celled organism down the the molecular level, "reshuffle the deck", and go from there.

What does the raw material know about volcanic activity? All it "experiences" is heat, pressure, etc. Why can't we sythesize these conditions?

I'm not the one positing the validity of abiogenesis, pal.

So, from the time the "process" started, it took 2 billion years for the first cells to form...and only 500 million for everything else to evolve?

yguy

Got any links?

Mageth

So, from the time the "process" started, it took 2 billion years for the first cells to form...and only 500 million for everything else to evolve?

Actually, I think the current theory is that life has been around for about 3.5 billion years. First prokaryotic single celled organisms, then about 1.5b years ago eukaryotic single-celled organisms, then somewhere between 1.5b-600m years ago, multicellular organisms developed.

Coragyps

Depending on who you ask - the fossil record is pretty rough back then - the first life is from about 3.5 billion years ago, and the first multicellular life from about 0.7 billion. Eukaryotes, like amoebas and us, started out sometime in the middle of those dates, but were single-celled for a long time.

As to "the first cell," here's an interesting tidbit from the present:
From Nature 422, 150 - 154 (2003).
Hmmm, bacterium-size and -shape particles spontaneously self-assembling from the stuff that floats around in rivers....
I'm well aware that this "stuff" is detritus from living organisms, but it sure looks like another puzzle piece falling into place to me.

caravelair

even simpler, the first "life" could have been a self replicating peptide. there are several such peptides that we know about.