Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Science and Technology => Topic started by: BashfulAnthony on December 06, 2015, 04:24:04 PM
-
Perhaps one of our resident "experts" on here can counter this? Get googling, chaps!
"The probablility of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10[to the 161th power], using all atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began... For a minimum set of the required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is 1 in 10 [to the 119,879th power]. It would take 10[tothe power of 119,841] years on the average to get a set of such proteins. That is 10 [to the power of 119,831] times the assumed age of the earth and is a figure with 119, 831 zeroes. -Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible?, pg. 110, 114
-
Why is a quote for atheists to consider?
-
Comprehensively skinned, gutted and filleted here:
http://goo.gl/stqlfV
and I feel faintly besmirched for having given a creationist dingbat the few seconds of attention it took to find that link.
-
Comprehensively skinned, gutted and filleted here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
and I feel faintly besmirched for having given a creationist dingbat the few seconds of attention it took to find that link.
So, instead of just frantically googling (as usual) try voicing your own opinion. And what is to say that Musgrave, is any more likely to be correct than the quote I posted, which, incidentally, I read today in a magazine - not googled!
Incidentally, the only thing that truly "besmirches" you, is your unpleasantness. Get that? Every time you disagree with someone, you cannot resist the temptation to revile them. What is wrong with you?
-
So, instead of just frantically googling (as usual) try voicing your own opinion. And what is to say that Musgrave, is any more likely to be correct than the quote I posted, which, incidentally, I read today in a magazine - not googled!
Incidentally, the only thing that truly "besmirches" you, is your unpleasantness. Get that? Every time you disagree with someone, you cannot resist the temptation to revile them. What is wrong with you?
Please explain the significant difference between reading something in a magazine and using a search engine?
-
You raised a scientific matter, so it requires a response from a scientist on scientific turf.
As for the rest of your swivel-eyed rant: I have an intense dislike of stupidity.
-
Please explain the significant difference between reading something in a magazine and using a search engine?
It wasn't even via a search engine - whole swathes of TalkOrigins, which I've read and loved for donkey's years, are bookmarked on my machine ;)
-
It wasn't even via a search engine - whole swathes of TalkOrigins, which I've read and loved for donkey's years, are bookmarked on my machine ;)
Oh, I forgot: you've read every book, ever! :D
-
Oh, I forgot: you've read every book, ever! :D
Not yet, but I'm giving it my best shot.
And TalkOrigins isn't a book.
-
You raised a scientific matter, so it requires a response from a scientist on scientific turf.
As for the rest of your swivel-eyed rant: I have an intense dislike of stupidity.
Your charm knows no bounds! :D
-
Your charm knows no bounds! :D
I commend your perspicacity.
-
I commend your perspicacity.
Keep kidding yourself: it's the one thing you are truly adept at! ;D
-
People can work out what the chances are of something happening for ever into multiple trillions to one if they like - but the fact is that if something has happened, working out the probability
of it happening by chance is a waste of time isn't it? :)
If I have expressed that incorrectly from a mathematical point of view, would someone please correct it. Not you, though, BA!
-
People can work out what the chances are of something happening for ever into multiple trillions to one if they like - but the fact is that if something has happened, working out the probability
of it happening by chance is a waste of time isn't it? :)
If I have expressed that incorrectly from a mathematical point of view, would someone please correct it. Not you, though, BA!
I don't pretend to be a scientist, as you don't, judging by your sllly post.
-
Why is a quote for atheists to consider?
Because I said so!
-
What you refer to in your OP, BA, is debunked creationist drivel and isn't worth further comment.
I'm surprised you even bothered to post this since, as far as I know, youv'e never nailed you colours to such idiocy before: perhaps you are winding us up to see if we cotton on or not!
-
Because I said so!
You've been listening to too much New York Dolls.
-
"The probablility of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10[to the 161th power],
Starts with an utterly meaningless statement, then gets worse.
The only thing even vaguely worth pondering is why an hitherto unknown creationist is stooping to post it.
To which the most generous answer is that Trolling Ant is trolling as normal.
-
Dear Shaker,
I commend your perspicacity.
Now I know that word.
Here's another long word, sesquipedalian.
Gonnagle.
-
Perhaps one of our resident "experts" on here can counter this? Get googling, chaps!
I'm not sure expertise is required, but here goes.
"The probablility of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10[to the 161th power], using all atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began...
Which is lovely, but meaningless. Has anyone suggested that complex protein molecules occurred by chance? No, amino acids can occur by chance, significantly more simply. Once you have those amino acids in close proximity they a) encourage the development of more and b) tend to form into chains - those protein molecules you referred to.
For a minimum set of the required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is 1 in 10 [to the 119,879th power]. It would take 10[tothe power of 119,841] years on the average to get a set of such proteins. That is 10 [to the power of 119,831] times the assumed age of the earth and is a figure with 119, 831 zeroes. -Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible?, pg. 110, 114
I'd question the claim that all 239 proteins are needed for the smallest theoretical life - indeed, there are theoretical life-forms that aren't even carbon based, let alone those that require fewer than this. I'd also point out that there are self-replicating molecules that aren't considered alive, but are the precursors of life and are capable of encouraging other arrangements around them which are also not alive.
Regardless of that, even if these claims were relevant, and that really was the odds of this happening... so what? You still don't have an alternative explanation, you've got a fairy story about 'magic'.
O.
-
Evolution: Possible or Impossible?
Nothing is impossible for His Noodliness.
Yes I know the FSM is a made-up god. They're all made-up gods.
The difference is, the FSM doesn't come with meaningless mumbo-jumbo like "God sent his only-begotten Son".
-
My answer would be the laws of physics that govern how atoms etc. interact.
-
What you refer to in your OP, BA, is debunked creationist drivel and isn't worth further comment.
I'm surprised you even bothered to post this since, as far as I know, youv'e never nailed you colours to such idiocy before: perhaps you are winding us up to see if we cotton on or not!
Gordon, I'm sure you're aware that if I said today is Monday, I'd get an argument! :)
Of course I don't subscribe to the post: I don't have the scientific knowledge to make any definitive decision in any way: as is the case with every other poster; googling aside, that is! It'a merely a topic for debate, and not really for getting stuck into me, again. :)
-
Gordon, I'm sure you're aware that if I said today is Monday, I'd get an argument! :)
Of course I don't subscribe to the post: I don't have the scientific knowledge to make any definitive decision in any way: as is the case with every other poster; googling aside, that is! It'a merely a topic for debate, and not really for getting stuck into me, again. :)
Can I remind you we have at least two professional scientists as members here, as well as others with scientific qualifications.
-
Can I remind you we have at least two professional scientists as members here, as well as others with scientific qualifications.
Who says? And are they qualified to pronounce on this particular OP? Find out before you post.
-
Who says? And are they qualified to pronounce on this particular OP? Find out before you post.
Anybody who can read and understand a scientific case can do that.
-
Gordon, I'm sure you're aware that if I said today is Monday, I'd get an argument! :)
Of course I don't subscribe to the post: I don't have the scientific knowledge to make any definitive decision in any way: as is the case with every other poster; googling aside, that is! It'a merely a topic for debate, and not really for getting stuck into me, again. :)
Seemed to me that with the daftness of what you quoted, along with the 'get googling chaps' comment, you were flying a kite: this seems a reasonable conclusion - unless of course you are flirting with creationism.
No argument from me that today is Monday - so you are on safe ground there.
-
Anybody who can read and understand a scientific case can do that.
And it doesn't mean that their opinion is worth tuppence.
-
And it doesn't mean that their opinion is worth tuppence.
Handy hint: concentrate on the 'understanding' bit.
-
Seemed to me that with the daftness of what you quoted, along with the 'get googling chaps' comment, you were flying a kite: this seems a reasonable conclusion - unless of course you are flirting with creationism.
No argument from me that today is Monday - so you are on safe ground there.
I'm no creationist: I'm a Marcionite, and he wasn't a creationist either.
Yes, but you take my point, I assume.
-
So, instead of just frantically googling (as usual) try voicing your own opinion.
Was what you posted in the OP your own opinion then?
-
Was what you posted in the OP your own opinion then?
It was posted in order to debate it, as we do on here. I do not subscribe to it, nor pretend to have any particular knowledge in the matter, as I have said.
-
I'm no creationist: I'm a Marcionite, and he wasn't a creationist either.
Yes, but you take my point, I assume.
Yep - the OP, bearing in mind the content and your stated position on creationism, was clearly a wind-up pure and simple.
That nobody has taken your challenge seriously would seem to indicate that.
-
Perhaps one of our resident "experts" on here can counter this? Get googling, chaps!
"The probablility of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10[to the 161th power], using all atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began... For a minimum set of the required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is 1 in 10 [to the 119,879th power]. It would take 10[tothe power of 119,841] years on the average to get a set of such proteins. That is 10 [to the power of 119,831] times the assumed age of the earth and is a figure with 119, 831 zeroes. -Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible?, pg. 110, 114
This is a text book example of a straw man argument.
Biologists don't claim that the proteins in your body arose purely by chance. They have a theory called the "Theory of Evolution" which describes a non random mechanism for the evolution of proteins over time by inheritance with modification and natural selection.
We have told you this hundreds of times before but you won't listen for some reason. Your self imposed ignorance is disturbing but predictable.
-
This is a text book example of a straw man argument.
Biologists don't claim that the proteins in your body arose purely by chance. They have a theory called the "Theory of Evolution" which describes a non random mechanism for the evolution of proteins over time by inheritance with modification and natural selection.
We have told you this hundreds of times before but you won't listen for some reason. Your self imposed ignorance is disturbing but predictable.
Are you feeling well? Just a nominal insult, and no swear words! Well, it is Christmas! :)
-
Of course I don't subscribe to the post: I don't have the scientific knowledge to make any definitive decision in any way: as is the case with every other poster; googling aside, that is! It'a merely a topic for debate, and not really for getting stuck into me, again. :)
I think that you really shouldn't tar us all with that 'ignorant of the science brush'. Some of us are quite capable of grasping the concepts, that's why we can paraphrase them for you and interact on the commentary.
Just because you don't understand it, don't presume no-one does.
O.
-
I think that you really shouldn't tar us all with that 'ignorant of the science brush'. Some of us are quite capable of grasping the concepts, that's why we can paraphrase them for you and interact on the commentary.
Just because you don't understand it, don't presume no-one does.
O.
Then discuss the wretched thread instead of looking for any excuse to have a pop at me: that's not too intelligent; you know! ::)
-
Then discuss the wretched thread instead of looking for any excuse to have a pop at me: that's not too intelligent; you know! ::)
Been there, done that - reply #19. Then, well after that, you decided that people here needed to google to come up with a response.
But, hey, don't let reality get in the way of your persecution complex.
O.
-
Been there, done that - reply #19. Then, well after that, you decided that people here needed to google to come up with a response.
But, hey, don't let reality get in the way of your persecution complex.
O.
Hi,
Still banging away with your obsession. I have no persecution complex: so you are misrepresenting me, as always. If I did, it would be entirely justified in the face of the years of unending abuse and tirade from the likes of your obsessive self.
-
Still banging away with your obsession. I have no persecution complex: so you are misrepresenting me, as always. If I did, it would be entirely justified in the face of the years of unending abuse and tirade from the likes of your obsessive self.
Should I see this, in light of your desperation to debate the issue in the OP, as an admission that you regurgitated abject bollocks with no understanding and consider yourself adequately schooled now by someone with a clue, or were you going to address the topic you raised?
O.
-
Should I see this, in light of your desperation to debate the issue in the OP, as an admission that you regurgitated abject bollocks with no understanding and consider yourself adequately schooled now by someone with a clue, or were you going to address the topic you raised?
O.
That tortuous and foul-mouthed comment gets no other response from me - more than 80,000 adjectives in the English Language, and all you can come up with is an expletive to express yourself. Says everything about your "debating skill."
-
That tortuous and foul-mouthed comment gets no other response from me - more than 80,000 adjectives in the English Language, and all you can come up with is an expletive to express yourself. Says everything about your "debating skill."
I didn't want you to respond to that, I wanted you to respond to the actual debate you claimed to be desperate to return to, but if you want to remain a tremulous, whinging milksop, cowering away from the light of information in your self-induced psychometric hovel of faith, denial and sticking your fingers in your ears and hoping reality will go away, so be it.
O.
-
I didn't want you to respond to that, I wanted you to respond to the actual debate you claimed to be desperate to return to, but if you want to remain a tremulous, whinging milksop, cowering away from the light of information in your self-induced psychometric hovel of faith, denial and sticking your fingers in your ears and hoping reality will go away, so be it.
O.
I prefer "whingeing," to "whinging!"
There's nothing on this forum that induces desperation in me, except perhaps your inept arguing! :)
-
That tortuous and foul-mouthed comment gets no other response from me - more than 80,000 adjectives in the English Language, and all you can come up with is an expletive to express yourself. Says everything about your "debating skill."
The fact that you've trotted out, as though on a template, this same old "80,000 adjectives in English but you had to choose one that leaves me needing smelling salts" tripe no fewer than six times in a little over three weeks says everything about the lack of an original thought in your head.
-
I prefer "whingeing," to "whinging!"
There's nothing on this forum that induces desperation in me, except perhaps your inept arguing! :)
Apart from the failed pedantry - both 'whinging' and 'whingeing' are acceptable spellings of the present participle of 'to whinge' - I note an abject lack of any attempt to return to the OP that you were so motivated to talk about... anything?
I'd suggest the current evidence suggests a desperation to get the last word...
O.
-
The fact that you've trotted out, as though on a template, this same old "80,000 adjectives in English but you had to choose one that leaves me needing smelling salts" tripe no fewer than six times in a little over three weeks says everything about the lack of an original thought in your head.
Not at all, my foul-mouthed "friend." It merely denotes the frequency with which it is necessary to make the point. I'm flattered that you checked on the number of times, though it is essentially a pathetic thing to do.
-
Not at all, my foul-mouthed "friend." It merely denotes the frequency with which it is necessary to make the point.
It isn't necessary at all. It isn't going to change anything, the administrator of the forum himself has told you (repeatedly) to give it a rest and it makes you look like a whiny-arsed prude who can't cope with robust everyday speech.
Still, your call ...
-
It isn't necessary at all. It isn't going to change anything, the administrator of the forum himself has told you (repeatedly) to give it a rest and it makes you look like a whiny-arsed prude who can't cope with robust everyday speech.
Still, your call ...
How do you know that? I suppose it's you who reports me, is it? A rare piece of hypocrisy, then, from one so acerbic, confrontational, and crude as yourself.
-
How do you know that? I suppose it's you who reports me, is it?
Nope, I have never reported you once. As far as I'm aware Gord of the Board has stepped in to make a comment only once you've killed a thread by diverting it away from the subject to concentrate on your ad nauseam whining about the odd swear word here and there. As is happening all over again right here.
-
Nope, I have never reported you once. As far as I'm aware Gord of the Board has stepped in to make a comment only once you've killed a thread by diverting it away from the subject to concentrate on your ad nauseam whining about the odd swear word here and there. As is happening all over again right here.
""
The "odd" swear word?? You're joking. If I followed your practice and bothered to count things up, it would take a heck of a long time to count them all. I have Parliament on in the back-ground as I like to listen to the debates. I've been doing it for years, and in all that time, despite the often heated arguments, I have never heard a swear word used! So, they manage to argue and use some of the 80,000 plus adjectives in the English Language to make their points. Makes you lot look so inept. Don't forget to add that reference to adjectives to your list, if it makes you happy, or if you think it means anything!
-
""
The "odd" swear word?? You're joking. If I followed your practice and bothered to count things up, it would take a heck of a long time to count them all. I have Parliament on in the back-ground as I like to listen to the debates. I've been doing it for years, and in all that time, despite the often heated arguments, I have never heard a swear word used! So, they manage to argue and use some of the 80,000 plus adjectives in the English Language to make their points. Makes you lot look so inept. Don't forget to add that reference to adjectives to your list, if it makes you happy, or if you think it means anything!
The House of Commons is a place where it took until the advent of the twenty-first century to scrap the practice of an MP having to wear a top hat when raising a point of order, so I don't think it's any kind of model to emulate in terms of its understanding of the real modern world.
-
The House of Commons is a place where it took until the advent of the twenty-first century to scrap the practice of an MP having to wear a top hat when raising a point of order, so I don't think it's any kind of model to emulate in terms of its understanding of the real modern world.
Tosh! What's that comment got to do with using crude and abusive language? There are more than 80,000 adjectives they could use... Keep counting! :D
-
Then discuss the wretched thread instead of looking for any excuse to have a pop at me: that's not too intelligent; you know! ::)
I did Basher. They are governed by the laws of physics. So it isn't chance, the atomic forces pull them into their configurations.
-
How do you know that? I suppose it's you who reports me, is it? A rare piece of hypocrisy, then, from one so acerbic, confrontational, and crude as yourself.
I reported you once recently. I was sick of the way you derailed a perfectly good thread with your swear word rants and your invective directed at others, although, to be fair, others did rise to the bait and I was hoping their posts would be removed too.
Anyway, I see you've even derailed your own thread with more of the same.
-
I reported you once recently. I was sick of the way you derailed a perfectly good thread with your swear word rants and your invective directed at others, although, to be fair, others did rise to the bait and I was hoping their posts would be removed too.
Anyway, I see...
Only once? Hurray for free speech, auntie!!
-
Only once? Hurray for free speech, auntie!!
Your right to free fucking speech does not translate to a duty on the forum to publish your bollocks.
-
Your right to free fucking speech does not translate to a duty on the forum to publish your bollocks.
Go back and lie in the gutter, where you learn your language.
-
Who says? And are they qualified to pronounce on this particular OP? Find out before you post.
I do - I am a professional scientist.
The fundamental problem with the assertion in the OP (amongst many others) is that assumption that an improbable event cannot occur, simply because the probability of it occurring is low. That is non-sense.
Take this simple example - the probability of rolling 6 sixes on a dice in a row is 6 to the power 6 or 1 in 46,656 (I believe) which is very small. But then the probability of any other specific combination of 6 throws is also 1 in 46,655. According to the poor thinking of the OP if you roll the dice once per year it would take 'on average' 23,000 years for 6 sixes to come up. But then every other combination also has the same probability so the OP assertion would claim the same (on average they'd come up in 23,000 years) too. But of course we know that to be non-sense, because the very first throw will produce a combination with a 1 in 46,656 chance, as will the second and so on. So the notion of 'average' time to achieve a particular outcome really means nothing as that outcome is just as likely (or unlikely) in the first 'throw' as in the 46,656-th throw.
What the OP seems to be claiming is the equivalent of saying that if you only throw the dice 20,000 times (i.e. less than the 'average') then the likelihood of throwing 6 sixes is zero - it isn't and to suggest it is is totally muddled thinking.
-
I do - I am a professional scientist.
The fundamental problem with the assertion in the OP (amongst many others) is that assumption that an improbably event cannot occur, simply because the probability of it occurring is low. That is non-sense.
Take this simply example - the probability of rolling 6 sixes on a dice in a row is 6 to the power 6 or 1 in 46,656 (I believe) which is very small. But then the probability of any other specific combination of 6 throws is also 1 in 46,655. According to the poor thinking of the OP if you roll the dice once per year it would take 'on average' 23,000 years for 6 sixes to come up. But then every other combination also has the same probability so the OP assertion would claim the same (on average they'd come up in 23,000 years) too. But of course we know that to be non-sense, because the very first throw will produce a combination with a 1 in 46,656 chance, as will the second and so on. So the notion of 'average' time to achieve a particular outcome really means nothing as that outcome is just as likely (or unlikely) in the first 'throw' as in the 46,656-th throw.
What the OP seems to be claiming is the equivalent of saying that if you only throw the dice 20,000 times (i.e. less than the 'average') then the likelihood of throwing 6 sixes is zero - it isn't and to suggest it is is totally muddled thinking.
Oh really; so we bow to your all-encompassing knowledge. And in what discipline do you specialise? "Scientist" covers a very great deal of ground. I was a professional teacher, but it didn't stop the know-alls on here thinking they know more.
-
Oh really; so we bow to your all-encompassing knowledge. And in what discipline do you specialise? "Scientist" covers a very great deal of ground. I was a professional teacher, but it didn't stop the know-alls on here thinking they know more.
Yes - really.
I have been professionally involved in internationally-leading academic research for nearly 30 years. I have well over 100 research publications in top quality peer reviewed journals and a international reputation in my field. My research is fairly multidisciplinary, bringing together aspects of cell biology (my first degree), biochemistry (my PhD) and bioengineering as applied to medical and clinical problems. Quite a lot of my current research is in the field of stem cells - understanding the triggers that induce them to differentiate.
The issue with your OP piece assertions is that they are totally naive on the issue of probability and statistics - and of course most scientists (myself included) have to use these methods pretty well all the time to determine the likelihood that differences between control and treatment groups in an experiment are likely to be due to chance or not - so called statistical significance.
And your expertise on this topic is exactly.
-
Oh really; so we bow to your all-encompassing knowledge. And in what discipline do you specialise? "Scientist" covers a very great deal of ground. I was a professional teacher, but it didn't stop the know-alls on here thinking they know more.
You could, of course, try to counter my critique of the fundamental problem within the OP assertion, rather than 'play the man' so to speak.
But I guess you don't have an argument to refute mine.
-
You could, of course, try to counter my critique of the fundamental problem within the OP assertion, rather than 'play the man' so to speak.
But I guess you don't have an argument to refute mine.
note he won't be doing so for ten days at least as he has been banned
-
Try not to think of it as a ban, more an admin-bestowed holiday.
He said unconvincingly.
-
note he won't be doing so for ten days at least as he has been banned
Oh that's a shame - I was hoping for a well argued response. ;)
-
I am still baffled why the OP was titled something for atheists to consider. If the theory of evolution was falsified tomorrow it would contribute nothing to the argument for a god, and many theists happily accept the ToE. I will remember the amount of time the much missed John Armagh used to take with fellow theists on the strength of ToE
-
Perhaps one of our resident "experts" on here can counter this? Get googling, chaps!
"The probablility of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10[to the 161th power], using all atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began... For a minimum set of the required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is 1 in 10 [to the 119,879th power]. It would take 10[tothe power of 119,841] years on the average to get a set of such proteins. That is 10 [to the power of 119,831] times the assumed age of the earth and is a figure with 119, 831 zeroes. -Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible?, pg. 110, 114
A further point here is that the interactions aren't random, but driven by energetic conservation.
So moving on from my dice example, I'd like to give an oil and water example.
The assertion in the OP is that all possible permutations and interactions of molecules are equally likely, but they aren't. So if you take the OP assertion and apply it to oil and water molecules you would concluded that of all the permutations of interactions between oil and water it would be almost impossibly unlikely that all the oil molecules would interact with each other and create an oil film on the surface of the water. But that is, of course, what they do - due to this being the lowest energy configuration. And, indeed, in a steady state system they will always do this. So out of millions of possible permutations of interactions between the molecules, you always get the same one - so rather than oil lying as a film over the water being an almost impossibly unlikely outcome, it is actually almost a certainty.
-
I am still baffled why the OP was titled something for atheists to consider. If the theory of evolution was falsified tomorrow it would contribute nothing to the argument for a god, and many theists happily accept the ToE. I will remember the amount of time the much missed John Armagh used to take with fellow theists on the strength of ToE
But it is such a strong theory that it gets in the way of their treasured beliefs and to pull it down would be one step for them in asserting theirs more forceful perficiency. For many people, generally, a vacuum needs to be filled with no real disregard for what fills it and this would allow this 'sewage' to flow in.
-
A further point here is that the interactions aren't random, but driven by energetic conservation.
So moving on from my dice example, I'd like to give an oil and water example.
The assertion in the OP is that all possible permutations and interactions of molecules are equally likely, but they aren't. So if you take the OP assertion and apply it to oil and water molecules you would concluded that of all the permutations of interactions between oil and water it would be almost impossibly unlikely that all the oil molecules would interact with each other and create an oil film on the surface of the water. But that is, of course, what they do - due to this being the lowest energy configuration. And, indeed, in a steady state system they will always do this. So out of millions of possible permutations of interactions between the molecules, you always get the same one - so rather than oil lying as a film over the water being an almost impossibly unlikely outcome, it is actually almost a certainty.
I think that nails it!!!
-
Go back and lie in the gutter, where you learn your language.
You seem to get unduly wound up by my fucking swearing. Perhaps you should have a long hard think as to why I am doing it.
-
Hi Prof
I really appreciate you being around to explain this stuff. I have a science background, and although I am still within the subject of my study I wouldn't say my work involves really 'doing' science. So, I'm ok with the principles but in practice a lot of science theory goes over my head. It's great to have you here as you always make it accesibile for the layfolk like me. :)
-
Hi Prof
I really appreciate you being around to explain this stuff. I have a science background, and although I am still within the subject of my study I wouldn't say my work involves really 'doing' science. So, I'm ok with the principles but in practice a lot of science theory goes over my head. It's great to have you here as you always make it accesibile for the layfolk like me. :)
Thank you
-
Perhaps one of our resident "experts" on here can counter this? Get googling, chaps!
"The probablility of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10[to the 161th power], using all atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began... For a minimum set of the required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is 1 in 10 [to the 119,879th power]. It would take 10[tothe power of 119,841] years on the average to get a set of such proteins. That is 10 [to the power of 119,831] times the assumed age of the earth and is a figure with 119, 831 zeroes. -Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible?, pg. 110, 114
Wot?
???
For the scientifically challenged can you put the point in English?
The earth was around for a very long time for those molecules to find each other, seems to me.
Unlikely things happen, now and again, I presume that's why we are all here :-\
With that profound thought........ I'll get my coat ;)🌹👀
-
The OP seems to have forgotten about selection. You do the random mutations and then pick the best and discard the rest. Then more mutations etc.
Computer simulations are easy enough and demolish the improbability argument immediately.
The technique is used for solving difficult optimisation problems.
-
I was a professional teacher, but it didn't stop the know-alls on here thinking they know more.
What glorious conceit! So you think professional teachers are the height of human knowledge! I have known quite a few teachers in my life, some of them abysmally stupid, in spite of their "training".