Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
That's not correct. I'm assuming that lots of time COULD, not WOULD.
You're the one drawing conclusions based on assumptions. Not me.
solid proof of evolution
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
That's not correct. I'm assuming that lots of time COULD, not WOULD.
You're the one drawing conclusions based on assumptions. Not me.
Nomad
Every trumper is a N4T.
That's what they said about the Earth being round, man's ability to fly and travelling to the moon.
Nomad
Every trumper is a N4T.
Science proves itself constantly.
AAMOF, until it's been satisfactorily proven to scientific standards, it's not considered science.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Meh...I don’t believe so. Not without changing the definition of science.
Darth wants to test the assumption that gobs of time would help, in other words that frequency of an event increases its odds. Simply get out a deck or cards or roll craps.
Define your dependent variable as rolling two 6s. The more times you do it, the more likely it gets done. Seriously doubts that?
Also, I am way deterministic. Yes, if the conditions that created life occur exactly again life must occur again. To me the only question is how liberal are those range of conditions.
Define your dependent variable as rolling two 6s. The more times you do it, the more likely it gets done. Seriously doubts that?
Also, I am way deterministic. Yes, if the conditions that created life occur exactly again life must occur again. To me the only question is how liberal are those range of conditions.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
No, the best evidence we have says the probability of life occurring by chance is small: no one has ever witnessed it and we can’t even make it happen when we try. It’s a sound, evidence-based conclusion.
An assumption is an assumption whether it has could or would in front of it.
You get points for the ‘could’ though.
Nomad
Every trumper is a N4T.
Maybe what we know as science was created by a creator.
Possibly according to some blueprint or plan based upon some universal logic.
We know next to nothing.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
It's certainly okay for you to think that way, but nothing about the above statement is scientific.
If time is the crucial element in the equation - which is very plausible - you're simply ignoring it to arrive at your conclusion. Which, as a result, is faulty.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
If life ‘must occur’ when ever conditions are right, then you’re basically invoking a deterministic law.
What law is that?
Why is science superior to religion? Because it works, biches! Dawkins.
How many religious patents pending are there right now? That would be zero. How many airplanes did religion make? zero.
How many hypotheses did religion falsify? zero.
There should not even be a competition, yet religion appears threatened by science. If religion is being harmed by science, religion should yield ground and
go back into its proper sphere next to candyland, Dr Seuss and phrenology. Then it won't worry about science, testing, replication and progress.
Religion is fiction and its adherents are delusional.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
My point is untestable assumptions aren’t very scientific lol.
God is imminently plausible. But God isn’t testable.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
You have your own religion but you’re oblivious to it lol.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Well if she’s hot to trot and you have a case of Budweiser...
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
In other words we simply don’t know.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Those sorts of things involve basic physics.
To form life from non-life they need coax something like DNA into existence. We’ll exceed the speed of light first.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
And really, never can.
It's one of the more fun topics to contemplate, though.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Maybe we should get to work on a time machine to see if the assumption is valid or not.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
No it doesn’t. We only know that life occurred and that the probability of it occurring by chance or randomly or by Devine intervention is unity, e.g., 1.0.
What we simply do not know is how it happened. The argument you are trying to make is a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109173205.htm
A pair of Scripps Research Institute scientists has taken a significant step toward answering that question. The scientists have synthesized for the first time RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely.
The work was recently published in the journal Science.
In the modern world, DNA carries the genetic sequence for advanced organisms, while RNA is dependent on DNA for performing its roles such as building proteins. But one prominent theory about the origins of life, called the RNA World model, postulates that because RNA can function as both a gene and an enzyme, RNA might have come before DNA and protein and acted as the ancestral molecule of life. However, the process of copying a genetic molecule, which is considered a basic qualification for life, appears to be exceedingly complex, involving many proteins and other cellular components.
For years, researchers have wondered whether there might be some simpler way to copy RNA, brought about by the RNA itself. Some tentative steps along this road had previously been taken by the Joyce lab and others, but no one could demonstrate that RNA replication could be self-propagating, that is, result in new copies of RNA that also could copy themselves.
A pair of Scripps Research Institute scientists has taken a significant step toward answering that question. The scientists have synthesized for the first time RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely.
The work was recently published in the journal Science.
In the modern world, DNA carries the genetic sequence for advanced organisms, while RNA is dependent on DNA for performing its roles such as building proteins. But one prominent theory about the origins of life, called the RNA World model, postulates that because RNA can function as both a gene and an enzyme, RNA might have come before DNA and protein and acted as the ancestral molecule of life. However, the process of copying a genetic molecule, which is considered a basic qualification for life, appears to be exceedingly complex, involving many proteins and other cellular components.
For years, researchers have wondered whether there might be some simpler way to copy RNA, brought about by the RNA itself. Some tentative steps along this road had previously been taken by the Joyce lab and others, but no one could demonstrate that RNA replication could be self-propagating, that is, result in new copies of RNA that also could copy themselves.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
No science was created by man and it has very specific, time tested, and proven ground rules. One of the most important of those is that only natural causation can be inferred and supernatural causation must be excluded.