Technically because Xenon is a Noble gas, Yes.
Yes... I admitted that the location would indeed be random. The assmbly of the product (in this case a complex biological molecule) however is still bound to other forces that negate the use of a simple statistical model. I've been trying to explain this, but you seem to want to drive a point home based on my admission of these questions. OK... Fine... your basic premise is still assuming that every molecule in the sea was bent on creating DNA -- and I'm suggesting the contrary. That naturalistically speaking, the creation of DNA, RNA or proteins would not be anywhere on the agenda of a random chance process.
It doesn't matter that trillions of molecules are continuallly brushing up against each other; that truth doesn't automatically mean that the odds for the formation of DNA would be greater. It's like suggesting that if I took every single component of a car (assuming that they were all indestructable and not capable of being deformed) and stuck them in a huge mixing vat, and that given an infinite amount of time, that they would eventually assemble to form a fully functional vehicle. Random movement alone could not generate the correct assembly order that would be needed in order to create the car; some parts like bolts would require counter-rotative motion against a fixed element and its nut. Wires would require exact source and end points of contact. Not to mention that the other pieces flying around would actually inhibit some of the assembly processes not help them out.
Again, the world of molecular biology does not work off of numbers alone, and as such cannot be compared to the statistically simple poker model.
Last edited by hegamboa; 09-06-2006 at 03:47 PM.
Are you making some kind of opaque analogy between the synthetic assets and parallel universes? That might actually bring up an interesting philosophical point. Some scientific philosophers question whether artificial universes constructed by man in computer models, etc., should count as parallel universes within the multiverse. In that vein, does the synthetic asset exist in a parallel universe?
Yeah, only to them it is a REAL asset (que freaky music)...Are you making some kind of opaque analogy between the synthetic assets and parallel universes? That might actually bring up an interesting philosophical point. Some scientific philosophers question whether artificial universes constructed by man in computer models, etc., should count as parallel universes within the multiverse. In that vein, does the synthetic asset exist in a parallel universe?
I just read the first few pages but i have a question regarding giants mentioned in the bible. Can you elaborate on that a little bit? I've always found interesting the similarities between religions and, embarrased to say this, i bought God of War for PS2 and learned a few things from it and doing a little googling after it raised my intersest.
Pandora's box and Eve's incident in the Garden of Eden are shockingly similar. Everything was perfect until God/God's created woman and her curisity caused us to deal with disease, hunger, death........
Wasn't there also something with a huge flood by Posideon wiping out the world?
The whole ans's incident reminded me of the giants.
That story, mentioned barely in passing, said that angels found human women so hot that they could not resist coming down from heaven and having carnal relations with them, and the resultant offspring were giants, some evil, some heroic.
This episode is alluded to in 1 Corinthians, where Paul exhorts godly women to dress modestly, because their innate hotness gives angels the celestial equivalent of blueballs.
I swear I am not making this up. I am not sure of the degree to which that story in Genesis is meant to be taken literally.
Certain sects of the Orthodox church, on the other hand, say that the "sons of God" were a nation of godly men living in covenant with God, and that they began intermingling with the "daughters of men," supposedly the nation descended from Cain, and that their intermingling eventually brought apostasy from the covenant and descent into lawlessness.
The Hebrew word translated "giants" is Nephilim, and according to this interpretation, the offspring, rather than being actual giants, were notable and heroic men, the type legends are written about.
However, the traditional Jewish understanding involves angels getting it on with human women.
So would this universe's real asset be a synthetic asset in the parallel universe of the computer model used to develop the synthetic asset in this universe? In that parallel universe, is there an actuary whose computer model, used to create the synthetic asset that here is a real asset, is this universe?Yeah, only to them it is a REAL asset (que freaky music)...
I think Schödinger's cat just exploded.
Were Nick Cage and Meg Ryan involved somehow?
Reminds me of the movie "The Thirteenth Floor"....
A lot of the background bits for this were thrown out when the bible was edited and written in the 14th century.
You mean 4th century. The "background" book I believe is Enoch, which was written 2nd century BC. The book was excluded from the canon because the Jewish Sanhedrin had expelled it from the Jewish canon around AD 90.
Thank you for the correction.
The Nephalim are still the subject of much controversy.... They are also mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in other old texts... Others believe them to be of extra-terrestrial origin. They have also become a great source of Fiction Novels.
The odds are indeed slim that chance would assemble a self-replicating protein, or whatever. But the more molecules you have bumping up against each other, the greater the odds of that happening somewhere, yes or no? --RG
Is it reasonable to assume that our planet is not the only planet this universe with liquid water?
Probably, but in fact how common is it?
Funny you should ask...
Earthlike planets may be common: study
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Earthlike planets covered with deep oceans that could harbor life may be found in as many as a third of solar systems discovered outside of our own, U.S. researchers said on Thursday.
These solar systems feature gas giants known as "Hot Jupiters," which orbit extremely close to their parent stars -- even closer than Mercury to our sun, University of Colorado researcher Sean Raymond said.
The close-orbiting gassy planets may help encourage the formations of smaller, rocky, Earthlike planets, they reported in the journal Science.
"We now think there is a new class of ocean-covered, and possibly habitable, planets in solar systems unlike our own," Raymond said in a statement.
The team from Colorado, Penn State University and NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center Maryland ran computer simulations of various types of solar systems forming.
The gas giants may help rocky planets form close to the suns, and may help pull in icy bodies that deliver water to the young planets, they found.
"These gas giants cause quite a ruckus," Raymond said.
Water is key to life as humans define it.
"I think there are definitely habitable planets out there," Raymond said. "But any life on these planets could be very different from ours. There are a lot of evolutionary steps in between the formation of such planets in other systems and the presence of life forms looking back at us."
As many as 40 percent of the 200 or so known planets around other stars are Hot Jupiters, the researchers said.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 09-08-2006 at 08:19 AM. Reason: edited for clarity
I will wait for solid O to actually answer the question, before proceding.
Well we shall see how the observations of the exoplanet project match up with that model.
Well either way, it makes it a reasonable assumption that since a good percentage, 10%+, of all stars have planets and a further good percentage of those have earthlike planets with liquid water, it can be reasonable to assume that the number of places in the universe similar to earth is a pretty big number.Well we shall see how the observations of the exoplanet project match up with that model.
Do you agree?
There's more to making a planet earth-like than size and existence of liquid water.
Well either way, it makes it a reasonable assumption that since a good percentage, 10%+, of all stars have planets and a further good percentage of those have earthlike planets with liquid water, it can be reasonable to assume that the number of places in the universe similar to earth is a pretty big number.
Do you agree?
--RG
Such as?There's more to making a planet earth-like than size and existence of liquid water.
Atmospheric makeup, atmospheric pressure, magnetic field, radioactive activity in the core, moon number, size, and distance (tidal effects), plate tectonics, axis tilt, both rocky crust AND oceans exposed to atmosphere (CO2 cycle).
And so on.
Lots goes into this whole life thing.
Pish-posh; we all know this planet Earth is a lesser form than billions of others, in far-flung galaxies, already teeming with super intelligent life.
Again, all you need is a few simple, self-replicating organisms, and liquid water.
Life will adapt to all the other aspects. Funny thing that.
Either way, you are talking about billions of billions of planets with liquid water at the very least.
1% of billlions of billions is still millions of billions.
Again, I ask the question that you have STILL avoided answering:
Is it a reasonable assumption, based on current scientific evidence that there is a very large number of planets with liquid water?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
