Yes.... But let's expand my model too... If I had several of the large aforementioned mixing vats... say an infinite amount... and they were all whirling around with the car parts inside... do you still believe that one of those vats would produce a fully functional car? I don't believe so. Again, it's not a simple statistical model we're dealing with here... and even when one uses a simple model that doesn't factor the uphill constraints placed by kinetics, the odds still end up being for all intents and purposes zero.
For example, here is a computer generated image of the human prion molocule.... it is an amazingly complex protein and is constructed in the same specialized and sequencial fashion that is utilized by all other proteins in all organisms... the DNA/RNA pathway.
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?
Is it then reasonable to assume, based on currently available data, that the number of planets with liquid water is very large?Yes..
Last edited by RandomGuy; 09-08-2006 at 04:26 PM.
I'd already answered your question.... (I had to change my name yet again because Solid D was getting confused with my other name)....
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?
Is it then reasonable to assume, based on currently available data, that the number of planets with liquid water is very large?Yes..
Then that number of planets, both past and present also provide chances for simple organic molecules to form?Yes..
How many times must I repeat.
Molecular genetics is nothing like a poker model...
Molecular genetics is nothing like a poker model...
Molecular genetics is nothing like a poker model...
Molecular genetics is nothing like a poker model...
Molecular genetics is nothing like a poker model...
Molecular genetics is nothing like a poker model...
Molecular genetics is nothing like a poker model...
I've known where you were taking this line of thinking about 30 posts ago. But with all due respect, having infinite time, and infinite earth-like worlds, doesn't mean biological complexity was a statistical certainty. DNA or proteins were not the eventuality of some random process... if anything random processes lead to disorder not order.
The earth is not a closed system. Does entropy does apply to non-closed systems?
Only because you do not understand statistics.
How many times must I play a raffle in which I have a 1 in 1000 chance to win before I actually win?
You may win it on the first try... or you may never win.
Which of those two options is more likely?
Not enough constraints to properly answer the question. I know as long as dS>0 anything is possible. But I guess you also feel that you have a statistical probability of forming a fully functional car inside that vat of mine?
Heh, you are arguing about randomness with "RandomGuy".
Does anyone else find that a bit... amusing?
Based on the odds... the first one.
The only difference is that in our example... no one is 'giving' us the odds to suggest the most probable eventuality. That's exactly what we are calculating.
Again though, you still fail to see the inherently distinctive and highly significant differences between reaction kinetics and statistics.
Does entropy apply to closed systems?
I still have no ing clue what you guys are talking about in this one.
"Based on the odds..."
The odds don't matter.
You said "never".
Never implies infinity.
You have just contradicted yourself.
Please explain to those reading why you have just done that, so they understand what you just admitted.
Heh, it takes an understanding of a few different disciplines of science and mathematics.
I can sit here and wait all day long... no, for all infinity... waiting to turn into gold... can it happen? Sure. Is there a known process or mechanism that would want to do that? Or why would the molecular structure in my body feel the need for that change? In anycase, I don't see it happening.
No 'Goldmember' references please.
Again, what environment drove the need to create a molecule that would 'want' to just keep getting more and more and more and more ordered.
Assuming that biological complexity was the eventual causality of 'pre-cambrian' inorganic earth is fools gold.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 09-08-2006 at 08:31 PM.
You say "biological complexity".
Does that mean that a fully developed human being sprang up?
Or does that mean that a much simpler organism than a human being?
Sure... say the entire universe.
For all your harping about getting your questions answered you sure do seem to avoid the questions I ask.
Do you still feel you can produce a fully functional vehicle by mixing up all the car's individual parts in a big vat? Again, assuming they are all indestructable and non-deformable?
Last edited by Phenomanul; 09-08-2006 at 08:32 PM.
One just like the prion I showed you earlier.
You wrote down the answer by asking the question, remember (1 in 1000). And yet the answer I gave you was not incorrect... how could that be??? hmmmm
Maybe cause there was no contradiction brother. How'd you like dem apples?
I will outline it since you are naturally reluctant to admit you just logically contradicted yourself.
You said thatMeaning that infinite time and chances does not make for "statistical certainty".But with all due respect, having infinite time, and infinite earth-like worlds, doesn't mean biological complexity was a statistical certainty.
You have also admitted that the odds are greater than zero.
Then when pressed, you admit that the odds of "winning the lottery" are greater than the odds of NEVER winning.
Is this not a statistical certainty?
Finally, some hope for winning the lottery.
It does not matter whether the odds are 1 in a 1000 or one in 1*10^-100
Once you have a fair estimation of the odds you can then start inferring.
A large number of molecules increases the odds. Planets are big places, and again, by your own admission, there are a LOT of them.
The universe is also REALLY old. The amount of time also increases the amount of chances, further increasing the odds of any improbable event.
Your analogy of a fully assembled car is a good example. Although improbable it is still possible.
A hundred billion billion vats over tens of billions of years...
One doesn't need a fully functioning vehicle, one needs something roughly analogous to the brake system.
All it really takes is a self-replicating amino acid.
You say prions are TOO complex, I will say that what is needed is simpler than even a prion.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote