gnostic
The Lost One
Amino acid and nucleic acids are not dust.What did it originate from then?
An inorganic molecule, or dust?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Amino acid and nucleic acids are not dust.What did it originate from then?
An inorganic molecule, or dust?
Five generations per year. 5,000 years back to Noah. 25,000 generations. The odds of YOU existing are 1 in 200,000,000^25,000. And yet, here YOU are.
So much for operationally impossible odds.
Duh! I've done this example before. When I did it this time, something seemed off but I couldn't figure out quite what.Shouldn't this be five generations per century, so 50 centuries back to Noah it would come to 250 generations. Of course, in practical terms, it doesn't make any difference; 1 in 200,000,000^250 is just as impossible as 1 in 200,000,000^25,000.
The problem is both these figures are Intelligent Design probability foolishness from the Discovery Institute, and not science.Shouldn't this be five generations per century, so 50 centuries back to Noah it would come to 250 generations. Of course, in practical terms, it doesn't make any difference; 1 in 200,000,000^250 is just as impossible as 1 in 200,000,000^25,000.
... One example is if catalysts are involved in RNA chemical evolution as some research indicates, the simplistic probability fail.
The logic used to arrive at numbers like 10^70 do not take into account natural bindings. But I'll leave that part of the argument for others.
I used the term "natural bindings"
Yeah, that kinda thing - any natural bindings - even atom to atom. If that sounds vague it might explain why I stated:Are you referring to natural bonding between amino and/or nucleic acids?
But I'll leave that part of the argument for others.
Is the dopey grin there because you don't understand the word "who"? Please re-read my comment. Please try to understand what I am asking for when I use the word "who".
Don't you understand the difference between anger and derision?Ha. Ha. Don’t you understand that abiogenesis becomes all? Why the anger?
No, it isn’t.No. An organic compound is anything that has carbon attached to it.....
Dust.....
Shouldn't this be five generations per century, so 50 centuries back to Noah it would come to 250 generations. Of course, in practical terms, it doesn't make any difference; 1 in 200,000,000^250 is just as impossible as 1 in 200,000,000^25,000.
Hmm.I'm no mathematician
Please show your work.but if calculated correctly I think the chances of him existing should be 1 in 1.
He exists meaning he is here so we can ask him? Or do you mean you want to believe he existed in the past and have no proof other than what you have read in the bible. With this type of mathematical analysis Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are in a 1 in 1 probability to those who believe in them.^ He exists, therefor if all variables are taken into account the correct math would confirm this.
In other words, ya got nuttin'^ He exists, therefor if all variables are taken into account the correct math would confirm this.
Sorry, but what variables are you talking about?^ He exists, therefor if all variables are taken into account the correct math would confirm this.
Sorry, but what variables are you talking about?
Can you be specific or give a few examples?
Er...I don’t know...This got taken more seriously than I had intended, few years ago something strange happened and I said "what are the chances of that?" My friend replied "since it just happened... 100%". Similarly the odds of someone who currently exists, existing is 1:1 or 100%... No?
Intelligence that had to go at it a few times before getting it right. Is that how God did it?I’m sorry, but the scientists in the laboratory have intelligence
No, nature does the steps. What "intelligence" did was figure out what it was doing.This only proves that it takes intelligence to even begin the steps!
I wouldn't think it'd be complicated. It would only take one RNA strand being copied, but instead of now having 2 RNA, they just remained stuck and BOOM -- DNA.Furthermore, the fact that DNA-based replication still relies on RNA as an intermediary is highly suggestive that an earlier RNA-only process was later upgraded by adding the DNA process on top.
Life =/= consciousness.Isn't it a natural evolution of a claim that RNA is equal to life, since EVERYTHING EVOLVED, YOU KNOW?
Our DNA is less responsible as it's more a neurological anatomical kind of thing. DNA just tells you where the cell goes, what it does, and how long it lasts. Consciousness seems to require some kind of complex network, neural or otherwise.I do not agree to this conclusion since consciousness is true here and now. So, when you generate life through RNA-DNA the outcome is evolution created us and our consciousness.
I wasn't aware most people were truly aware.Then how do you explain our arrival/emergence, with our subjective awareness?
Brains might not be the sole proprietor of consciousness, though, as it could be argued some fungi and slime molds might represent a kind of consciousness when their networks are viewed as a whole. Then there's AI.My considered understanding is that meme that brain is THE consciousness or is its source is a dogma that does not help anyone to attain peace.
I would argue that can't be determined because we have no way of ascertaining either way.RNA and then DNA and bacteria, and then numerous forms are forms of Prakriti-Nature and have no life-consciousness of their own.
The dead begin breakdown really quickly, so, no, the chemicals and organs will soon be mush, not as they were during life.All chemicals and all organs existing, a life-less body does not say "I exist".
Why inevitable? Things only evolve into something that fits the environment. If the environment has no real need of sentience, it won't be there.If I claim I have created first sparks of life in laboratory, it will imply that sentience will be the inevitable product.
On Earth it seems to be, at least. It cannot be generalized to every other part of the universe.One conclusion is water is essential to the state called life.
I can see that, even the "movie" one. I think I might have some frames missing.When last I was looking at what we know about consciousness, the >Global Workspace< hypothesis, was comfortably leading the pack.
And bypassed entirely with machines until a better solution presents itself.Not to be too picky, and obviously off topic, but when a person flat-lines in a hospital setting the heart can be massaged to send oxygen-carrying blood to the brain.