It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Abiogenesis separated from Evolution is a false Dichotomy.

page: 11
4
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 





why should i assume something that doesn't exist?


I am not suggesting that you make such an assumption.

You are making the assumption that nothing exists beyond the realm of science. I am trying to show that this assumption of yours has no rational basis, that is, it is itself unscientific, it cannot be verified.




posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 



Thank you "mysticnoon" for balanced posts


"Balanced" posts are not that popular on this forum, so thanks for the recognition.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


rnaa - if you're still around - quick Q for you if you don't mind.

Is the Zsostak Project the latest explanation of abiogenesis?

ciao,
edmc2



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by mysticnoon
 


You are ASSUMING there is something beyond what we perceive as reality...that might be the case, or not...but it doesn't change the fact that you are MAKING STUFF UP to fill a gap in knowledge.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 




Is the Zsostak Project the latest explanation of abiogenesis?


Dr. Szostak's work seems to be the most promising that I know about.

There are many people working on the problem from different angles all across the world. They talk to each other. They point out each others mistakes. They encourage each others successes. There are many models, each showing some promise in specific areas. Doubtless a synthesis will emerge that takes features from many models. Wikipedia has a good overview: Abiogenesis

Asking for the 'latest explanation' is asking the wrong question, there are many current models being investigated in parallel. The question you should ask is: is Szostak's work the most complete explanation for Abiogenesis'? However, I don't know the answer to that, because I am not familiar with all work done all over the world. Dr. Szostak is definitely making progress, and I like his chances.



Will he put together all the missing pieces and publish the final answer? Who knows? Nature took a few billion years to get it right, Szostak has only a few decades. Will Szostak's answer, if he completes it, definitely be the way that life came to be on this planet? Maybe, maybe not. It may have happened in several ways at several different times.

However, since all modern life on the planet shares a small set of very specific features, the odds are those attributes probably derive from a single specific abiogenesis event. According to Wikipedia: Last Universal Ancestor:


"A universal common ancestor is at least 10^2860 times more probable than having multiple ancestors…"A model with a single common ancestor but allowing for some gene swapping among species was…10^3489 times more probable than the best multi-ancestor model…"


So there may well have been many abiogenesis events and each may have had a unique mechanism, but only one produced life that survived and evolved to modern life (there may well be exceptions that we don't recognize!). Dr. Szostak's model, if completed, may be one of the 'lost' events, or it may be the event; I rather doubt we will ever know unless we somehow conclude that there was only one possible way for organic life as we know it to form on this planet.

Edit: Important to note: the "universal common ancestor" (UCA) is unlikely to be the "first living organism" (FLO). The FLO may actually come from a 'lost' abiogenesis event and there could have been many millions of generations and false starts between the FLO and the UCA to all modern life, the various FLO's from several different abiogenesis events may have "interbred" (bad word but please understand what I mean) before the UCA evolved. Don't be mislead, UCA and FLO are not the same thing.
edit on 30/1/2011 by rnaa because: important note



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





You are ASSUMING there is something beyond what we perceive as reality...that might be the case, or not...but it doesn't change the fact that you are MAKING STUFF UP to fill a gap in knowledge


You are giving me more credit than is my due. I lack in both imagination and faith to readily "make stuff up" about a metaphysical reality.

Repeatable experience and direct perception are my preferred tools. The existence of something beyond consensual physical reality is a working hypothesis for me while I apply myself to the methods of investigation outside the current scope of science.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 



Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Thank you "mysticnoon" for balanced posts


Praise where praise isn't due?



As for Madness
I acknowledge your posts, however due to numerous past encounters on ATS, I choose not address your posts and pursue an exercise in utter futility that always end in a arrogant, "you are wrong" from you.


Ok, how about this then: Show me how you are right.

Oh, didn't I ask that repeatedly?


Originally posted by madnessinmysou
Until you can show me how evolution would be invalid if the first life forms were vomited into existence by a hungover magic space donkey you cannot claim that abiogenesis is necessary for evolution.



Originally posted by madnessinmysou
And once more I ask:


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Until you can show me how evolution would be invalid if the first life forms were vomited into existence by a hungover magic space donkey you cannot claim that abiogenesis is necessary for evolution.




Originally posted by madnessinmysou
Please show me how evolution would be invalid if the first life forms were vomited into existence by a hungover magic space donkey. Or you can just show me how it would be invalid if the first life forms were created or arose in any other supernatural and/or nonsensical way.

If you can do so then you have a point and I will take my hungover magical space donkey and go home.



Originally posted by madnessinmysou
Once more, please prove your thread title. How would a supernatural cause for life disprove evolution?




Originally posted by madnessinmysou
I'm just going to repeat myself:

Please demonstrate how evolution would fall apart as a theory if there were a supernatural explanation for origin of the first life forms.



This next one is in reply to a specific point you made:


Originally posted by madnessinmysou


It just doesn't ring true or make sense, at the very least it reveals way too many unanswered questions.

Your personal incredulity is not an argument against evolution. Please, name an unanswered question.



Originally posted by madnessinmysou
Jay, I challenge you (again) to show me how evolution and abiogenesis are linked.




When you tone down the "you are wrong" rhetoric then and only then will I re-engage.


Well, I repeatedly asked you to show me how you are right. I repeatedly asked you to demonstrate that I was wrong. And I only said "you are wrong" in my 19th post in this thread.

In fact, you started off with that sort of rhetoric with statements like this:


Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Over and over and over people who believe in evolution keep saying they are completely separate topics of biology, this has developed in more recent years simply because it is an easier position to defend. However the two are intricately bound, without that first single cell prokaryotes, evolution is not possible, and evolutionists, sidestep that entire discussion by saying well it's a different field of biology, this is weak, very weak, and intellectual honesty must acknowledge that. To disregard the Abiogenesis as part of the foundation of evolution sidesteps and conveniently avoids a major issue that confronts a person that life came from nothing. It's just too easy. It's really intellectually dishonest.


From the OP. And yet I can refute that claim with one sentence:

We may need the first forms of life (which wouldn't necessarily be classified as prokaryotes) but evolution would proceed whether those first forms of life arose naturally or through supernatural agency.

On top of that, you have been dismissive:


Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
You know Madness childish hyperbole's add nothing to the discussion, just saying.


And to be frank, you never engaged me in the first place. Of course, this is just one of many excuses you've used to not engage in discussion with me.

How about you just answer the simple question which I've repeated many times?



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by mysticnoon
 



Originally posted by mysticnoon


I'm sorry, but there is no evidence of anything beyond the material world. There is no 'aspect of reality' here, all the reality that has any basis in fact is material.
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


And I am sorry to see that you also appear to subscribe to scientism.


...no, I subscribe to critical thinking. I'm being logical here. There is no evidence for anything beyond the material world, thus there is no reason to bother with the idea of anything beyond the material world.

You cannot simply dismiss me by claiming that I subscribe to a belief system. I am saying that there's no evidence for anything beyond the material. Instead of assuming the burden of proof in an intellectually honest manner, you've decided to resort to an ad hominem argument against me, labeling me as a member of a falsely set up belief system.





The infinite is understood as something that is unending. Infinite anything would be something that is logically impossible.


It may be a logic impossibility, agreed, but I think this only reflects the limitations of the mind's ability to conceive of something without end.


...no, that reflects the impossibility of the situation. If you had a hotel with an infinite number of rooms that were fully booked and someone checked out you would still have a fully booked hotel...that's logically contradictory.





There is no 'physical' about it because it's an unnecessary qualifier unless you can pinpoint the existence of any other reality.


It is a necessary qualifier if we are considering the materialistic assumptions about the nature of reality.


I'm sorry, but there are no 'assumptions', there are testable claims. There has yet to be a single shred of evidence of the non-material ever.




Look, I am not trying to diminish the significant amount of scientific knowledge available today, I think I have said on more than one occasion that it is very impressive.


That's good, at least you admit we have something.



Rather, it is more along the lines of trying to say that if you think scientific knowledge is so very vast,


It is vast. You could spend your whole life devoted to a single field of inquiry without having even gaining half of the possible knowledge in that field. And I'm not talking broad fields like 'physics' or 'chemistry', I'm talking specialized fields.



your mind would be truly blown away if you glimpsed even an iota of the knowledge which may be revealed to you through alternate avenues of investigation.


What alternate avenues are there? Where is the evidence of this knowledge that can be revealed through them? Where is the evidence that these are legitimate avenues of investigation? Where is the evidence that anyone has ever gained anything of value through these alternative fields of investigation?

We have all sorts of practical applications for things we gain through science, but where is the practical application for these alternate avenues of investigation?



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   


...no, I subscribe to critical thinking. I'm being logical here. There is no evidence for anything beyond the material world, thus there is no reason to bother with the idea of anything beyond the material world.

You cannot simply dismiss me by claiming that I subscribe to a belief system. I am saying that there's no evidence for anything beyond the material. Instead of assuming the burden of proof in an intellectually honest manner, you've decided to resort to an ad hominem argument against me, labeling me as a member of a falsely set up belief system.
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Well, when you claim that there is no evidence of anything beyond the material, you are referring to scientific evidence, are you not?

You appear to have closed the door on all non-scientific evidence of reality, and as science does not concern itself with the metaphysical, then you are locked in to a worldview of reality based on scientific evidence alone. I call this scientism. If this is a mistaken application of the word scientism, then I apologize.

As for burden of proof, if you will not accept evidence outside the scope of science, then it is guaranteed that no evidence will ever be found that meets your expectations.

In metaphysic, the "burden of poof" rests solely within oneself and is found only within oneself. No-one else can do it for us. If you are not open to seek it there, then you won't find it.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mysticnoon
 



Originally posted by mysticnoon
Well, when you claim that there is no evidence of anything beyond the material, you are referring to scientific evidence, are you not?


Well, what other sort of evidence is there? Anecdotal evidence? That doesn't tend to hold up as evidence of anything, as it's unverifiable...

I guess there's pure reason, but pure reason isn't proof of something, merely a good argument in favor of it.



You appear to have closed the door on all non-scientific evidence of reality,


If you can provide evidence of another sort of 'evidence of reality', I'll gladly use it. Until then, we know science works.



and as science does not concern itself with the metaphysical, then you are locked in to a worldview of reality based on scientific evidence alone.


Of course science doesn't concern itself with metaphysics. It also doesn't concern itself with aesthetics or ontology. Now, I'm open to other ideas if you can show how they're rational and logical, but you're simply accusing me of something instead of answering this list of questions I posed:

What alternate avenues are there?
Where is the evidence of this knowledge that can be revealed through them?
Where is the evidence that these are legitimate avenues of investigation?
Where is the evidence that anyone has ever gained anything of value through these alternative fields of investigation?



I call this scientism. If this is a mistaken application of the word scientism, then I apologize.


I call scientism a stupid word. I'm open to other avenues of investigation so long as they have logical and/or rational basis.



As for burden of proof, if you will not accept evidence outside the scope of science,


I've already asked for alternative forms of evidence. You've yet to provide any options.



then it is guaranteed that no evidence will ever be found that meets your expectations.


My expectations are that my reasonable questions found above are answered before you provide evidence.



In metaphysic, the "burden of poof" rests solely within oneself and is found only within oneself.


Le sigh...ignorance of philosophy. In metaphysics the 'burden of proof' rests upon the claimant because it is a branch of philosophy and therefore subject to reason and logical consistency.



No-one else can do it for us. If you are not open to seek it there, then you won't find it.


Problem is: I did that for a very significant portion of time. In fact, the tail end of my metaphysics/spiritual/religious journey was when I started going on ATS. I even considered myself a Theravada Buddhist when I joined this site...

I tried that stuff, didn't find any use of it. Went through as many religious, spiritual, metaphysical, etc experiences as I could in the area I lived in...still turned up with atheism.

 


But honestly, what the hell does this have to do with the topic at hand? The topic at hand is that Jay has made an illogical claim that s/he has yet to back up.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



But honestly, what the hell does this have to do with the topic at hand?


Good point.

Maybe you can repeat those questions in a more appropriate thread next time we meet up again?



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by chocise
 

Madness is right. You have not contributed one single thing to this thread apart from lowering the tone of it and increasing the quantum of ambient hostility. Now, put up or shut up: either prove any single statement of madness's wrong by providing real evidence (with appropriate citations), or, like he said, get the hell out of the thread.

Your high horse is made of soggy cardboard, Tonto.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by mysticnoon
 


"The existing scientific concepts cover always only a very limited part of reality, and the other part that has not yet been understood is infinite."

Yes, Heisenberg said that. English wasn't his first language, y'know...

No infinite quantities have yet been discovered in nature. Therefore the claim that there is an infinity of things yet to be understood is pure conjecture, and probably false.

Heisenberg's words, quoted above, are a textbook example of Clarke's First Law.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by mysticnoon
 


You appear to have closed the door on all non-scientific evidence of reality, and as science does not concern itself with the metaphysical, then you are locked in to a worldview of reality based on scientific evidence alone. I call this scientism. If this is a mistaken application of the word scientism, then I apologize.

Your apology falls due now.

Madness's philosophical stance is known as empiricism. Scientism is nothing but a slander against science invented and used by people envious of its success. People such as believers in Bible fables and fairies at the bottom of the garden:




edit on 31/1/11 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   


Madness's philosophical stance is known as empiricism. Scientism is nothing but a slander against science invented and used by people envious of its success.
reply to post by Astyanax
 



OK, I admit to being ignorant about the unsavoury connotation of the word "scientism". I thought it was interchangeable with "empiricism".

Please substitute "empiricism" wherever I have used it in previous posts.

I apologize if I have offended anyone by my careless use of the term.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by mysticnoon
 

Thoughtfully and courageously said.

We now find ourselves on fairly well-trodden epistemological ground: rationalism vs. empiricism.

The argument has been going on for millennia, and shows no signs of coming to any resolution. There is this to be said of it, however: no empirically-founded statement can ever be proved, only falsified; rationally-founded statements, on the other hand, can neither be proved nor falsified, except by empirical methods. This is because any logical argument must go back, in the end, to what is empirically perceived. Odd that Descartes, the lousy scientist, implicitly accepted this, while Liebniz, the scientific genius, rejected it. Being a scientist, he probably understood the implications of cogito, ergo sum better than its vortex-befuddled progenitor, and they struck fear into him. His Discourse on Metaphysics is a tragic example of how a brilliant mind can be led astray by religious faith.

Chacun à son goût, then, generally speaking, but as long as we are discussing material things – such as biological processes – the final appeal must be to empirical demonstration and falsification. This much is obvious. A rationalist may cast doubt upon the demonstration from an epistemological angle, as you have tried to do, but then you must discount the validity of all science, insist that the material world is an illusion or the reflection of some higher, formal reality, etc. And besides being a tad hifalutin, I'm afraid that will get you nowhere in terms of the present question, which is a purely empirical one: can we have evolution without abiogenesis, or can't we?

A rationalist such as yourself really has no option but to say we can. Genesis and evolution are formally distinct concepts and no-one but a fool or a brainwashee would try to make the latter dependent on the former – apart, of course, from the obvious fact that there could be no biological evolution if life did not exist in the first place.

You shall not find me whipping that pony; the poor carcass has already been cut to ribbons. I will, however, insist that whatever your particular philosophical or religious ideas, you cannot intelligently support such nonsense as the OP claims. Even if the theory of evolution by natural selection were falsified, even if all the claims of science are debunked, logic and common sense would still show that theories of evolution (however false) have nothing to do with theories of origin (however false). And that is, quite simply, that.

I disagree wholeheartedly with your rationalist (or dualist, if you prefer) outlook; however, it is clear to me that whatever your epistemological views, you are are a lover of reason. As such, know that you will find your allies on this side of the floor, not among the ranks of the creationists.

In conclusion, a few lines from Kipling:

We moved as the spirit listed; they never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud- nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market-Place
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.


Empiricism is the God of the Copybook Headings. Reality may be dull, but it's real.


edit on 31/1/11 by Astyanax because: of metaphysics



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


Thanks rnaa for the info - but can you please confirm something?

This quote:


"A universal common ancestor is at least 10^2860 times more probable than having multiple ancestors…"A model with a single common ancestor but allowing for some gene swapping among species was…10^3489 times more probable than the best multi-ancestor model…"


Are the probability numbers: 10^2860 and 10^3489 correct? These are really astronomical numbers that a probabiblity these size are deemed mathematically impossible to occur - at least that's what I read from my research.

Larger than the "number of atoms in the entire observable universe".


number of atoms in the entire observable universe is estimated to be within the range of 10^78 to 10^82. We’ve added the word ‘observable’ because we realize that there are really many things to discover about the entire universe so, basically, that range back there is only an estimate based upon what we currently know.


www.universetoday.com...

some study say the number is around 10^100

Can you please clarify how these numbers "10^2860 and 10^3489" were calculated? And how can it be deemed probable?

Also - is it possible to calculate how many years it will take for the UCA/FLO to appear if the "gene swapping" occurs say - 1, 5, 10 or 100 times a day? I'm curious to know.



ciao,
edmc2





edit on 31-1-2011 by edmc^2 because: 10^100



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Can you please clarify how these numbers "10^2860 and 10^3489" were calculated? And how can it be deemed probable?

Amino acid sequences of 23 highly conserved proteins found in all 3 domains of life were compared and model selection theory was applied. The actual article is immensely difficult to understand (unless maybe if you're a statistician who understand fundamental biology). There are like 20 supplementary pages of tables and calculations.
edit on 31-1-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
Can you please clarify how these numbers "10^2860 and 10^3489" were calculated? And how can it be deemed probable?

Amino acid sequences of 23 highly conserved proteins found in all 3 domains of life were compared and model selection theory was applied. The actual article is immensely difficult to understand (unless maybe if you're a statistician who understand fundamental biology). There are like 20 supplementary pages of tables and calculations.
edit on 31-1-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)


I’m baffled by these astronomical –googol – numbers and can’t get my brain wrap around it so I typed them to get a clearer view and see the difference between the total numbers of atoms in the known universe and the estimated FLO probability. Mind boggling indeed!

Here’s the comparison.

10^3489 (probability for FLO to occur) x millions of false starts between FLO and UCA: 1 out of 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (10^3489) chance.

10^100 (total amount of atom in the observable universe – 100 just being generous):
1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (10^100)

Deducing from current estimates – if the universe is around 13.5 byo starting from the Big-Bang with these much of atom in it, how many years will it take to form a “FLO/UCA” based on the estimated probability?

The other Q is: what’s the speed/rate of “gene change” and “interbreeding” (within/in between FLO and UCA) to arrive at the ‘final product’ – i.e.: modern life?

Also, how many “abiogenesis” events are we looking at here for the FLO to occur/appear until it comes up with the correct combinations?

BTW, rhinoceros – I get what you’re saying about the amino acid sequences, in fact based on the Genome Human Project (courtesy of tauristercus) it was determined that:

To quote tauristurcus:


“…the human genome contains approximately 3.1 billion nucleotides with the 23 chromosome pairs and then divided it into the estimated number of years that have elapsed since life in the form of the simplest cell began 3.8 billion years!”


From this as clearly indicated we get:

*

” 3.8 billion years / 3.1 billion nucleotides = 1.2 nucleotides additions per year”


*Based on average calculation

Link: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Summary:

Human Genome = 3.1 billion nucleotides: 3,100,000,000.00 - takes 3,800,000,000.00 years to form a FLO.
Earth = 4 byo: 4,000,000,000.00 - 3,800,000,000.00 FLO years = 200,000,000.00 years left to evolve from FLO?

Yet the oldest fossil found according paleontologists:


“Fossil traces found in an oil field on the Arabian Peninsula are the oldest evidence yet of animals, pushing back the known origins of higher life to more than 635 million years ago’

www.wired.com...

So here’s the conundrum: either the FLO numbers are correct or the Human Genome Project is off – or the other way around or both.

rnaa/rhinoceros – I appreciate it if you could come up with even a rough estimate as to where the probability fits in the scheme of things (abiogenesis theory).

I’m not a statistician so I don’t know, but it would be good if someone can come up with a figure to see if these numbers are even valid to begin with.

If not – what numbers can be used to validate “abiogenesis theory”?

To Astyanax – any input?

ciao,
edmc2

(Note: the rate of change in my last post was far more aggressive – in days, which obviously is way way off – I was being so generous).



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


10^3489 more probable, not 10^3489 chance

having more than one LUCA, all with the same genetic code, would obviously be a virtual improbability relative to just one source, which is not that unlikely if given 6 billion years to form



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join