Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
In this case we are talking the theory of benificial mutations. There is no question that life exists. So it must have come into existance somehow. But the theory of benificial mutations and random process is not the answer to how it all happened.But that's the lottery: there aren't that many lotteries.
There is no theory of beneficial mutations. But that's right, it wasn't beneficial mutations and a random process, it was every kind of mutation + natural selection (on prebiotic molecules for abiogenesis).In this case we are talking the theory of benificial mutations. There is no question that life exists. So it must have come into existance somehow. But the theory of benificial mutations and random process is not the answer to how it all happened.
I dunno though. It seems largely academic at best; and completely unrelated to the possibility of evolution occurring at worst.This is an estimation, then, of the probability of the physical laws of the universe coming out like our own, if we accept a basic string theory argument. I personally think this is an argument against our current models of string theory, not an argument for special creation.
That's one thousand times in a row, by the same man.
I would even question the same man winning one thousand times, period.
I wasn't clear, and I apologize. It's like this.
The odds of flipping a coin and it coming up heads are exactly the same as the odds of it coming up tails. Thus, the odds of flipping a coin twice and having it come up two heads is the same as the odds of it coming up heads tails. We can clearly see that, although flipping a coin ten times heads in a row would be quite improbable, it is no more improbable than the odds of coming up heads heads tails heads tails tails tails heads tails heads.
The odds that one man (call him Adam) will win the lottery are the same as the odds that someone else, let's say, Beth, will win. Clearly we can see that the odds of Adam winning twice in a row are precisely the same as the odds of Adam winning and then Beth winning. Repeat the process ten, a hundred, or a thousand times, you'll see the same thing. The odds are the same.
If I predict that Adam will win, Beth will win, Charlie will win, and the Dude will win, I will certainly be proven wrong. However, the actual outcome of those lotteries ( Jack, Mary, Frank, Phil ) is precisely as unlikely.
Saying that it is impossible for one man to win the lottery one thousand times is simply incorrect. It is in fact proven to be a possibility.
There is no theory of beneficial mutations. But that's right, it wasn't beneficial mutations and a random process, it was every kind of mutation + natural selection (on prebiotic molecules for abiogenesis).
So you have no ax to grind with the Roman Catholic Church?
Wikipedia said:In a broader sense of the word, Protestant came to be used as the collective name for those individuals and churches who advocated a formal separation from the Roman Catholic Church...
True. The problem is that we don't yet know of any processes that could bring the full 10, 11, or 26-dimensional string theory down to the 4 dimensions we are familiar with in the very specific way that provides us with the natural laws as we know them. But, as I've said, I think this is more likely a problem with string theory than any statement that our universe is actually that improbable. Whether it means that more work needs to be done in string theory to find such mechanisms, or whether it means that we should discard string theory and work on discovering other potential unification theories, I do not know.As I understand your explanation, if it discusses the "probability of the physical laws of the universe coming out like our own" then it is only really applicable to an end point prediction and has little to no bearing on the mechanism that brought us here.
Yup. If he's going to use this argument, you'd hope that he would at least concede to natural abiogenesis and biological evolution. After all, to use the argument at the level of the beginning of the universe requires that one accept what came after.So how can this number be used as "chances of evolution bringing us here" when this theory seems to be dealing with cosmos and much greater boundaries than simply life on earth.
Since we're talking about the origin of life here, those somethings we call prebiotic molecules. These prebiotic molecules are self-replicating, but don't have the entire metabolism self-contained. Since they are selft-replicating, they are subject to mutation and natural selection. Since they don't yet have a self-contained metabolism, they are very inefficient at replicating. Natural selection will therefore push these molecules towards a self-contained metabolism. It will push them towards life.Natural selection has to have something to select.
It is a interesting theory but it does not work if there is nothing for natural selection to select.
I would like to thank everyone who participated in this thread --
Gratitude, like honey, has no shelf-life --You bumped this thread to thank people for participating five years ago?
Gratitude, like honey, has no shelf-life --
Tis a great thread thoYou bumped this thread to thank people for participating five years ago?
Yer welcomeI would like to thank all the little people who made my fame what it is today.
I forgot all about this thread.Yer welcome
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?