I haven't read it Ricter. Reminds me of all those years ago posting about abiogenesis and hydrothermal vents. It's most interesting to hear how the finer details are being filled out by Nick Lane. Thanks for the links OT.
perfect 1950s thinking by stu. no concept of the complexities science has observed. Just it happened. He won't even acknowledge that his idea requires either random chance or pre programmed evolution because he has that much intellectual backbone.
You think natural evolution needs pre-programming? It's about change due to environment. Now that your random chance red-herring bs has completely run out of steam, you should take a stab at why the inevitable outcome of natural evolving forces, which are observed all the time throughout the universe in every kind of way would not, in preference to some of your own dark ages unfathomable thinking, be why the universe exists. At least you should if you want to show any kind of intellect at all.
you are so desperately full of shit on these issues its comedy. I wonder if you remain purposefully ignorant or you are just a series of paid content posters who pull from the same pool of pre made templates. yes... evolution can be pre programmed with the drive for life. Top scientists in the field have written about it. We saw an article here recently discussing this issue... Nasa scientists states universe appears hardwired to produce life... http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...verse-seems-hardwired-to-produce-life.299093/ “If you think of all these little molecules we’re making as Lego blocks, and life as a kind of very complex, organised Lego castle, the fact that Lego blocks are falling out of the sky can’t be a bad thing.”
I know you struggle a lot with rationality but you should stop reading your tuner creator into stuff all the time .It clearly makes you get very angry. There would be nothing more likely or obvious than the universe being hardwired to produce life from the inevitable outcomes of natural evolving forces. That is hard wiring, naturally. And after all, it's what's observed. Everywhere!
why would your desperation to support 1950s random chance atheism make me angry. I find it so odd you could be so ignorant but write well. its seems you must be trolling out your bullshit on purpose. Its why I suspect you are a paid content troll. once again I have to bring the science to you... summary of the science of a paper from MIT which surveyed many of the top scientists in the field. http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf We now know that the probability of life arising by chance is far too low to be plausible, hence there must be some deeper explanation that we are yet to discover, given which the origin of life is atleastreasonably likely. Perhaps we have little idea yet what form this explanation will takeâalthough of course it will not appeal to the work of a rational agent; this is would be a desperate last resort, if an option at allâbut we have every reason to look for such an explanation, for we have every reason to think there is one. In a detailed survey of the field, Iris Fry (1995, 2000) argues that although the disagreements among origin of life theorists run very deep, relating to the most basic features of the models they propose, the view sketched above is a fundamental unifying assumption (one which Fry strongly endorses). Some researchers in the field are even more optimistic of course. They believe that they have already found the explanation, or at least have a good head start on it. But their commitment to the thesis above is epistemically more basic, in the sense that it motivated their research in the first place and even if their theories were shown to be false, they would retain this basic assumption. 3 There is a very small group of detractors, whom Fry (1995) calls the âAlmosta Miracle Campâ including Francis Crick (1981), ErnstMayr (1982), and Jaques Monod (1974), who appear to be content with the idea that life arose by chance even if the probability of this happening is extremely low. 4 According to Crick âthe origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to been satisfied to get it goingâ (1981: 88); the emergence of life was nevertheless a âhappy accidentâ (p. 14). 5 According to Mayr, âa full realization of the near impossibility of an origin of life brings home the point of how improbable this event was.â (1982: 45). Monod famously claimed that although the probability of life arising by chance was âvirtually zero. . .our number came up in the Monte Carlo gameâ (1974: 137). Life, as Monod puts it, is âchance caught on a wingâ (p. 78). That is, although natural selection took over early to produce the diversity of life, its origin was nothing but an incredibly improbable fluke.Does Origins of Life Research Rest on a Mistake? 459 However, the vast majority of experts in the field clearly define their work in opposition to this view. The more common attitude is summed up neatly by J. D. Bernal. [T]he question, could life have originated by a chance occurrence of atoms, clearly leads to a negative answer. This answer, combined with the knowledge that life is actually here, leads to the conclusion that some sequences other than chance occurrences must have led to the appearances of life. (quoted in Fry 2000: 153) Having calculated the staggering improbability of lifeâs emergence by chance, Manfred Eigen (1992) concludes, The genes found today cannot have arisen randomly, as it were by the throw of a dice. There must exist a process of optimization that works toward functional efficiency. Even if there are several routes to optimal efficiency, mere trial and error cannotbe one of them. (p. 11) It is from this conclusion that Eigen motivates his search for a physical principle that does not leave the emergence of life up to blind chance, hence making itreproducible in principle: The physical principle that we are looking for should be in a position to explain the complexity typical of the phenomena of life at the level of molecular structures and syntheses. It should show how such complex molecular arrangements are able to form reproducibly in Nature. (p. 11) According to Christian de Duve (1991), . . .unless one adopts a creationist view,. . .life arose through the succession of an enormous number of small steps, almost each of which, given the condition at the time had a very high probability of happening. . .the alternative amounts to a miracle. . .were [the emergence of life] not an obligatory manifestation of the combinatorial properties of matter, it could not possibly have arisen naturally. (p. 217) Not all theorists follow De Duve so far as suggesting that lifeâs emergence mustbe inevitable. While nota specialistin the area, Richard Dawkins (1987) captures the attitude that appears to dominate scientific research into lifeâs origin. According to Dawkins, All who have given thought to the matter agree that an apparatus as complex as the human eye could not possibly come into existence through [a single chance event]. Unfortunately the same seems to be true of at least parts of the apparatus of cellular machinery whereby DNA replicates itself (p. 140)460 NOUS Ë In considering how the first self-replicating machinery arose, Dawkins asks âWhatis the largestsingle eventof sheer naked coincidence, sheer unadulterated miraculous luck, that we are allowed to get away with in our theories, and still say that we have a satisfactory explanation of life?â (p. 141) And he answers that there are strict limits on the âration of luckâ that we are allowed to postulate in our theories. 6 According to Dawkins, an examination of the immense complexity of the most basic mechanisms required for DNA replication is sufficient to see that any theory which makes its existence a highly improbable fluke is unbelievable, quite apart from what alternative explanations are on the table http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf