[AB^2=BCxAC]

42.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

The argument that life is bound to happen eventually given the vastness of space and time is compelling, however the major question is How does life evolve from non-living matter? We know how species evolve over time, but how does bacteria evolve from water or rocks?

Nobody knows, but
there
are
some
hypotheses.

[Y3a]

perhaps God DID create the universe, but exists OUTSIDE of it, as an observer. Everything INSIDE is his creation. "IF" the creation process also allowed for forcing things to occur inside later than the creation point, then I'd say It was a big deal. If after creation, only by our understanding of Gods feat would we be spared, then this would suggest Gods desire for worship on some level. Perhaps God has many universes that have been created, and we are just one? Our current technology doesn't give us the clues. isn't it interesting to note that time is elastic. like space, so we may never know how long we've been within our universe?

[FulcrumPilot]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

The argument that life is bound to happen eventually given the vastness of space and time is compelling, however the major question is How does life evolve from non-living matter? We know how species evolve over time, but how does bacteria evolve from water or rocks?

I'm not arguing that life has some divine purpose, but the thought that living matter can come from non-living matter seems not just unlikely, but downright impossible. It will probably always be a mystery.

Seems like you are refusing to consider some possibilities that could at least partly answer some or your questions and perhaps encourage some new ones! Read the following if you care:


ORIGIN OF LIFE: ON REPLICATION IN THE RNA WORLD

The following points are made by William R. Taylor (Nature 2005 434:705):

1) It is now widely believed that almost 4 billion years ago, before the first living cells, life consisted of assemblies of self-reproducing macromolecules. The molecular candidate thought to have mediated this activity has been RNA, which can combine the necessary properties of encoding information and catalyzing chemical reactions -- functions that are now fulfilled largely by DNA and proteins, respectively. From theoretical arguments, it can be expected that a system of interacting molecules will give rise to complex, and even life-like, behavior, but there is still debate about whether RNA was the first or the only macromolecule to participate in such activity, with both protein and DNA (or any combination with or without RNA) representing alternatives.

2) Circumstantial evidence for the central position of RNA in the origin of life can be found in "relic" pieces of RNA that hold a few of the most important functions in the cell. Perhaps the most convincing observation is that in the synthesis of proteins on the ribosome, the key chemical event -- peptide-bond formation --is catalyzed solely by RNA, suggesting that primacy lies with RNA rather than protein. A major impediment to full acceptance of an ancient "RNA world" is that, although it can easily be imagined that a pure RNA machine (a proto-ribosome) can make proteins, there is no equivalent RNA machine to make RNA (a ribopolymerase). All the RNA we know is made by protein, leading to perhaps the original "chicken-and-egg" problem of which came first.

3) Some mechanisms for replication in the RNA world have been put forward, and following the current systems of protein polynucleotide synthesis, all involve the creation of a complementary daughter strand using Watson-Crick base-pairing. But from a mechanistic viewpoint, such a model contains a fundamental problem: if a ribopolymerase were to make a complementary copy of itself, it would need to recopy this to obtain a new functional ribopolymerase. This implies that both the ribopolymerase sequence and its complement would have to coexist. But if these two copies came together, the result would be a double stranded Watson-Crick helix (as found in some RNA viruses) -- not a new ribopolymerase. Even if both sequences had well determined secondary structures, the perfect complementarity of the Watson-Crick pairing would act as a sink, leading to a sterile population of double-stranded molecules.

4) In a world without any other type of molecule (such as protein) to prevent these unwanted interactions, it might be concluded that a pure RNA world could not have been viable. But what if the ribopolymerase did not synthesize a complementary strand? From a chemical viewpoint, there is no reason why a polymerase must make a complementary strand that runs in the reverse direction to the template strand. In modern protein polymerases, nucleotide triphosphates are added to the 3' end of the transcript without the direct participation of the template strand. If the template strand was flipped (making a parallel complement), then all that would be lost is some capacity for the template and transcript to remain base-paired, as parallel nucleic acid strands cannot form a duplex with Watson-Crick base-pairing. In an RNA world, the loss of this interaction would be an advantage -- preventing the formation of a dead-end double helix.[1-5]

References (abridged):

1. Joyce, G. F. Nature 338, 217-224 (1989)

2. Gesteland, R. F., Cech, T. R. & Atkins, J. F. (eds) The RNA World (Cold Spring Harbor Lab. Press, 1999)

3. Maynard Smith, J. & Szathmary, E. The Major Transitions in Evolution (Oxford Univ. Press, 1995)

4. Taylor, W. R. Comp. Biol. Chem. 28, 313-319 (2004)

5. Dyson, F. Origins of Life (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985)

Nature http://www.nature.com/nature

--------------------------------

Related Material:

ORIGIN OF LIFE: IN SEARCH OF THE SIMPLEST CELL

The following points are made by Eörs Szathmary (Nature 2005 433:469):

1) In investigating the origin of life and the simplest possible life forms, one needs to enquire about the composition and working of a minimal cell that has some form of metabolism, genetic replication from a template, and boundary (membrane) production.

2) Identifying the necessary and sufficient features of life has a long tradition in theoretical biology. But living systems are products of evolution, and an answer in very general terms, even if possible, is likely to remain purely phenomenological. Going deeper into mechanisms means having to account for the organization of various processes, and such organization has been realized in several different ways by evolution. Eukaryotic cells (such as those from which we are made) are much more complicated than prokaryotes (such as bacteria), and eukaryotes harbor organelles that were once free-living bacteria. A further complication is that multicellular organisms consist of building blocks -- cells -- that are also alive. So aiming for a general model of all kinds of living beings would be fruitless; instead, such models have to be tied to particular levels of biological organization.

3) Basically, there are two approaches to the "minimal cell": the top-down and the bottom-up. The top-down approach aims at simplifying existing small organisms, possibly arriving at a minimal genome. Some research to this end takes Buchnera, a symbiotic bacterium that lives inside aphids, as a rewarding example. This analysis is complemented by an investigation of the duplication and divergence of genes. Remarkably, these approaches converged on the conclusion that genes dealing with RNA biosynthesis are absolutely indispensable in this framework. This may be linked to the idea of life's origins in an "RNA world", although such an inference is far from immediate.

4) Top-down approaches seem to point to a minimum genome size of slightly more than 200 genes. Care should be taken, however, in blindly accepting such a figure. For example, although some gene set A and gene set B may not be common to all bacteria, that does not mean that (A and B) are dispensable. It may well mean that A or B is essential, because the cell has to solve a problem by using either A or B. Only experiments can have the final word on these issues.

5) A top-down approach will not take us quite to the bottom, to the minimal possible cells in chemical terms. All putative cells, however small, will have a genetic code and a means of transcribing and translating that code. Given the complexity of this system, it is difficult to believe, either logically or historically, that the simplest living chemical system could have had these components.

6) The bottom-up approach aims at constructing artificial chemical supersystems that could be considered alive. No such experimental system exists yet; at least one component is always missing. Metabolism seems to be the stepchild in the family: what most researchers in the field used to call metabolism is usually a trivial outcome of the fact that both template replication and membrane growth need some material input. This input is usually simplified to a conversion reaction from precursors to products.

Nature http://www.nature.com/nature

--------------------------------

Related Material:

ORIGIN OF LIFE: ON TRANSITIONS FROM NONLIVING TO LIVING MATTER

The following points are made by S. Rasmussen et al (Science 2004 303:963):

1) All life forms are composed of molecules that are not themselves alive. But in what ways do living and nonliving matter differ? How could a primitive life form arise from a collection of nonliving molecules? The transition from nonliving to living matter is usually raised in the context of the origin of life. But some researchers(1) have recently taken a broader view and asked how simple life forms could be synthesized in the laboratory. The resulting artificial cells (sometimes called protocells) might be quite different from any extant or extinct form of life, perhaps orders of magnitude smaller than the smallest bacterium, and their synthesis need not recapitulate life's actual origins. A number of complementary studies have been steadily progressing toward the chemical construction of artificial cells (2-5).

2) There are two approaches to synthesizing artificial cells. The top-down approach aims to create them by simplifying and genetically reprogramming existing cells with simple genomes. The more general and more challenging bottom-up approach aims to assemble artificial cells from scratch using nonliving organic and inorganic materials.

3) Although the definition of life is notoriously controversial, there is general agreement that a localized molecular assemblage should be considered alive if it continually regenerates itself, replicates itself, and is capable of evolving. Regeneration and replication involve transforming molecules and energy from the environment into cellular aggregations, and evolution requires heritable variation in cellular processes. The current consensus is that the simplest way to achieve these characteristics is to house informational polymers (such as DNA and RNA) and a metabolic system that chemically regulates and regenerates cellular components within a physical container (such as a lipid vesicle).

4) Two recent workshops(1) reviewed the state of the art in artificial cell research, much of which focuses on self-replicating lipid vesicles. David Deamer (Univ. of California, Santa Cruz) and Pier Luigi Luisi (ETH Zurich) each described the production of lipids using light energy, and the template-directed self-replication of RNA within a lipid vesicle. In addition, Luisi demonstrated the polymerization of amino acids into proteins on the vesicle surface, which acts as a catalyst for the polymerization process. The principal hurdle remains the synthesis of efficient RNA replicases and related enzymes entirely within an artificial cell. Martin Hanczyc (Harvard Univ.) showed how the formation of lipid vesicles can be catalyzed by encapsulated clay particles with RNA adsorbed on their surfaces. This suggests that encapsulated clay could catalyze both the formation of lipid vesicles and the polymerization of RNA.

References (abridged):

1. http://www.ees.lanl.gov/protocells

2. C. Hutchinson et al., Science 286, 2165 (1999)

3. M. Bedau et al., Artif. Life 6, 363 (2000)

4. J. Szostak et al., Nature 409, 387 (2001)

5. A. Pohorille, D. Deamer, Trends Biotechnol. 20, 123 (2002)

Science http://www.sciencemag.org

ScienceWeek http://scienceweek.com

http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw050429-1.htm

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Strategic partial-quoting. Since you won't answer the previous questions, here's another,

I've answered all the questions asked me.

The ones that are valid anyhow.

Why should I answer a question that insists I said something I didn't?

You can't see much, so how can you think that it appears to be lucky?

Man, I feel like this is a lame monty python episode.

I said from what I CAN see, it SEEMS like it.

I never made a statement about HOW much I could see.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Seems to me you didn't express yourself very clearly.

No, things where interjected into what I said. What I said was clear.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by chris v

So, it seems that life happened by chance on Earth,

Is that your opinion?

and that is in our favor, according to Kevin.

No, I just said we were lucky. I said nothing about the happen-chance of life on Earth.

[FulcrumPilot]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Is that your opinion?

No, I just said we were lucky.

Lucky is a subjective word.

[Kevin]

Yes, and that is a good thing since I was offering an opinion.

[zerostar]

Assuming an event with the odds of 1:1,000,000, the event does not have to occur on the very last trial. The event may occur in any of the 1,000,000 trials. In fact, the odds are even that the event would occur in the first half of the trials. The odds are exactly the same for it to occur on the very first trial as the last. Probability does not tell us that 999,999 trials must have occured prior to a successful outcome. If each trial requires just one second, we may have a successful outcome in just one second or in 1,000,000 seconds or any value in between.

I would also like to point out that the Theory of Evolution does not say that "at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds"

The whole notion of life coming from non-life has NOTHING to do with the ToE, so those of us who believe that we all evolved don't necessarily believe that life "just happened" there are many theories of how it did though.

[Dale Sorel]

Boy, is this thread ever a waste of time

[budster101]

Every time you flip a coin you have a 50/50 chance of getting heads or tails...

I don't think life was a coin flip though, but I think I have a 50/50 chance of changing my mind...

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by budster101

Every time you flip a coin you have a 50/50 chance of getting heads or tails.

And what if you flipped the coin 20 times and got heads 20 times in a row?

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by budster101

Every time you flip a coin you have a 50/50 chance of getting heads or tails...

I don't think life was a coin flip though, but I think I have a 50/50 chance of changing my mind...

Ah Come! come!

Is this how you learn?

Careful; you have 1 chance in 2 of answering right...

This reminds me that some quantum theorists speculated that the universe is multiplied as the number of possible configurations, explaining the number of infinite parallel universes. Although unseen, and likely to be unprovable, it is plausible.

This means that there is at least one universe where life happened and on only one planet; Earth.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Dale Sorel

Boy, is this thread ever a waste of time

Boy, is it ever in teh luonge, which is a pretty clear indication of its usefullness.

[Dale Sorel]

Originally Posted by chris v

Boy, is it ever in teh luonge, which is a pretty clear indication of its usefullness.

Wanna try again, this time in English

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Dale Sorel

Wanna try again, this time in English

Do you really have time for that?

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, I just said we were lucky. I said nothing about the happen-chance of life on Earth.

You're right-- we're lucky that whatever happened, that it didn't happen on Neptune. We'd be freezing our asses off.

I still can't seperate "luck" from "chance." the two concepts seem joined at the hip.

Note I said seem, and that it is my opinion.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Dale Sorel

Wanna try again, this time in English

No.

(that was in Spanish)

[sminch]

The point is this: It isn't as though the scientists are all in-the-know while those ignorant of statistics fall into some convenient acceptance of a god. This oversimplification of the argument misses the mark and makes it appear as though you, the teacher in this case, possess limited insight into the matter. Just tryin' to help out, here.

i would like to vigorously defend my right to oversimplify an argument to the point of making myself look like an idiot - it is clear that anyone who disagrees with me is stupid and wrong and probably looks funny.

sminch

[budster101]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

Ah Come! come!

Is this how you learn?

Careful; you have 1 chance in 2 of answering right...

This reminds me that some quantum theorists speculated that the universe is multiplied as the number of possible configurations, explaining the number of infinite parallel universes. Although unseen, and likely to be unprovable, it is plausible.

This means that there is at least one universe where life happened and on only one planet; Earth.

Not mostly. (Hang on. <flips coin>)
Nope.

That's what I was going to say next. ((Universe x nconfig )* infiniti - nconfig^2 +1)

It's like we are on teh different wavelength together or something.

Yes. Yes. At least one universe where life happened and that planet is named Earth.

Earth < The only planet not named after a mythic god. (More useless information available)

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by budster101

Not mostly. (Hang on. <flips coin>)
Nope.

That's what I was going to say next. ((Universe x nconfig )* infiniti - nconfig^2 +1)

It's like we are on teh different wavelength together or something.

Yes. Yes. At least one universe where life happened and that planet is named Earth.

Earth < The only planet not named after a mythic god. (More useless information available)

Some call it "Gaia".

Teh polts tihckens...

[iNub]

I think 'accident' might be suggesting something other than what the author intended. I think he meant to say 'fluke' or 'slim chance'. Are we alone in the universe? At this point, I hope we are. With all the horrible things we do to each other, what would we do to another culture? Perhaps they're out there, but don't want us to know they exist because we're such primitive monkeys. Or maybe we're the Antha, just starting our long journey back into the stars.

I like the "RNA World" hypothesis better than the others I've seen in my life.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Y3a

isn't it interesting to note that time is elastic. like space, so we may never know how long we've been within our universe?

Time isn't elastic - it's static. The illusion of moving through time is just that - an illusion. The length of time we've been in our universe is precisely now... ...and no longer.

[budster101]

If life is an accident, then why buy insurance? It's already happened?

[Salty]

Probability is not if you have a 1/2 chance that if you get it wrong the first time the second time you'll get it right. Likewise if the probability is one in a million that means every time you flip the coin or whatever you have a one in a million shot. Not if you do it a million times you'll get it.

That said the point is moot really for most people. All it is for the average person who'll debate it all is a reason to get their panties in a bunch and try and sound smart/better than someone else who thinks differently. Cause after all if you can convince yourself that nobody else is as good as you you'll finally fill that hole inside of you... oh wait... it's still there? Better try alcohol next.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Salty

That said the point is moot really for most people. All it is for the average person who'll debate it all is a reason to get their panties in a bunch and try and sound smart/better than someone else who thinks differently. Cause after all if you can convince yourself that nobody else is as good as you you'll finally fill that hole inside of you... oh wait... it's still there? Better try alcohol next.

What on earth are you on about? Fill a hole? Discussion is the lifeblood of progress, of knowledge and discovery.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Salty

That said the point is moot really for most people. All it is for the average person who'll debate it all is a reason to get their panties in a bunch and try and sound smart/better than someone else who thinks differently. Cause after all if you can convince yourself that nobody else is as good as you you'll finally fill that hole inside of you... oh wait... it's still there? Better try alcohol next.

Why try alcohol when the intoxicating qualities of religion can be so much more effective?

[sminch]

Cause after all if you can convince yourself that nobody else is as good as you you'll finally fill that hole inside of you... oh wait... it's still there? Better try alcohol next.

i love the idea that anyone who doesn't believe in the same god as me clearly has a hole that needs to be filled. i mean seriously, could you be more arrogant?

better try alcohol next? nice to know that your worldview comes down to either believing in jesus or being a sad alcoholic in search of completion through a scientific theory. are you honestly training to become a priest / pastor / whatever, because if you are and they accept you into the training program i'm truly aghast.

sminch

[saddino]

Originally Posted by Salty

Probability is not if you have a 1/2 chance that if you get it wrong the first time the second time you'll get it right.

You're right, each individual occurance has the same probability. But that's very different from the probability that some occurance will eventually transpire. And in that case, the number of times does matter. Of course, it's not 1-p as you point out, but it does go up.

What are the chances you'll flip heads? 50% No matter how many times you flip, it's 50% each time.

But, what are the chances that of 100 people in a room, all flipping a coin, at least one will flip heads? Why, it's almost 100% certain. Even though each had a 50% probability.

Same with the lottery. Chances I'll win Powerball? One-in-120-million. Chances somebody (anybody) wins Powerball? Typically after a number of drawings somebody wins. In fact, per the history of Powerball, it's 100% someone will win before the jackpot exceeds $500 million. So, clearly, even with one-in-120-million odds, someone always wins the lottery.

In sum, even if there is a one-in-a-billion chance that life can occur in one place, adding trillions of different places greatly increases the odds of life occurring at least once. That's AFAIK the original issue that was being discussed here.

In other words, yes, it's not that surpising that life occurred given the sheer number of places it had a chance, however small, that it would occur.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Salty

Probability is not if you have a 1/2 chance that if you get it wrong the first time the second time you'll get it right. Likewise if the probability is one in a million that means every time you flip the coin or whatever you have a one in a million shot. Not if you do it a million times you'll get it.

While each individual flip still has an equally infinitesimal chance of being the rare one, cumulatively the set of a million flips will most likely contain one of the rare kind.

You seem to be saying that the probability of getting a rare result does not increase with a larger sample set. This is wrong. Otherwise, you could flip a coin a million times and only have a 50 percent chance of it ever coming up heads — clearly, reality does not bear that scenario out. Even though the odds of each individual flip coming up heads are only 1:1, cumulatively it's basically certain that 50 percent of the flips will be heads, not 50 percent certain that any of them will be heads.

Originally Posted by Salty

That said the point is moot really for most people. All it is for the average person who'll debate it all is a reason to get their panties in a bunch and try and sound smart/better than someone else who thinks differently. Cause after all if you can convince yourself that nobody else is as good as you you'll finally fill that hole inside of you...

You're just baiting Kerrigan now, aren't you?

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

That's uncalled for, grow up.

No, it was totally called for. He's an idiot. I simply stated the fact.

Originally Posted by turtle777

Seconded.

Cipher13, calling people with a different opinion from yours names makes YOU the idiot.

-t

Yes, and opinions can be wrong. This is not a matter as subjective as "what is the best book in the world?", where opinions can all be valid so long as they're backed up.

His opinion is incorrect. Backing him up makes you equally idiotic. I remain unscathed.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Ah, I got my daily recommended does of pretentious condescending banter today.

Thanks.

Somebody's gotta do it. Don't hate me for being right.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Cipher13

No, it was totally called for. He's an idiot. I simply stated the fact.

That isn't a fact Cipher. That is your opinion. You aren't so pretentious to believe just because you have said opinion, it automatically makes it a fact do you?

Yes, and opinions can be wrong. This is not a matter as subjective as "what is the best book in the world?", where opinions can all be valid so long as they're backed up.

His opinion is incorrect. Backing him up makes you equally idiotic. I remain unscathed.

Ah the "His opinion is wrong, mine is right, so he is an idiot" routine.

I thought only insecure people did that.

Somebody's gotta do it. Don't hate me for being right.

I don't hate you, nor do I agree that you are in the "right" or that you've come of "unscathed"

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by Kevin

That isn't a fact Cipher. That is your opinion. You aren't so pretentious to believe just because you have said opinion, it automatically makes it a fact do you?

No, no, of course not. However, I would not hold that opinion if it was not valid. It isn't a fact because I believe it; I believe it because it's a fact. It's empirical - based upon his statements and actions, he's an idiot. Whether I'm pretentious or arrogant is irrelevant; all that matters is whether I'm right or not.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Ah the "His opinion is wrong, mine is right, so he is an idiot" routine.

I thought only insecure people did that.

Insecure people, and correct people.

I don't hate you, nor do I agree that you are in the "right" or that you've come of "unscathed"

I'm not interested in my condition here... only why you don't think I'm right?

The reason those noted people are idiots isn't because they're wrong. That's a part of it; Railroader is an idiot because of his complete lack of comprehension. He attempted to be a smartass and made a fool of himself. Anybody with any sense realised I wasn't postulating that there was exactly a one in a million chance of life evolving, but it seems he did not. Therefore, he's an idiot.

Salty (Superchicken) is just a moron. He has proved this since he's been here, and never ceases to support the fact. Read his posts in here. Do you truly disagree with what I said?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Cipher13

No, no, of course not. However, I would not hold that opinion if it was not valid. It isn't a fact because I believe it; I believe it because it's a fact. It's empirical - based upon his statements and actions, he's an idiot. Whether I'm pretentious or arrogant is irrelevant; all that matters is whether I'm right or not.

And others disagree with you. Obviously there is conflict.

Insecure people, and correct people.

No, correct secure people have no need to act like that.

I'm not interested in my condition here... only why you don't think I'm right?

The reason those noted people are idiots isn't because they're wrong. That's a part of it; Railroader is an idiot because of his complete lack of comprehension.

I've talked to him many times. No comprehension problem coming from him. So I guess your wrong about him having a complete lack of it.

He attempted to be a smartass and made a fool of himself. Anybody with any sense realised I wasn't postulating that there was exactly a one in a million chance of life evolving, but it seems he did not. Therefore, he's an idiot.

Ah, I think you may be projecting a tad there. I didn't see him make a fool out of himself. I saw someone else do it however.

Salty (Superchicken) is just a moron. He has proved this since he's been here, and never ceases to support the fact. Read his posts in here. Do you truly disagree with what I said?

I disagree on what you are saying.

And Salty isn't a moron. He is just young and naive.

There is a difference.

And a idiot could not hold down a full time job.

No need to berate people that you disagree with Cipher.

It doesn't make you look more "right"

Just more "desperate" and "insecure"

If you KNOW that you are right. And are SECURE in your beliefs, you would not feel the need to berate people.

The reason behind doing such things is to make one feel smarter and superior.

And the only reason people would want that, is if they were feeling insecure in the first place.

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by Kevin

And others disagree with you. Obviously there is conflict.

Then they're wrong too. Anyone that thinks that Salty and Railroader aren't idiots, can join them in my opinion. I never thought this of Railroader until this thread, but Salty, well... he's another matter.

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, correct secure people have no need to act like that.

No need, sure. I decided to. There was no necessity.

Originally Posted by Kevin

I've talked to him many times. No comprehension problem coming from him. So I guess your wrong about him having a complete lack of it.

Go back and read his comments, then dispute his comprehension.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Ah, I think you may be projecting a tad there. I didn't see him make a fool out of himself. I saw someone else do it however.

Go and read that again, too. His comments were idiotic. I'm sorry you don't see this.

Originally Posted by Kevin

I disagree on what you are saying.

And Salty isn't a moron. He is just young and naive.

There is a difference.

And a idiot could not hold down a full time job.

No need to berate people that you disagree with Cipher.

It doesn't make you look more "right"

Just more "desperate" and "insecure"

He's a moron, perhaps because he's young and naive. He's still a moron, though, regardless of the reason. The difference is irrelevant.

Hah, the majority of people holding full time jobs are idiots. Of course an idiot can hold a full time job. Ever been on public transport?

I'm not trying to look more right. I know I'm correct, and I know the intelligent readers here realise this. I'm not desperate, or insecure. How is it that you go from calling me pretentious, and arrogant, to insecure and desperate?

It seems, unfortunately, that you're equally as incapable as Railroader.

Oh well.

EDIT:

You edited your post to include:

If you KNOW that you are right. And are SECURE in your beliefs, you would not feel the need to berate people.

The reason behind doing such things is to make one feel smarter and superior.

And the only reason people would want that, is if they were feeling insecure in the first place.

Nope. It's not to feel smarter or superior. I'm already those things it would seem. It's because I can. Yep, I may be an asshole, but whatever.

I'm right, Salty is wrong, and Railroader needs to work on his literacy. I point these things out because I don't like people being wrong.

Please give up your little game of trying to make me look insecure. I'm not, and even if I was, it wouldn't matter, because I'm still right.

[budster101]

Look, the thread is off track and I don't think it should be locked just yet because a tif, so just put your dukes down and let's get on with the idiotic discussion of why or why not we were an accident.

I think we were an on purpose, but you never know. If you did, it might cause your head to explode...

It would be a nice thought if we weren't the orphans of the Universe.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Cipher13

Then they're wrong too. Anyone that thinks that Salty and Railroader aren't idiots, can join them in my opinion. I never thought this of Railroader until this thread, but Salty, well... he's another matter.

Well Cipher, all I got to say is, the only real idiots I know in real life spend a lot of time calling others idiots.

One thing I have found out in life. The smarter people think they are, the more clueless they actually become.

And guess what, most assholes act like assholes because they are insecure.

But hey Cipher, keep on patting yourself on the back, and keep telling yourself how smart and clever you are.

Someone has to do it.

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Well Cipher, all I got to say is, the only real idiots I know in real life spend a lot of time calling others idiots.

One thing I have found out in life. The smarter people think they are, the more clueless they actually become.

And guess what, most assholes act like assholes because they are insecure.

But hey Cipher, keep on patting yourself on the back, and keep telling yourself how smart and clever you are.

Someone has to do it.

Meh. You're wrong about everything else so far, so what makes those comments of yours so solid?

As I said, I'm not interested in this petty argument about me.

I want you to, as I suggested, go back and read the comments and assess them. You failed to do this.

Salty is wrong. You defended him without basis. Same with Railroader.

Aw, you were making unqualified remarks? Shame.

[Salty]

Originally Posted by saddino

You're right, each individual occurance has the same probability. But that's very different from the probability that some occurance will eventually transpire. And in that case, the number of times does matter. Of course, it's not 1-p as you point out, but it does go up.

What are the chances you'll flip heads? 50% No matter how many times you flip, it's 50% each time.

But, what are the chances that of 100 people in a room, all flipping a coin, at least one will flip heads? Why, it's almost 100% certain. Even though each had a 50% probability.

Same with the lottery. Chances I'll win Powerball? One-in-120-million. Chances somebody (anybody) wins Powerball? Typically after a number of drawings somebody wins. In fact, per the history of Powerball, it's 100% someone will win before the jackpot exceeds $500 million. So, clearly, even with one-in-120-million odds, someone always wins the lottery.

In sum, even if there is a one-in-a-billion chance that life can occur in one place, adding trillions of different places greatly increases the odds of life occurring at least once. That's AFAIK the original issue that was being discussed here.

In other words, yes, it's not that surpising that life occurred given the sheer number of places it had a chance, however small, that it would occur.

Yes, this is the old a thousand monkeys on a thousand type writers would eventually compile the complex works or Shakespeare.

Which makes sense... however in actual fact, though, when they tried this recently with computers... the monkeys just defecated on the keyboards.
Fact is we've never actually SEEN life spontaneously generate. We just assume because we're here it's been done.

And for the record, my reasons for arguing against evolutionist theory is not because I'm a Christian. Dun dun dun, I know I know I know, what the heck am I talking about, I thought only religious nut jobs didn't believe in evolution. No my reason for not believing it and arguing against it is that it simply doesn't makes sense. Ultimately if it were ever proven all that would mean is that one of many ways to read the book of Genesis was flawed. Though even that is dubious to say since there are ways of casting doubt on just about anything.
So for those of you who think I have something personal invested in it you're wrong. I just find the pushing of a theory that in my opinion doesn't have enough evidence to back it up is insulting to the truth.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Cipher13

I want you to, as I suggested, go back and read the comments and assess them. You failed to do this.

No, you are WRONG, I read the WHOLE thread. How does it feel WRONG?
Does that suddenly now make you an idiot too?

Salty is wrong. You defended him without basis. Same with Railroader.

I defended them against your insecure and hateful replies. As did 3 other people.

BUT WE ARE ALL WRONG11!!

[Salty]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, you are WRONG, I read the WHOLE thread. How does it feel WRONG?
Does that suddenly now make you an idiot too?

Now now Zimph, we all know that there's no possible way Cipher could be wrong... I mean, he's studied at like... I dono somewhere... and he says he has qualifications that apparently nobody who thinks differently could match (cause after all if we could then we'd obviously agree with him, because all those people that are smarter than him also all agree...). So really we should just give up trying to disagree... let's just give up individual thought, and follow whatever Cipher tells us. We can be like those kids that watch MTV... only with less baggy pants...

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, you are WRONG, I read the WHOLE thread. How does it feel WRONG?
Does that suddenly now make you an idiot too?

I defended them against your insecure and hateful replies. As did 3 other people.

BUT WE ARE ALL WRONG11!!

No, it makes you an idiot for being wrong along with them

I suppose I shouldn't have expected any better from you.

[Salty]

Originally Posted by Cipher13

I suppose I shouldn't have expected any better from you.

Exactly, we've already done the same for you a very long time ago.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Cipher13

No, it makes you an idiot for being wrong along with them

I suppose I shouldn't have expected any better from you.

Tell you what Cipher, just from now one respond with these two words

"pretentious and condescending"

That way it will take up less space, and will show less of your insecure side.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Cipher13

Yes, and opinions can be wrong.

Quoted for emphasis.

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Tell you what Cipher, just from now one respond with these two words

"pretentious and condescending"

That way it will take up less space, and will show less of your insecure side.

Three words?

Typical Zimph argument, though. Pick something to latch onto and just run with it like a Christian with a bible. No matter how ridiculous.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Cipher13

The reason those noted people are idiots isn't because they're wrong. That's a part of it; Railroader is an idiot because of his complete lack of comprehension. He attempted to be a smartass and made a fool of himself. Anybody with any sense realised I wasn't postulating that there was exactly a one in a million chance of life evolving, but it seems he did not. Therefore, he's an idiot.

Salty (Superchicken) is just a moron. He has proved this since he's been here, and never ceases to support the fact. Read his posts in here. Do you truly disagree with what I said?

Well, because people are wrong in a statement, that makes the statement stupid, probably, or misguided, or incorrect. Not the people.

If people are constantly incorrect, do not improve, and always misguided in their judgements, that still does not make them idiots, since that would be generalizing on their status from only a few observations.

In generalizing on people status from a few observation, you make a similar mistake as the one you blame others for.

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

Well, because people are wrong in a statement, that makes the statement stupid, probably, or misguided, or incorrect. Not the people.

If people are constantly incorrect, do not improve, and always misguided in their judgements, that still does not make them idiots, since that would be generalizing on their status from only a few observations.

In generalizing on people status from a few observation, you make a similar mistake as the one you blame others for.

Yeah, fair enough. The problem is, my observations are inherently limited, due to the medium through which we communicate. Thus, it's a given that any comment I make is based solely upon observations from MacNN.

My observations may be limited overall, but as a representation of somebody's online persona, they're fairly accurate... and I'd argue that if, as you say, a person is constantly misguided or incorrect, they are probably stupid (using the word loosely).

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by budster101

Look, the thread is off track and I don't think it should be locked just yet because a tif, so just put your dukes down and let's get on with the idiotic discussion of why or why not we were an accident.

I think we were an on purpose, but you never know. If you did, it might cause your head to explode...

It would be a nice thought if we weren't the orphans of the Universe.

A few definitions for starters:

accident:anything that happens by chance without an apparent cause

probability:A branch of mathematics that measures the likelihood that an event will occur. Probabilities are expressed as numbers between 0 and 1. The probability of an impossible event is 0, while an event that is certain to occur has a probability of 1.

chance:Random variation. Difference between the outcomes from a sample of the population and the true value obtained from looking at the outcomes from the entire population. Statistical methods are used to estimate the probability that chance alone accounts for the differences in outcomes.

coincidence:The chance concurrence of two events having a peculiar correspondence between them.

Let us say life is an "accident". Understanding that accidents happenings that occur "without apparent cause", life may well haver come out of nothing, or from a divine intention, or from more complex principles. Therefore, if life is an accident, its causes appear unexplicable, but does not mean they are not. The value of a divine intervention is still good, although conservatism in the process of knowledge is better; simpler explanations better fit the bill generally.

That life appeared on Earth may be an accident, but what of other places? Truth is we do not know if it happened elsewhere. However, all things being equal, if there is only one life invested planet in our galaxy, life as we know it, and that this galaxy has 100 billion suns, and that 20 % of these are actually systems similar to ours, the odds are good that another planet like ours exists in a similar galaxy. IIRC, it is estimated that the number of galaxies in the known universe is beyond 100 billion. So 100 billion of galaxies times 100 billion suns = a pretty big number of which you need to take 20%.

Now, let's push it further; we need to ask ourselves the odds of life appearing at any time during the "lifetime" of the universe. Remember, we use the criteria of life as we know it. The universe is about 13 billion years old according to last estimates. Earth is about 5 billion years old. The universe could, either being closed or open, last at least another 20 billion years. So with a minimum of 35 billion years lifetime, life appearing at least once in 5 billion years, it is possible to estimate that it may have happened elsewhere before, and may happen again a couple of time in the near future. The reason is that the universe is not static; it is constantly evolving, in transformation. So our area is developped enough to permit the eclosion of life, and other areas were like so before elsewhere, and some other areas are just waiting...

Let us consider as well the idea that there could be other forms of life. We know that emergence principles makes it extremely likely that matter can organize itself given the right conditions. If it does so, what keeps us from hypothesizing that not only our life form on Earth exists, but also, other forms of life, some that may for ever be beyond our understanding. Some may be far advanced, some may stay extremely elusive because of their possibly very short existence.

Life could be an accident, however, odds are that because of the apparent universality of physical, chemical and mechanical processes occuring in the universe, the set of parameters necessary for life to happen elsewhere, life as we know it, makes it likely that we will find a constantly improving way to explain its apparition. Remember that human life on Earth, in terms of duration, is nothing compared to the life span of the universe.

The odds are good for life in the universe. The odds for us to discover life outside of our solar system, however, are extremely small, as the energy required to travel amongst the stars makes it less likely we will ever be able to prove the existence of others than for life appearing elsewhere...