Dechristo Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 (edited) it appears everyone is in your way, at this moment. Edited January 16, 2007 by Dechristo Quote
joblo7 Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 we dont give a fuck what you think!!! cause you dont know how to !!!! nice display of your skills of critical thinking in your rebuttal, V7 i 'll rebutt his ass if he formulates something from his own fucking pea brain!!! Quote
Seahawks Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 we dont give a fuck what you think!!! cause you dont know how to !!!! nice display of your skills of critical thinking in your rebuttal, V7 i 'll rebutt his ass if he formulates something from his own fucking pea brain!!! Like you don't get all your info out of someone elses text book also. Kettle calling the pot black. idiot. Quote
joblo7 Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 we dont give a fuck what you think!!! cause you dont know how to !!!! That's all you got after reading that???? idiot. THINK mother mocker THINK!!! cut and paste long shit dont mean shit!!!!! Little pissed becuase everything you thought in life isn't true?? Or the only way you have to defend your position? Louder and more annoying? my position is clear . YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SAY!!! so quote away dickhead! Quote
Dechristo Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 you're a fool if you believe all your ideas are your own Quote
Seahawks Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 you're a fool if you believe all your ideas are your own exactly. Quote
joblo7 Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 we dont give a fuck what you think!!! cause you dont know how to !!!! nice display of your skills of critical thinking in your rebuttal, V7 i 'll rebutt his ass if he formulates something from his own fucking pea brain!!! Like you don't get all your info out of someone elses text book also. Kettle calling the pot black. idiot. here your making a blind assumption based solely on how YOU operate. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 (edited) The probability of life occuring spontenously is 1: We're already here. Your analysis above, by the way, has been debunked for decades. Aside from the fact that you didn't even bother to present the format of your probabilities correctly (perhaps you were absent when the teacher presented scientific notation in grade school), this analysis is flawed in its suggestion that complex molecules are built in an entirely random fashion of things just bumping into other things. Many experiments have shown that a 'soup' of simple organic molecules will very quickly self assemble into RNA strings just as long as in your example. They do so because various certain atoms and molecules molecules have an affinity for each other, they are 'driven' to bond together by electromagnatic and atomic forces. An analogy: if you were dropped from a balloon, what is the probability you'll fall straight down? According to your logic, it would be nearly zero (since the direction of fall is 'randomly' determined. The presence of gravity, however, makes the probability 100%. So too, with molecular reactions. The forces involved (including gravity, which brings far away things together) make them inevitable under the right conditions. In addition, the building of long chain molecules happens sequentially, and hierachically, with each addition having a much higher probability than those you mention. This makes it quite likely that complex organic structures form quickly under the right conditions...just as experimentation has shown. Linky "In 1974, the German biologist Manfred Eigen (originator of the so-called Quasispecies Model) and his coworkers ran a similar experiment, but they did not introduce a single strand of RNA into the proper uncontaminated broth. Surprisingly enough, RNA strands appeared spontaneously which were almost as large as Spiegelman's monster (about 120 nucleotides, on average). So, it seems that something almost alive will necessarily appear, provided the proper building blocks are put together in a relatively crude way... In 1953, the celebrated Miller/Urey experiment proved conclusively that the most basic constituents of life (the 20 amino-acids) could indeed form spontaneously rather easily, in the presence of lightning, under the very anaerobic conditions prevalent at the surface of the young Earth. Although this is very far from a final solution to the puzzle, this constitutes a pretty strong hint that, given enough time, some kind of broth could form naturally with all the constituents that would make the appearance of rudimentary replicating "things" more or less unavoidable. " Edited January 16, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote
Seahawks Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 we dont give a fuck what you think!!! cause you dont know how to !!!! nice display of your skills of critical thinking in your rebuttal, V7 i 'll rebutt his ass if he formulates something from his own fucking pea brain!!! Like you don't get all your info out of someone elses text book also. Kettle calling the pot black. idiot. here your making a blind assumption based solely on how YOU operate. Regardless what I put up above was very well written and scientific and it pissed you off. Quote
joblo7 Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 ideas and concepts are OURS if and when we assimilate them and experience them ourselves. if you just keep quoting big text to get a point across then YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SAY. you try to use someone who does.like fuckers quoting the bible like that makes them anything....nothing wrong with that book.....but..... Quote
Seahawks Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 The probability of life occuring spontenously is 1: We're already here. Your analysis above, by the way, has been debunked for decades. Aside from the fact that you didn't even bother to present the format of your probabilities correctly (perhaps you're were absent when the teacher presented scientific notation in gradeschool), this analysis is flawed in its suggestion that complex molecules are built in an entirely random fashion of things just bumping into other things. Many experiments have shown that a 'soup' of simple organic molecules will very quickly self assemble into RNA strings just as long as in your example. They do so because various certain atoms and molecules molecules have an affinity for each other, they are 'driven' to bond together by electromagnatic and atomic forces. An analogy: if you were dropped from a balloon, what is the probability you'll fall straight down? According to your logic, it would be nearly zero (since the direction of fall is 'randomly' determined. The presence of gravity, however, makes the probability 100%. So too, with molecular reactions. The forces involved (including gravity, which brings far away things together) make them inevitable under the right conditions. In addition, the building of long chain molecules happens sequentially, and hierachically, with each addition having a much higher probability than those you mention. This makes it quite likely that complex organic structures form quickly under the right conditions...just as experimentation has shown. Linky "In 1974, the German biologist Manfred Eigen (originator of the so-called Quasispecies Model) and his coworkers ran a similar experiment, but they did not introduce a single strand of RNA into the proper uncontaminated broth. Surprisingly enough, RNA strands appeared spontaneously which were almost as large as Spiegelman's monster (about 120 nucleotides, on average). So, it seems that something almost alive will necessarily appear, provided the proper building blocks are put together in a relatively crude way... In 1953, the celebrated Miller/Urey experiment proved conclusively that the most basic constituents of life (the 20 amino-acids) could indeed form spontaneously rather easily, in the presence of lightning, under the very anaerobic conditions prevalent at the surface of the young Earth. Although this is very far from a final solution to the puzzle, this constitutes a pretty strong hint that, given enough time, some kind of broth could form naturally with all the constituents that would make the appearance of rudimentary replicating "things" more or less unavoidable. " . Funny how you think your smarter than a person who debating Los Alamos National Laboratory employees. Who has more degrees in this than you can ever get. But hey if you think your smarter great. Legend in your own mind. Quote
joblo7 Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 we dont give a fuck what you think!!! cause you dont know how to !!!! nice display of your skills of critical thinking in your rebuttal, V7 i 'll rebutt his ass if he formulates something from his own fucking pea brain!!! Like you don't get all your info out of someone elses text book also. Kettle calling the pot black. idiot. here your making a blind assumption based solely on how YOU operate. Regardless what I put up above was very well written and scientific and it pissed you off. do you think i am gonna read something that YOU would quote.I DONT HAVE TO 'CAUSE I KNOW ITS GONNA BE FUCKED UP 'CAUSE you're brainwashed! Quote
Seahawks Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 we dont give a fuck what you think!!! cause you dont know how to !!!! nice display of your skills of critical thinking in your rebuttal, V7 i 'll rebutt his ass if he formulates something from his own fucking pea brain!!! Like you don't get all your info out of someone elses text book also. Kettle calling the pot black. idiot. here your making a blind assumption based solely on how YOU operate. Regardless what I put up above was very well written and scientific and it pissed you off. do you think i am gonna read something that YOU would quote.I DONT HAVE TO 'CAUSE I KNOW ITS GONNA BE FUCKED UP 'CAUSE you're brainwashed! Brainwashed LOL look at you. You argue stuff that scientifically can't be upheld. I'd argue really your the one brainwashed. But since neither you or me were alive (and nobody else) nobody can prove shit. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 Funny how you think your smarter than a person who debating Los Alamos National Laboratory employees. Who has more degrees in this than you can ever get. But hey if you think your smarter great. Legend in your own mind. At least I can handle simple english tenses and the proper use of 'your' verses 'you're'. This doesn't exactly boost your scientific credibility. As for your author, perhaps he was debating the Los Alamos janitorial staff. Quote
olyclimber Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 old enough to know better, to young too care Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 His DNA sequences are dissembling. Quote
Dechristo Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 you've left persona of fearless serenity somewhere along the way Quote
joblo7 Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 you're unravelling LISTEN. i have a real moron on my hands here. this requires a sharp decisive intervention . please dont encourage him just 'cause you agree with his philosophy. Quote
Dechristo Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 I haven't agreed with anything, anywhere, anytime. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.