There HAS to be life on other planets..

[ding]

What Is the Origin of Intelligence and Will?

Opposable thumbs and fire to cook food which effectively pre-digests food to allow for man to take in enough calories to fuel the brain which uses a disproportionate amount of energy to its size. The opposable thumb allowed man to develop spatial awareness which led to developing tools. Now you know.

 

[ding]

Prove God exists.

The universe spontaneously popping into existence in an improbable manner (i.e. nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter) implausibly being hardwired to produce intelligence (i.e. structure of matter and natural laws) and man's unwavering preference for goodness even when he violates it.

 

[ding]

So first of all, I’m not an atheist, i will admit that my faith is a bit unsure right now, I used to think I was a Christian but lately I’ve been questioning some things, so, all of what you wrote doesn’t apply.

Nothing wrong with that. Intelligent people are compelled (or at least should be compelled) to OBJECTIVELY study every side of an issue to arrive at objective truth which is exactly what I have done. What I will tell you from my own experience is that by becoming objective - which means to not have a preference for an outcome but to seek the truth no matter what impact that may have - I have reaped incredible rewards; both in my professional career and my personal relationships. Being objective about one's self is not for the feint of heart. But the peace, joy, happiness and success (i.e. providence) is more than worth it. Good luck.

 

[ding]

You can't prove the spiritual.

Sure you can. You are both a material being and a spiritual being. The flesh is of no avail. It's your spirit that you need to protect. The only thing that can never be taken from you is your good name. That you must give away.

 

[ChemEngineer]

The simple question was that, when I tried to ask about what possibility that there could be life out there, you started replying with Bible verses as a way to refute my argument, so, my next question was, if you are going to claim religion as a way to suggest there is no life out there, then you need to prove the existence of God.

The argument given by SETI enthusiasts is that "there are so many stars, and planets, SURELY life must have 'evolved' on many of them."

That does not follow because life did not evolve here. I have previously posted the insuperable statistics of original naturalistic protein synthesis. I'll post it again here for reference:

Thu 9/14/2023 11:35 AM

Hi John—



Your critique of the Dawkins weasel demonstration found its way to me, and

I agree with it entirely. I offered my own critique in Undeniable (p198-200). You hit the nail on the head! (I highlighted the red)

Regrettably, even solid refutations of evolutionary arguments like this don’t seem to get their proponents to rethink their position. I’ve become convinced that this is because the root problem is spiritual, not scientific or intellectual.

Best regards,

Doug Axe

Douglas Axe, PhD
Rosa Endowed Chair of Molecular Biology
Professor of Computational Biology
Co-Director of Stewart Science Honors Program
School of Science, Technology & Health
Biola University



_____________________________________


October 3, 2023

John, I think you were spot on.

Well put.

I think it's incredibly dumb to take Dawkins' position as fact or even possible.

Jason Cardova, PhD, Biochemistry



_____________________________________










https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program



In chapter 3 of his book The Blind Watchmaker, biologist Richard Dawkins gave the following introduction to the program, referencing the well-known infinite monkey theorem.*

“I don't know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare. The operative phrase is, of course, given enough time. Let us limit the task facing our monkey somewhat. Suppose that he has to produce, not the complete works of Shakespeare but just the short sentence 'Methinks it is like a weasel', and we shall make it relatively easy by giving him a typewriter with a restricted keyboard, one with just the 26 (capital) letters, and a space bar.1 How long will he take to write this one little sentence?”



“Mak(ing) it relatively easy” is only a small part of Dawkins’ unscientific extrapolation from a short sentence to “the complete works of Shakespeare,” much less what Sir Arthur Eddington originally said, as I explain below.



How lazy of Richard Dawkins to fail to look up the author of his monkey business. It was Sir Arthur Eddington.

In 1928, British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington presented a classical illustration of chance in his book, The Nature of the Physical World: “If I let my fingers wander idly over the keys of a typewriter it might happen that my screed made an intelligible sentence. If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters, they might write all the books in the British Museum.”

This is nonsense compounding nonsense. And yet my high school math teacher presented this proposition to his classes in the 1960’s.

First, an “army of monkeys” wouldn’t be very interested in hitting typewriter keys repeatedly. There is nothing for them to gain in so doing.

Second, those who did hit the keys would quickly get to the end of the line, and have no concept of returning the carriage to type the second line.

Third, those very few who somehow overcame the first and second hurdles, repeatedly, would find that the paper was ejected from the carriage, and they are hopelessly unable to replace the first page with a fresh sheet of paper.

Fourth, we will never get to the fourth problem of exhausting the ink in the typewriter ribbons because the “army of monkeys” would have defecated on or otherwise ruined every typewriter.

Fifth, Sir Arthur Eddington never began to consider the statistics of monkeys “selecting” 1 out of approximately 100 different keys, counting upper and lower case of all letters, numbers, and punctuation marks. A page of an average book has 250 – 300 words.

(https://hotghostwriter.com/blogs/blog/novel-length-how-long-is-long-enough)

*Finally, the largest army in the world is the People’s Liberation Army of Communist China, with over 2,000,000 troops. This is hardly “infinite” in number. (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/)



The average word has 6.47 letters. (https://capitalizemytitle.com/character-count/100-characters/)

Using the lower value of 250 words, times 6.47 letters is equal to 1,617 characters in a page.

1/100 to the 1,617th power is 10-3,234, for just one page, much less “all the books in the British Museum.”

“we just think of one chance in 10 to the 40th power” as “impossible”. – Richard Dawkins, (The Blind Watchmaker, page 142)

Emil Borel, a famous statistician, defined “impossible” as an event with a probability of 10 to the-50 or less.



https://owlcation.com/stem/Borels-Law-of-Probability



This is equivalent to finding one unique marble, in 923,400 billion billion spheres the size of earth, all full of identical marbles except for one, on your first and only attempt. You do not get an infinite number of attempts, not even two. It’s “1 in 10-50.



Calculations: (10 to the 5 marbles/km)3 = 10 to the 15 marbles per cubic km

10 to the 15 marbles/cubic km x 1.083 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometers/earth =1.083 x 10 to the 27 marbles to fill one earth sphere the size of earth.

10 to the 50 marbles / 1.083 x 10 to the 27 marbles/earth size sphere = 9.234 x 10 to the 23 earth-size spheres full of marbles, which is to say 923,400,000,000,000,000,000,000 (923,400 billion billion) earth-size spheres full to search and find the unique marble on your first and only try. Personally, I would call it impossible to find that unique marble in just one earth-sized sphere full of them.


Dawkins then goes on to show that a process of cumulative selection can take far fewer steps to reach any given target. In Dawkins' words:

We again use our computer monkey, but with a crucial difference in its program. It again begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, just as before ... it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error – 'mutation' – in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.



Note: Darwinian evolution has no “target.” It follows random mutations without any “target”whatsoever.” First Dawkins makes statistical claims that are nonsense. Next he “simplifies” the keyboard he is using to provide hypothetical evidence of Darwinism. Now he assigns a “target” which is non-existent for any random mutation, or any computer program intended to mimic random mutations followed by selection. This isn’t science, it’s wordplay for the naïve and gullible.



Generation 01: WDLTMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P [2]

Generation 02: WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P

Generation 10: MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRZREZ MECS P

Generation 20: MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL

Generation 30: METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL

Generation 40: METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL

Generation 43: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL



Dawkins continues:

“The exact time taken by the computer to reach the target doesn't matter. If you want to know, it completed the whole exercise for me, the first time, while I was out to lunch. It took about half an hour. (Computer enthusiasts may think this unduly slow. The reason is that the program was written in BASIC, a sort of computer baby-talk. When I rewrote it in Pascal, it took 11 seconds.) Computers are a bit faster at this kind of thing than monkeys, but the difference really isn't significant. What matters is the difference between the time taken by cumulative selection, and the time which the same computer, working flat out at the same rate, would take to reach the target phrase if it were forced to use the other procedure of single-step selection: about a million million million million million years. This is more than a million million million times as long as the universe has so far existed.”



So much for Dawkins’ specious argument in defense of Darwinism, which he proudly claimed, “… made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” (http://UncommonDescent.com) Twenty-six capital letters plus the space bar equals twenty-seven. Twenty-seven to the twenty-eighth power equals ten to the fortieth different possible combinations, of which we seek only one specifically. Dawkins admits his definition of “impossible” is 1 chance in 10 to the 40th power*. (*The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins, page 142) This is not for all of Shakespeare’s works, but for one short sentence, and even then, on a dramatically altered keyboard, not of fifty possible keys, lower case, and fifty more keys, upper case, but for only twenty-six keys, all upper case.



Of critical but neglected importance is the fact that for “selection” to occur, the intermediary produced by the random mutation MUST confer a “selective advantage” for the host organism, otherwise it will be lost. It is therefore incumbent on the advocate for Darwinism to demonstrate, in each case, what that improvement is and how it operates, every single time, without exception. “Selection” requires no less. This is easily done when copying short sentences, but not so easily done when originally constructing over 20,000 proteins in humans*a, the largest of which is titin, at 38,138*b amino acid residues in length. 1 out of 20 amino acids “selected” consecutively 38,138 times has a probability of 1 chance in 10 to the 49,618. This is for only one protein. Calculating for chirality, i.e. the “selection” of L amino acids instead of D amino acids*c and all peptide bonds rather than the equally probable non-peptide bonds*d reduces the probability of original naturalistic synthesis to 1 chance in 10 to the 72,578. Twenty thousand more proteins to go! Extrapolation from simple adaptation, to the evolution of the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) to all living organisms is clearly a statistical impossibility.



“All improvement (in a living cell) is therefore, in the first place lucky, which is why people mistakenly think of Darwinism as a theory of chance. But mistaken they are.” – Climbing Mount Improbable, page 82



(Our ‘maximum amount of luck’) is one chance in 10 to the 20th power. – Blind Watchmaker, page 146





a - https://www.omim.org/entry/188840\

b - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4889822/

c - ½ to the 38,138 = 10 to the -11,480

d - ½ to the 38,138 = 10 to the -11,480 ]

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The argument given by SETI enthusiasts is that "there are so many stars, and planets, SURELY life must have 'evolved' on many of them."

That does not follow because life did not evolve here.

Well, this dumb lie is why the academics all say life amost certainly evolved elsewhere in addition to here, and you are on the outside looking in.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The universe spontaneously popping into existence in an improbable manner (i.e. nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter) implausibly being hardwired to produce intelligence (i.e. structure of matter and natural laws) and man's unwavering preference for goodness even when he violates it.

Ok, thats a good theory, but it’s not proof.

(I really didn’t intend on this going into a religious discussion, but I guess when you talk about this stuff, it inevitably goes there)

 

[ThisIsMe]

Nothing wrong with that. Intelligent people are compelled (or at least should be compelled) to OBJECTIVELY study every side of an issue to arrive at objective truth which is exactly what I have done. What I will tell you from my own experience is that by becoming objective - which means to not have a preference for an outcome but to seek the truth no matter what impact that may have - I have reaped incredible rewards; both in my professional career and my personal relationships. Being objective about one's self is not for the feint of heart. But the peace, joy, happiness and success (i.e. providence) is more than worth it. Good luck.

Yep, but this isn’t the forum for religious discussion so I won’t comment on it any more than needed to be relative to the current topic.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The argument given by SETI enthusiasts is that "there are so many stars, and planets, SURELY life must have 'evolved' on many of them."

That does not follow because life did not evolve here. I have previously posted the insuperable statistics of original naturalistic protein synthesis. I'll post it again here for reference:

Thu 9/14/2023 11:35 AM

Hi John—



Your critique of the Dawkins weasel demonstration found its way to me, and

I agree with it entirely. I offered my own critique in Undeniable (p198-200). You hit the nail on the head! (I highlighted the red)

Regrettably, even solid refutations of evolutionary arguments like this don’t seem to get their proponents to rethink their position. I’ve become convinced that this is because the root problem is spiritual, not scientific or intellectual.

Best regards,

Doug Axe

Douglas Axe, PhD
Rosa Endowed Chair of Molecular Biology
Professor of Computational Biology
Co-Director of Stewart Science Honors Program
School of Science, Technology & Health
Biola University



_____________________________________


October 3, 2023

John, I think you were spot on.

Well put.

I think it's incredibly dumb to take Dawkins' position as fact or even possible.

Jason Cardova, PhD, Biochemistry



_____________________________________










https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program



In chapter 3 of his book The Blind Watchmaker, biologist Richard Dawkins gave the following introduction to the program, referencing the well-known infinite monkey theorem.*

“I don't know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare. The operative phrase is, of course, given enough time. Let us limit the task facing our monkey somewhat. Suppose that he has to produce, not the complete works of Shakespeare but just the short sentence 'Methinks it is like a weasel', and we shall make it relatively easy by giving him a typewriter with a restricted keyboard, one with just the 26 (capital) letters, and a space bar.1 How long will he take to write this one little sentence?”



“Mak(ing) it relatively easy” is only a small part of Dawkins’ unscientific extrapolation from a short sentence to “the complete works of Shakespeare,” much less what Sir Arthur Eddington originally said, as I explain below.



How lazy of Richard Dawkins to fail to look up the author of his monkey business. It was Sir Arthur Eddington.

In 1928, British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington presented a classical illustration of chance in his book, The Nature of the Physical World: “If I let my fingers wander idly over the keys of a typewriter it might happen that my screed made an intelligible sentence. If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters, they might write all the books in the British Museum.”

This is nonsense compounding nonsense. And yet my high school math teacher presented this proposition to his classes in the 1960’s.

First, an “army of monkeys” wouldn’t be very interested in hitting typewriter keys repeatedly. There is nothing for them to gain in so doing.

Second, those who did hit the keys would quickly get to the end of the line, and have no concept of returning the carriage to type the second line.

Third, those very few who somehow overcame the first and second hurdles, repeatedly, would find that the paper was ejected from the carriage, and they are hopelessly unable to replace the first page with a fresh sheet of paper.

Fourth, we will never get to the fourth problem of exhausting the ink in the typewriter ribbons because the “army of monkeys” would have defecated on or otherwise ruined every typewriter.

Fifth, Sir Arthur Eddington never began to consider the statistics of monkeys “selecting” 1 out of approximately 100 different keys, counting upper and lower case of all letters, numbers, and punctuation marks. A page of an average book has 250 – 300 words.

(https://hotghostwriter.com/blogs/blog/novel-length-how-long-is-long-enough)

*Finally, the largest army in the world is the People’s Liberation Army of Communist China, with over 2,000,000 troops. This is hardly “infinite” in number. (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/)



The average word has 6.47 letters. (https://capitalizemytitle.com/character-count/100-characters/)

Using the lower value of 250 words, times 6.47 letters is equal to 1,617 characters in a page.

1/100 to the 1,617th power is 10-3,234, for just one page, much less “all the books in the British Museum.”

“we just think of one chance in 10 to the 40th power” as “impossible”. – Richard Dawkins, (The Blind Watchmaker, page 142)

Emil Borel, a famous statistician, defined “impossible” as an event with a probability of 10 to the-50 or less.



https://owlcation.com/stem/Borels-Law-of-Probability



This is equivalent to finding one unique marble, in 923,400 billion billion spheres the size of earth, all full of identical marbles except for one, on your first and only attempt. You do not get an infinite number of attempts, not even two. It’s “1 in 10-50.



Calculations: (10 to the 5 marbles/km)3 = 10 to the 15 marbles per cubic km

10 to the 15 marbles/cubic km x 1.083 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometers/earth =1.083 x 10 to the 27 marbles to fill one earth sphere the size of earth.

10 to the 50 marbles / 1.083 x 10 to the 27 marbles/earth size sphere = 9.234 x 10 to the 23 earth-size spheres full of marbles, which is to say 923,400,000,000,000,000,000,000 (923,400 billion billion) earth-size spheres full to search and find the unique marble on your first and only try. Personally, I would call it impossible to find that unique marble in just one earth-sized sphere full of them.


Dawkins then goes on to show that a process of cumulative selection can take far fewer steps to reach any given target. In Dawkins' words:

We again use our computer monkey, but with a crucial difference in its program. It again begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, just as before ... it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error – 'mutation' – in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.



Note: Darwinian evolution has no “target.” It follows random mutations without any “target”whatsoever.” First Dawkins makes statistical claims that are nonsense. Next he “simplifies” the keyboard he is using to provide hypothetical evidence of Darwinism. Now he assigns a “target” which is non-existent for any random mutation, or any computer program intended to mimic random mutations followed by selection. This isn’t science, it’s wordplay for the naïve and gullible.



Generation 01: WDLTMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P [2]

Generation 02: WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P

Generation 10: MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRZREZ MECS P

Generation 20: MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL

Generation 30: METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL

Generation 40: METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL

Generation 43: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL



Dawkins continues:

“The exact time taken by the computer to reach the target doesn't matter. If you want to know, it completed the whole exercise for me, the first time, while I was out to lunch. It took about half an hour. (Computer enthusiasts may think this unduly slow. The reason is that the program was written in BASIC, a sort of computer baby-talk. When I rewrote it in Pascal, it took 11 seconds.) Computers are a bit faster at this kind of thing than monkeys, but the difference really isn't significant. What matters is the difference between the time taken by cumulative selection, and the time which the same computer, working flat out at the same rate, would take to reach the target phrase if it were forced to use the other procedure of single-step selection: about a million million million million million years. This is more than a million million million times as long as the universe has so far existed.”



So much for Dawkins’ specious argument in defense of Darwinism, which he proudly claimed, “… made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” (http://UncommonDescent.com) Twenty-six capital letters plus the space bar equals twenty-seven. Twenty-seven to the twenty-eighth power equals ten to the fortieth different possible combinations, of which we seek only one specifically. Dawkins admits his definition of “impossible” is 1 chance in 10 to the 40th power*. (*The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins, page 142) This is not for all of Shakespeare’s works, but for one short sentence, and even then, on a dramatically altered keyboard, not of fifty possible keys, lower case, and fifty more keys, upper case, but for only twenty-six keys, all upper case.



Of critical but neglected importance is the fact that for “selection” to occur, the intermediary produced by the random mutation MUST confer a “selective advantage” for the host organism, otherwise it will be lost. It is therefore incumbent on the advocate for Darwinism to demonstrate, in each case, what that improvement is and how it operates, every single time, without exception. “Selection” requires no less. This is easily done when copying short sentences, but not so easily done when originally constructing over 20,000 proteins in humans*a, the largest of which is titin, at 38,138*b amino acid residues in length. 1 out of 20 amino acids “selected” consecutively 38,138 times has a probability of 1 chance in 10 to the 49,618. This is for only one protein. Calculating for chirality, i.e. the “selection” of L amino acids instead of D amino acids*c and all peptide bonds rather than the equally probable non-peptide bonds*d reduces the probability of original naturalistic synthesis to 1 chance in 10 to the 72,578. Twenty thousand more proteins to go! Extrapolation from simple adaptation, to the evolution of the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) to all living organisms is clearly a statistical impossibility.



“All improvement (in a living cell) is therefore, in the first place lucky, which is why people mistakenly think of Darwinism as a theory of chance. But mistaken they are.” – Climbing Mount Improbable, page 82



(Our ‘maximum amount of luck’) is one chance in 10 to the 20th power. – Blind Watchmaker, page 146





a - https://www.omim.org/entry/188840\

b - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4889822/

c - ½ to the 38,138 = 10 to the -11,480

d - ½ to the 38,138 = 10 to the -11,480 ]

Ok, so, are we trying to prove God or are we working on debunking life elsewhere?

We don’t know how big the universe actually is, that means we can’t know the real number of planets, solar systems, and galaxies. NASA has placed the number of “solar systems” in then Milky Way at about 3200, and that’s just one galaxy. There could be up to 2 trillion galaxies, just in our observable universe.

There’s no telling how many galaxies exist in the entire universe, the number could be infinite but we believe we are the only planet in all of that, that produced life?

I’ve argued that physics could work differently in other places in the universe and that life could have developed in many different ways, but honestly, you don’t even need to go with alter theories. It’s much simpler than that. It could very well be that life developed exactly the same way as it did here on earth, many times over.

Again, my whole premise is that statistics just don’t favor us being the only planet with intelligent life. Given the number of possible solar systems in the universe, the odds that we are the only one are 1 in

 

[initforme]

My Christianity tells me there is life on other planets. Without a doubt.

 

[ding]

Ok, thats a good theory, but it’s not proof.

(I really didn’t intend on this going into a religious discussion, but I guess when you talk about this stuff, it inevitably goes there)

What evidence will you accept?

Why isn't it evidence? If you created something couldn't I use what you created as evidence? It's pretty common to use tangible items as evidence, right? Happens all the time, right?

 

[ding]

Yep, but this isn’t the forum for religious discussion so I won’t comment on it any more than needed to be relative to the current topic.

Ok, but I was responding to your question.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Well, this dumb lie is why the academics all say life amost certainly evolved elsewhere in addition to here, and you are on the outside looking in.

It is you who is the liar. "All academics" say nothing of the sort. I cited two of them who agreed completely with my analysis showing the impossibility of original synthesis of just ONE protein of our 20,000+ in our bodies. Read more from hundreds of academics refuting your lie here:

A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent

A topnotch WordPress.com site

theevolutionfraud.wordpress.com

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yep, but this isn’t the forum for religious discussion so I won’t comment on it any more than needed to be relative to the current topic.

That's right. And more specifically, there is no reason to give any legitimacy or providence to one particular iron age mythology, in this discussion.

 

[skye]

 

[scruffy]

There is another fact that puts a damper on the speculation of life elsewhere.

After decades and decades of high level research humans have not been able to create life in a lab.

FALSE

Goddammit, you stupid fucktards keep repeating that LIE.

It's been done in the laboratory from scratch FORTY times already.

There are already three brand new species because of it, that never existed before.

Stop with the bullshit, 'kay? It gives righties a bad name.

That means that the creation of life is extremely complex. The more complex it is the lesser chance of it being elsewhere.

We may have won the lottery here on earth. Whatever the number of factors that must have some together to produce life we got them here on earth but that doesn't mean life is elsewhere. If the universe is finite then it will have unique things in it. We may be unique with life.

Then on top of the creation of microbial life we have some very unique things on earth hat allowed advance evolution. That didn't even happen until the earth was four billion years old.

Please refer to my other thread. You can see graphically how it works in real life.

We now have AI and neural network models for these things. In the brain, pushing a neural network into criticality gives it 50x the speed and 2000x times the memory.

In a segment of DNA, one change in a base pair (a "point mutation") can push the entire system into criticality.

I mean no offense, but you need to hit the books. This is not your father's science. Criticality is extremely complex, so much so we can't even tell what we're looking at most of the time. However we can pick up fractal and power law signatures that give us clues.

Science is TODAY, not yesterday. Yesterday, Craig Vetter and his colleagues created a minimal life form from scratch in the laboratory. They synthesized all the DNA by hand (or rather, by machine). There were ZERO components from existing living cells. This science has been replicated hundreds of times already, all over the world.

Today, biophysicist like me are revisiting micelles. We have now catalogued all the different ways proteins can embed themselves into cell membranes, naturally forming trimers and tetramers by adopting their lowest stable energies. All this occurs through SELF assembly, humans just put the right number of molecules into a beaker and the rest happens by itself.

Life is a natural and inevitable consequence of the fabric of spacetime. There's nothing magical or mysterious about it.

 

[scruffy]

The existence of 1 star system after another, after another and then billions etc., isn't random. It's designed no other explanation. No serious person would suggest that there is any possible way that life magically appears on any planet .... when a planet is created it is 100% always void of life. It's impossible to create life from nothing.

Sigh.

How many times do we have to tell your ignorant self, that there's NO SUCH THING AS NOTHING.

"NOTHING" doesn't exist. It's a figment of your imagination.

 

[scruffy]

The elements for life may be common. In fact we pretty well know they are. Carbon molecules, water, energy, etc. However, be do not know how all these thing come together and what other factors have to be present like radiation or lack of radiation. One thing we do know is that there needs to be a stable sun for any life to exist. The great majority of the stars in the Universe are not as near as stable as our sun.

No. You're still thinking in the box. Life is not species, it's biophysics. Molecular. Charge, mass, symmetry and topology.

There is quantum tunneling in rhodopsin and the cytochromes. Photosynthesis wouldn't work without it. In this case, the shape is merely a substrate for information transfer.

 

[scruffy]

I don't see any reason to discuss this with you if you haven't been able to define for yourself what creating life in a lab means.

Come back to the discussion and then maybe ...............

Read about the minimal cell, then get back to us.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

We already know physics break down in black holes

No It does not.