The meaning that emerges from the research of the team from the Hebrew University that Peirne participated in: today we have larger than average amounts in other solar systems of metals such as uranium, gold and platinum * "It may also have been one of the causes of the formation of life, but it is impossible to know for sure"
In an article published this month (December 1) in the "Nature Physics" magazine, a team of scientists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem offers an explanation for the mystery of radioactive plutonium in the solar system. Plutonium is a radioactive element. The longest-lived isotope of plutonium is plutonium-244, which decays within a period of about 120 million years.
In a conversation with the knowledge site, Prof. Piren says: "All the plutonium on Earth is created artificially, mainly in nuclear reactors. But it turns out that nature knows how to produce plutonium itself. We discovered evidence that in the early solar system there was a relatively large amount of plutonium than expected."
"Today, a very small amount of plutonium reaches us from outer space. There is dust in outer space that contains plutonium, this dust reaches the earth and sinks, as appears from measurements published in recent years, however there is a fundamental contradiction between the fact that in the early solar system there was a relatively large amount of plutonium as found in meteorites compared to the situation today where there is only a small amount of plutonium in near space .” Prof. Piren says and adds that the contrast between the existence of plutonium in large quantities in the solar system at the time of its formation and the findings of minute amounts of plutonium reaching the earth in the last millions of years leaves the origin of the radioactive plutonium a mystery.
The team of scientists of the Hebrew University proposes to reconcile this contrast by saying that plutonium, like other rare materials such as gold, platinum and uranium, was created in very rare mergers between two neutron stars.
"The source of the heavy elements that are produced in nature in the R process (neutron and proton capture process) is one of the mysteries concerning the formation of heavy elements," wrote Dr. Kenta Hotokazka, Prof. Zvi Piren and Prof. Michael Paul from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in their article.
There is evidence of the existence of a large amount of radioactive plutonium in the early solar system very close to the time when the solar system was formed and when the planets formed. However, measurements made today on Earth indicate that only a tiny amount of plutonium has reached the solar system from outer space in the last 100 million years.
The finding of plutonium-244 in the early solar system indicates that it was formed in an astrophysical event that happened not long ago (at least not in galactic time terms) and not far from the solar system when the latter formed. On the other hand, the small amount of plutonium currently reaching the solar system indicates the rarity of these collisions and the fact that such a collision has not occurred near the solar system for the past hundred million years.
"Since plutonium is formed in extremely rare processes of neutron star collisions, it is possible that such a collision occurred in the vicinity of the solar system close to its formation. The explosion contributed to the creation of plutonium and the heavy elements, we gained a larger than average share of rare elements, it may also have contributed to the formation of life, but we cannot know that."
Why is Earth bigger than Mars?
Complex organic molecules are found in the interstellar medium
173 תגובות
Raphael
Right…
Right!
And if you think about it a little more in depth, then you can think how this whole piece can actually be written with just one keystroke!
Raphael
....provided he has enough monkeys - you need at least one monkey to score a ball in each round.
Shabbat Shalom!
Miracles,
Good. I learned a lot. Apparently the Creator of the world sends all kinds of messengers from unexpected directions to help those who really want to understand the secrets of the Torah. I thank you very much. There is a lot more to talk about but it will have to wait, at least for me, until Sunday because now I have to turn off the transmitters for Shabbat Kodesh.
One important thing I learned today:
If there are only monkeys without intelligence then you need 27 to the power of 10,000 random typings to reach a creation of 10,000 letters.
If there is a smart person who knows that the plan is to reach a predefined creation of 10,000 letters, and has a few monkeys and a few bananas, then it only takes exactly 10,000 typings to reach the same result.
Shabbat Kodesh Shalom.
Raphael
Evolution has no final destination - the process will continue as long as the appropriate conditions are met. There is no "goal" at all - this word has no meaning in the physical world (it is a word we use to explain things to ourselves).
"Perfect fit" - in practice this will never happen due to stability problems (it's a shame to get into that).
Evolution needs 4 conditions: reproduction, variation, selection and inheritance. I think there could be a situation where the conditions would be met in nature. The same peptide I mentioned might fit these conditions. But note: in the first stage of the formation of life there is no choice yet (because there is no competition for resources). In this situation, the changes are random, and although there are changes, it is still not "Darwinian evolution". This is true even today - there are many genetic changes that do not cause a change in reproduction. This phenomenon is called "genetic drift".
Miracles
Say what you think - is there also a type of evolution in the still life that adapts it to its final goal, which is actually its perfect adaptation to the environment?
gift
The ability to move is already there, and moving towards the light is a simple addition.
What do you think? What was the selection factor that directed the creation of the mechanism?
Miracles
Of course you're right about the molecule's ability to sense light, but I'm talking about the whole from the moment the photon hits to the stage when the cell moves towards it. It is as sophisticated as "Hamlet". What do you think?
Raphael
I didn't mention intelligence - and I don't think there is intelligence. Between two certain particles there is an attraction - is this reasonable in your eyes? I don't think so.
The universe is very big, and as far as we know today, there is very little life in it. Also the time that there is life is very limited. 10 billion years ago there were no conditions for life (something like that) and in the meantime billions of years again there will be no conditions for life anywhere in the universe.
We live on borrowed time - there are many natural phenomena that can wipe out humanity - diseases, volcanoes, asteroids and gamma ray bursts. Another reason to believe that we do not have a special status in the universe.
It's hard for me to see natural phenomena as truth. I don't see a plan and I don't see a goal.
gift
Regarding Shakespeare - you are of course right. You need a selection factor, someone to say that the letter is correct or not.
Regarding sight - you are wrong (this is an argument of creationists from many years ago). Light is a powerful source of energy - frogs, for example, see a single photon! There are many very simple materials that are sensitive to light, so building a light-sensitive bio is not a problem. The substance in our eyes - retinal - is also made up of 49 atoms (and can be easily produced in a laboratory, as far as I know).
Therefore, one molecule of a simple substance is enough to create the ability to see.
Miracles
I mean, are you saying that there is an intelligence inherent in the universe from the day it was created that "guides" the way the various creatures of the plant and animal world develop into works that are perfect in their adaptation to the environment?
Can it be said that the detailed "plans" of those creations are in force in the universe from the day it was created and with the help of the same wisdom inherent in the laws of nature these plans come out of force into action?
Miracles,
The links do not satisfy me. They cause increasing hunger 🙂
I'm really happy to see an article that addresses exactly the question that intrigues me!
What I still don't understand is that the cheetah is already adapted to the environment and therefore any improvement in its speed is indeed complimented by the environment.
But in Shakespeare's example, when I add the letter c it still has no meaning before I finish the line.
And likewise, for example, in order to create the visual mechanism of the protist, a part of the light-sensitive cell was needed, which would transmit the information to another part of the cell, which would transmit further until the action that responds and approaches the light. It's a long algorithm, in my opinion, and before it's perfect - no letter in it is complimented.
Raphael
This is a beautiful and important insight. The answer in the case of evolution is the environment. Let's take a simple case. Deer have genes that determine running speed, and sometimes there is a change in running speed in one direction (faster or slower). Those deer that run faster manage to avoid the cheetahs, and the slower ones get to be hosted by the cheetahs for dinner. Thus - the environment "chooses" the right gene.
In civilized animals, the situation is similar - man chooses the stronger cows and the cows that produce more milk. :)
A researcher named Lansky is doing a long-term experiment with E. coli bacteria. In the experiment, completely new properties are seen, without the intervention of the researchers.
Miracles
So this monkey does not type freely, but there is a person above him who knows exactly what he wants to type and the monkey just "hands" him the letters. Just because the monkey doesn't understand the instruction give me a Gimmel letter let's say then he hands him letters randomly until he reaches the correct letter. So where is that intelligent person in your description who is actually the real keyboardist?
Raphael
After 13.5 (expected) typings we have one correct letter. After another 13.5 typings we have another correct letter. In this singular.... 2, right? After 135 typings - 10 correct letters. Multiply each division by 1000: after 135,000 typings - we have 10,000 correct letters.
The "secret" here is quick feedback. This is also the secret of evolution, and therefore evolution is many orders of magnitude more efficient than the babbling of the friendly astronomer.
Miracles
I guess the function of the bananas is to make the monkey stop moving to the next letter after a correct typing which happens on average after 13.5 typings. So the probability should be 13.5 to the power of 10000 and not a multiple of 10000. Regarding the number of monkeys I will respond after you answer how you got to 135000 typings only.
Raphael
The division into 2000 times 300 does not affect the complications at all. Simple bacteria have a single chromosome and a total of about 500 genes.
Raphael
I will explain through a parable. Let's say we want a transparent to type a play by Shakespeare. Let's say the play is 10,000 letters long. The probability (yes - it is allowed to use the word here because the division is even) of typing correctly is 27 to the power of 10,000. really low
Now - give the monkey a banana after each correct letter. On average - after every 13.5 characters - he will get a banana. Therefore we will get a perfect play after 135,000 characters. Much better.
What will happen if there are a lot of monkeys? We can get the play we wanted after 10,000 typings!
But we're not done - what will happen if we don't care which Shakespeare play we get? The number of steps will not be significantly reduced (although there are probably shorter plays) - but we will be able to make do with far fewer monkeys and far fewer bananas.
Therefore - my calculation is very strict and absorbs any comment you can give.
Miracles,
According to my poor understanding, your calculation refers to the creation of 600 thousand individual amino acids.
But we need them to be arranged in the form of 2000 proteins of 300 each that play as one living cell.
Where does the calculation of this come in?
Raphael
2000 times 300 is 600 thousand. There are 300 billion days in a billion years. That means half a million days to create one amino molecule. Assuming 100 cycles per day - this is 50 million generations to create an amino sand.
Now... maybe you will say - according to the article I linked to - what is the mutation rate of something like a virus?
Hoyle's cell is not a simple cell, so the calculation is very difficult.
Comments/clarifications/apologies?
Raphael
Is this article acceptable to you?
http://m.g3journal.org/content/1/3/183.full
Miracles
I can imagine the beads of sweat rolling off your wrinkled brow as you try to cram the grandiose transformation from a 32 amino acid peptide into a cell of 2000 proteins of 300 amino acids each into a period of just a billion years. No problem, take more time. Everyone is waiting to find your mouth.
Dodging whine?
Raphael
If you were an honest person, you wouldn't make silly excuses to answer simple questions.
You're caught contradicting yourself and you're caught using a calculation you don't even understand, to disprove a theory you don't understand, for a reason you can't reason with.
You are a coward and it shows in your behavior.
Miracles
I wrote you a detailed answer in Rachel, your little daughter. How long will you dodge?
Raphael
I'm not anonymous. Enough with your know-it-all... you're less smart than you think. I'm afraid you are less clever than I think….
Raphael
Don't be more stupid than you have to be. The last thing I wrote was a question: What is a cell for you? I'm asking because Hoyle was talking about a certain cell, and it's not the simple cell I'm referring to.
Hahaha… look for me around
Raphael
Are you ready to judge me?
I'm Rafael and you took my name. You suspect kosher.
hear miracles anonymous,
You can deny it from here until further notice, but I've corresponded with you long enough to know it's you. For example, the phrase "we'll try again" as far as I can remember, no one else has used it here except you. What happened? Stuck with the calculation so you try to waste time? It's just amusing what's going on here.
Rafael I do not perform miracles
Why don't you answer the questions?
Miracles
To me that you were infected while you were playing together with ET in the yard yesterday
Raphael,
"Yes. I am allowed to say something and indicate who I rely on."
I didn't say you shouldn't, but, if you don't have enough knowledge on the subject, what makes you adopt this particular calculation? Especially when you don't understand him?
"Do you think evolution is random or non-random? - I've already said a thousand times - it contains a random component."
I already explained to you why a random component does not make the whole process random. Hence you did not answer the question. Let's try again:
"Do you think evolution is random or non-random?"
Try not to involve parents.
"And now I have a question for you - how long do you intend to wait before you answer?"
What?
Miracles and Anonymous, or Miracles Anonymous, however you like,
What will happen? - We will all burst into song and dance
You don't have enough knowledge to reject it and at the same time you have enough knowledge to embrace it? - Yes. I am allowed to say something and indicate who I rely on. When your doctor gives you medicine you are allowed to take it even though you don't have enough knowledge to reject or adopt what he tells you.
Do you think evolution is random or non-random? - I've already said a thousand times - it contains a random component.
And now I have a question for you - how long do you intend to spend the time before you answer?
Raphael,
You wrote about Hoyle's calculation:
"I don't have enough knowledge to invalidate this calculation."
But before that you wrote, based on the same calculation:
"The luck we needed to be here is equivalent to winning the first prize in the lottery a very large number of times *in a row*", and then added that specifically "it's one in ten to the power of forty thousand."
I didn't understand, you don't have enough knowledge to reject it and at the same time you have enough knowledge to embrace it?
You also wrote:
1."Evolution is not random" - I disagree."
2."Regarding evolution - did I say it is random?"
I don't understand, do you think evolution is random or non-random?
Raphael
happily. But - what will happen when I bring a calculation and a source?
Miracles
I am glad to hear that you are not stressed and are interested in moving on and I also agree that the limits of the discussion should be defined. To that end, I am copying your response below:
"Hoyle's calculation is based on the random creation of an entire cell, a cell that contains 2000 proteins. A protein is about 300 amino acids long. The probability of a random creation of a single protein is 20 to the power of 300, but Hoyle "eased" and stated that it is 10 to the power of 20 (because there is some flexibility in the choice of amino acids). Now - for this to happen 2000 times comes out 10 to the power of 20 to the power of 2000 which is 10 to the power of 40,000 as you know.
But - let's look at what we know (meaning biologists and not astronomers). The estimate today is that there are peptides 32 amino acids long that can replicate:
The probability of the formation of such a peptide - given a uniform division - is 10 to the power of 40. Still low... but assuming that the ocean has 10 to the power of 24 liters, and the concentration of amino acids is per million liters (a very low concentration) - you get 10 to the power of 31 "opportunities" per year." That is, 10 to the power of 40 opportunities after a billion years"
I'm just taking your words. We need to get from a peptide 32 amino acids long to a cell that contains 2000 proteins where each protein is about 300 amino acids long.
Now you have to explain how it can be reached within a billion years and preferably also bring sources you relied on.
I am listening.
Raphael
I didn't understand - Hoyle's calculation is correct or not?
Raphael
Are you stressed? 🙂
You kept claiming that evolution is random, and after that you claimed that you didn't claim that...
Hoyle's formula is based on the random creation of a cell from amino acids, and I really hope for you that you checked what it was about before you quoted. What, you didn't check?
So if you say that evolution is not random, then Hoyle didn't mistake Raphael?
Before we talk about the transition from the first clone to the cell - would you be willing to explain to us the difference between the two? The first replicator, the one I described, is basically a peptide (do you know what it is without looking on Wikipedia?). But - what is a cell?
I ask because I want to define the limits of the discussion. We know today what the mutation rate is, and I just want to make sure we agree on what a cell is.
your turn!
Miracles
I did not "admit" that Hoyle's calculation is wrong because I do not have enough knowledge to invalidate this calculation.
I would be willing to go towards you and accept your calculation as well without examining or criticizing it.
You said it would take a billion years to get a first replicator. I got.
Then you said that "it is safe to assume that after another billion years simple cells will be produced"
So I simply asked you to explain to enlighten my eyes and the eyes of the other surfers.
Why are you so stressed?
Just explain and that's it.
Raphael
Since when do I have to prove something? You brought a calculation that you admit is wrong. What do you want from me?
Miracles
So your way of proving that it will only take another billion years to get from the first replicator to a living cell is "because it happened"? But how brilliant you are.
gift
Did you get an answer to your satisfaction?
gift
I agree with you, especially the last line.
The problem is that the guys here are stuck on the same replicating molecule and don't want to move forward.
I saw that you also asked K. What is the "educated guess" for the formation of life, i.e. a living cell.
We'll see if you get a direct and non-evasive answer (if at all).
Raphael,
Too bad, you are once again preventing yourself from taking part in an intelligent discussion. Will you even now blame the other commenters for your behavior?
If you're not willing to tell me if you agree with me about the non-randomness of evolution, that's fine. I will not die of curiosity. But your refusal to answer makes your position seem, shall we say, a little confused.
It's a shame he drank kosher.
As mentioned - send me an email and I will send you proof that Anonymous=Raphael
gift
Here is another source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8700225
Raphael
Because it happened….. I have no interest in talking to you Rafael because you are an arrogant liar.
gift
I have described a calculation here that shows that the expectancy for the formation of a primary replicator after a billion years is around 1. The source is:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9338780?dopt=Abstract
Raphael,
There are many examples that there is an evolutionary process. As a software engineer, or something like that, you know that there can be an algorithm written as "stack on top of stack". I have a line of code that doesn't work, I mark a line on it, and write another line below it, instead of deleting the previous line. Also in engineering, let's say if there is a pothole in the road, a bridge is built over the road. Is the bridge collapsing? Another bridge is being built over it. There are many such "scaffolds" in the DNA systems, which look like piles on top of piles, which suggests that there is an evolutionary process here.
Therefore, it is possible to come up with an "educated guess" and assume that there is evolution, because of the structure of things, even if we do not yet know what the probability of its existence is.
However, intellectually, it is very interesting to know whether it is a high chance and how much.
anonymous
I gave a source for "my" calculation. Rafael the liar ignores this of course. He also ignores the fact that he has been claiming all along that evolution is random.
I'm trying to figure out what Raphael is doing here - and the only thing I can think of is that he needs to find victims for his rabbi. He certainly did not come to learn, and did not come to express a coherent opinion.
K.
Could you please elaborate on that "educated guess", what is the overall estimate for the programming of spontaneous life creation.
#curiosity
Miracles
I just saw this "Evolution is not random, and it is safe to assume that after another billion years simple cells will be created"
Please explain why it can be safely assumed that after another billion years simple cells will be produced.
Now I'm sure miracles=anonymous
What misery! LOL…..
Raphael,
I have no way of knowing why you have this feeling, but you already asked in my opinion - I would guess that the reason for this is that you form your feeling based on a common prejudice.
The fact that there is still no alternative calculation to the wrong calculation does not undermine the credibility of the claim that it is wrong.
Regarding the calculation of miracles - you'd better ask him. The point I wanted to address was about the non-randomness of evolution. If you agree with me on this matter then there is no argument between us.
You are welcome to ask my father what you want. If you insist - send me your email address and I will send you a copy of your ID.
Raphael
That's enough.
I am not "anonymous".
Hoyle's calculation is wrong.
My calculation was done by a molecular biologist who knows what he's talking about, while Hoyle is an astronomer.
You will take care of something that you think justifies your belief, without understanding, and without admitting a mistake when it is explained to you over and over again.
Raphael - Please, stop it. Several people corrected you. Don't believe us - go to Wikipedia and learn.
Anonymous I got it. We're back to the point where we admit we don't have enough information to calculate the probability. So let's conclude that some scientists think Hoyle was wrong but have no other alternative calculation to offer. And you can throw all the calculations of miracles into the trash can.
Why, nevertheless, for some reason I have the feeling that although we do not know how to calculate the probability exactly, but we do know that the result that will be obtained will prove with certainty that there is not enough time to reach it?
By the way, you can ask my father to check if you are miracles or another regular responder. do you agree?
Raphael
The probability of creating an initial replicator is quite high, as I showed you.
Evolution is not random, and it is safe to assume that after another billion years, simple cells will be produced. If you think otherwise then explain why.
What is the next point you would like to learn about?
Raphael,
I'm not a miracle worker and I don't have enough free time to be one of the regular respondents here and it's a shame that you know something that isn't true.
The irony is that I am Raphael.
I could not use the name Raphael for obvious reasons.
I responded to your statement "evolution is not random" - I disagree."
In practice, as an opponent said, natural selection acts on the random component in a very non-random way.
If you play a spinner, and every time it lands on the letter N you will win yourself a donut, and every time you get any other result you will ignore it and play again, the process by which you will accumulate a billion donuts will not be random, even if your spinner has a billion wigs (of which only one of them is written the letter N).
Contrary to your claim, there is no calculation today that is not wrong by the computer the time it will take for a living cell to develop from the first replicator because we do not yet have all the data required to perform such a calculation.
Raphael
why are you lying?
Anonymous I know you are one of the regular respondents here. I would bet you are miracles. You just saw that you were talking nonsense, so you rushed to try to minimize damage by making a condescending statement under the title Anonymous.
And if you are not a miracle worker then you must have seen that those who take the path of street language and rudeness are precisely your "learned" colleagues. That's why I have to remind them from time to time that I can also pay them back in the same currency just to calm them down as much as possible.
Regarding evolution - did I say it is random? If that's what you're saying then you probably have a reading comprehension problem.
I said that it contains a random component and therefore it cannot be assumed with certainty that the same molecule will develop into a living cell and certainly it will not happen in one day.
So I offered to calculate the probability that it would become a living cell in my stomach so that we could also calculate how long it would take.
But here all of you, especially Nissim, got cold feet and started bombarding with blasphemies and vain claims just so you don't have to admit that this process will take much more than a billion years and much more than the age of the universe and then you'll have to eat your moldy hat.
K.
It's a shame that Raphael won't see your comment, although he probably won't understand anyway, so maybe it doesn't really matter that much.
Rafael, too bad. With answers like "in your mother" you prevent yourself from taking part in an intelligent discussion.
If you don't want to know why your claim that evolution is random is wrong, just say you don't want to know.
Profanity and street language do not contribute to the discussion and do not add respect to you.
Raphael
I answered you. If you are too stupid to understand the answer then bye.
You can continue to chat some more with the delusional life but don't go to bed late.
Miracles
Funny piece, it's so transparent that you will do anything but absolutely anything to not answer my simple question for the simple reason that it will bring the end of this discussion to the complete collapse of your claims.
Good night.
Life
Raphael - or his teacher and rabbi Amnon Yitzchak - is the snake in this story.
Raphael
Evolution is not random - mutations are. (An interesting point - it can be shown that the amount of randomness in mutations is directly related to the "quality" of the solution.)
You once said that you studied software - do you remember quicksort? This is a random algorithm, but the result is far from random.
Rafael... what is it, you've been out of your mind...
Raphael
reminder. The pharmacist wants to know what your medical qualification is. Did you study medicine in Hiopitz or Entebbe?
When the minister of the army Naaman asked the prophet Elisha, "Who lacks crazy people?" He meant you. He was a very wise man and foresaw the future. God would not cast you out of heaven. Because you lack the wisdom to eat from the tree of knowledge. The snake knew its stuff.
rival
I guess you, like everyone else, agree that there is a random element to evolution.
So it makes sense to ask what is the probability that that molecule will eventually become a living cell.
What's the problem with that?
Raphael,
The mutations are random, but the process that decides which mutation will survive and which will not is a really, really non-random process and it depends on the living environment. This is actually the most important part of evolution - natural selection, and it is really, really not random.
Haim honey
Go play a little with ET in the yard. Oh, yes, and don't forget to take the pills. OK honey?
Raphael,
If you don't have the relevant knowledge, as you wrote, to understand that Hoyle's argument is completely wrong, don't make claims that at best are stupid, it's enough that you're ignorant, we already saw that at the beginning, you don't have to be an idiot either. Also your insistence on justifying your stupid claim promoted by the number of miracles pierced is stupid because even this calculation does not take into account all the known chemical considerations that increase the chances significantly. All that Nissim wanted to show you is that even if you take an extremely conservative model (that is, which makes it difficult for us and reduces the chances) then not only is there a significantly greater chance than zero that such a peptide will be created, but given the known period of time until the appearance of life, the appearance of such an event is not surprising. Since we know that this is a very conservative model, the chances of such an event appearing are expected to be much higher under similar conditions.
In any case, the important bottom line is this - we do not know exactly how life developed (whether it developed on Earth or whether it came from another place) and we do not have a perfect statistical model for calculating the probability of this event, including the evolutionary continuation from the first replicator to cells and complex creatures, whatever there is To us it is an educated guess, that is, one based on the vast knowledge we have accumulated about the way things happen in our universe. People like you on the other hand, who don't even have the relevant knowledge to make an educated guess (or understand why stupid calculations are indeed stupid), flaunt their ignorance and make the infantile claim - it doesn't make sense to me... so surely a mysterious magician did it!
When you come back from your stupid statement: "The luck we needed to be here is equivalent to winning the first prize in the lottery a very large number of times *in a row*." And when you stated that you internalized that you should not calculate probabilities to show that something is impossible when you do not have a correct statistical model, I would be happy to refer to other things you write.
By the way, as a homework exercise that will show you why an incorrect statistical model leads to incredibly stupid probability calculations, try to calculate the probability that a solution containing a million chlorine ions and a million sodium ions will produce a salt crystal with the characteristic particular arrangement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionic_compound#/media/File:Sodium-chloride-3D-ionic.png
And not any other arrangement, and this without considering the electrical interactions between the ions. If you were to do this (and there is no chance that you will ever do this because you do not have the ability to perform such a calculation correctly and you do not have the desire to learn what is required to perform such a calculation) you would find that the low numbers that creationists accept for the probability of the random creation of a certain protein are so large Ridiculous compared to the tiny number that comes out in the calculation for the grain of salt. It goes without saying that if we use a correct statistical model it is easy to show why we will always get a neat crystal of salt.
anonymous user,
in your mother?
Miracles
"As I said, there are experiments that show that evolution is not random. By chance, I also performed such an experiment, in the software - the culture, random mutations,..."
random mutations??? random mutations???
A piece of fool who contradicts himself from her and hers 🙂
The fact that one of the components in the process is random does not make the entire process random...
To call evolution a random process is a most embarrassing mistake.
Miracles
Rafael is in terminal cognitive remission.
Life
There is always hope that he will learn. If he was less sure of himself, and a little smarter - I think he would be able to understand.
Just listen...
Raphael
As I said, there are experiments that show that evolution is not random.
By chance I also performed such an experiment, in software - the culture, random mutations, selection and inheritance - exactly what the rabbi needs for there to be evolution. The software always converges to the same solution.
Raphael - please, stop showing a lack of understanding. You are arrogant and stupid - a very bad combination. Really, it's getting awkward.
You are defeated, thank you, and go home.
Miracles
What do you expect from Raphael? You have endless arguments with him and what came of it, isn't it a waste of your time? I am sure of one thing, Raphael's spiritual teacher is Amnon Yitzchak.
Miracles
"From the moment the first replicator was created - there is evolution" - agrees
"Evolution is not random" - disagree. Evolution is based, among other things, on random mutations.
Good. I guess you've already realized that now you're really cornered, and why?
Because if it turns out, for example, that the probability of the formation of a living cell from that molecule is, for example, *only* one in ten to the 9th power, then you will already get ten to the forty-ninth power, which translates to a billion times a billion years, and it's really, really hard for you to swallow such a bitter pill!
Therefore I assume you will continue with endless evasion exercises and this whole discussion is already turning into pointless chewing gum.
Raphael
Stop showing off your arrogance, okay? You have no knowledge on the subject, so stop emphasizing it.
From the moment the first replicator was created - there is evolution. Evolution is not random. There are a large number of experiments that confirm this. Run evolution again under the same conditions - you will get very similar results.
Again - why argue about things you don't understand? You only make laughs…
Miracles
The probability of creating the most primitive replicating molecule is one in ten to the fortieth power. We already understood that.
For this to happen we need an ocean etc. and a billion years. This is also understandable.
further. This proliferating molecule is not a living cell. She does not feed and does not die. Is it agreed?
In order for it to turn into a living cell it has to go through random mutations and a process of evolution.
What is the probability that that molecule will become a living cell?
Take this probability and multiply it by ten to the 40th power and you will get a number that can be compared to the number Hoyle got and that we can compare to each other by comparing apples to apples. Then we can also see how many billions of years and how many oceans, etc. we need for this to happen.
If you haven't understood by now then you probably never will. In that case, try asking your three-year-old grandson, there is a chance that with such a detailed explanation he will understand.
Raphael
And no - the stupidity token hasn't dropped yet...
Raphael
Look how much patience I have for you... I expect more understanding from my three-year-old grandson….
1) The probability of life forming is 1.0. Just like spreading salt on the floor.
2) In a space of uniform division, the probability of the formation of a first replicator is 1 in 10 to the power of 40. Under the conditions I described, after a billion years, life will be created with a probability of about 1.
3) Hoyle's calculation assumes the formation of an entire cell in a random manner, assuming a uniform division. This assumption is wrong, so Hoyle's result has no meaning.
What is not understood now? You have three sections - which one did you understand and which one did you not?
Miracles
So first of all I understand that you missed the mark that the probability remains ten to the power of forty.
Second, what is still unclear is what the probability according to your calculation is for the formation of a living cell. We need that figure to compare it to what Hoyle got.
Raphael
I "arrived" at a probability close to one that a first replicator will be created. That's all it takes to start the evolution. From this moment on there is no more random process, so your whole argument becomes nonsense.
What is not clear?
Miracles
A fallen piece of retard.
1. You arrived at a probability of ten to the fortieth power for a molecule that does not come close to being a living cell. 2 Even if I were given an ocean and a billion years, I could win the first prize in the lottery several times in a row.
Why can't you compare two similar things?
rival
You're right. I don't understand these religious people who shoot themselves in the foot - but this phenomenon is noticeable among converts. They were lied to, and they are spreading the lies. A man complete in his faith would not have humbled himself to such an extent. And Raphael goes much lower than I thought even he was capable of.
Miracles,
And the interesting question has not yet been asked - what is the chance of the spontaneous formation of an almighty God?? 🙂
I have to agree with elbentzo
Raphael already received all the answers and explanations in this matter less than a year ago. Unless he admits he suffers from senility, I see no point in repeating the same things.
Raphael
Let me quote and explain to you.
"... but assuming that the ocean has 10 to the power of 24 liters, and the concentration of amino acids is in the order of a million liters (a very low concentration) - you get 10 to the power of 31 "opportunities" per year." That is, 10 to the power of 40 opportunities after a billion years"
Raphael - is there a mistake in the calculation?? Stupid arrogant piece of shit!!!
Raphael
You didn't understand the calculation. Like a fool, you chose a number that seemed big to you and thought you had knocked me down... what a fool you are 🙂 Please quote the rest of the calculation. Howl - don't be a rag 🙂
Raphael,
"Miracles, even with the same molecule with the property of replication, you admit that the probability is ten to the 40th power and with that I have already achieved what I wanted."
But Raphael, he showed you that even for this small probability, if you consider the amount of molecules that are in the ocean, and over a long period of a billion years, then the chance that a replicating molecule will be formed is almost certain.
And his calculation still talks about a uniform distribution... in reality, of course, this is not the case, so the chance is much better than ten to the 40th power, he just went towards you with the calculation and even then it was successful.
rival,
It seems to me that unlike the example you gave with the basketball, referring to the formation of life the quantum theory does have an effect.
Miracles,
Even with the same molecule with the property of replication, you admit that the probability is ten to the 40th power and with that I have already achieved what I wanted. But why compare camels to apples? Why don't you give your calculation for creating a complete living cell so we can compare your calculation with Hoyle's? Come on, go for it!
Raphael,
A simpler example than the dice, the chance of being able to score a ball into the basket using a crossbow inside a closed hall from a distance of 150 meters is a very small chance, but after you have already managed to set the right angle, and the tension of the spring properly and score into the basket, from that moment on if you throw the same ball, using The same plexus, at the exact same angle and at the same tension level of the spring, so you are guaranteed that almost every attempt you will hit the basket.
Quantum theory does not play a significant role here.
Raphael
You are welcome to disagree on the calculation I brought. I brought a source for the calculation, and also briefly explained Hoyle's calculation. I'll explain again... because you haven't caught it yet. Hoyle gave the probability of the formation of a complete cell (of a bacterium) assuming a uniform distribution. That is - Hoyle assumes that the probability of the formation of all possible proteins is the same.
The second calculation refers to a "replicator", meaning that this molecule has the property of replicating under suitable conditions.
What are you arguing about here?
Raphael,
"First thing - he clearly said that the probability is 1 because it has already happened"
True, just like the example with the dice, because they already fell on the above results (it already happened) then we can expect them to fall on the same results again, if the starting conditions are the same.
"By the way, even if the situation were exactly the same at the particle level, this does not guarantee that we would have gotten the same result"
At the quantum level, it is true that there is randomness, but in my opinion it will not affect at such a level that the dice will fall differently.
rival,
By the way, even if the situation were exactly the same at the particle level, it does not guarantee that we would have gotten the same result. Every baby already knows that today.
Friends,
You received an order from His Highness Albanzo not to treat me. So why do you continue?
Well, nevertheless, I am willing to treat you a little.
rival,
"This is what Nissim meant when he said that the probability is 1, that is, if the conditions on the planet are exactly the same as those on the ancient Earth, you are 100% guaranteed that life will develop there as it developed here."
First thing - he clearly said that the probability is 1 because it has already happened.
Second thing - it is very little wisdom to say that if the situation were exactly the same at the particle level then we would get the same result.
K.
I don't have enough knowledge to share about Hoyle's calculation nor about Nissim's calculation. It just seems to me that Nissim did a lot of eights in the air to get a probability of ten to the forty and that's just to get some peptide that is estimated today that it knows how to replicate when there and to get a living cell that contains 2000 proteins when each protein is about 300 amino acids long, the road is still very, very long .
* was an astronomer *
Raphael,
Hoyle is an astronomer, he has no background in biology. Asking him what is the probability of creating a living cell is roughly like asking a gardener what is the probability that a white plug in the mouth will last more than 10 years.
What does he understand by that? And why do you rely on his calculation?
(which as mentioned is also not true as they tried to show you)
Raphael,
Do you think that the calculation that Hoyle presented on the subject in question (and which Nissim took the trouble to present succinctly) is right or wrong?
Raphael,
If you take 10 dice, throw them together and you get the sequence: 6, 2, 4, 3, 6, 5, 5, 1, 4, 2
The chance of getting this particular sequence is extremely low... But, if you take the same 10 dice again, hold them in your palm *exactly* the same way they were placed before, and throw them at the exact same angle, and on the exact same surface, (ie every atom is in exactly the same location as before) so you are 100% guaranteed that you will receive exactly the same sequence that you received before.
This is what Nissim meant when he said that the probability is 1, meaning that if the conditions on the planet are exactly the same as those on the ancient Earth, you are 100% guaranteed that life will develop there as it developed here.
Raphael
Where did I escape? Are you ready to learn, please, what uniform division is, and what Bayesian probability is? Otherwise everyone, not just me, would know you're an arrogant fool.
lol…. Here the slippery elusive Nissim goes into action after being caught red-handed.
Raphael
I wrote "the probability of the formation of such a peptide - given uniform division". Do you know what uniform division is?
Albanzo told you that too. Please – stop being Raphael…..
Miracles,
what are you saying?
So you finally admit that the probability is not 1!!!
And not only that, but you also admit that it is lower than the probability of winning the first prize in the lottery many times in a row!!!
You see? If you really want then you can succeed!
Well done. You are a good boy.
Raphael
(no links)
Let me try to explain to you slowly, because you are not the sharpest pencil (yes - insult me). Hoyle's calculation is based on the random creation of an entire cell, a cell that contains 2000 proteins. A protein is about 300 amino acids long. The probability of a random creation of a single protein is 20 to the power of 300, but Hoyle "eased" and stated that it is 10 to the power of 20 (because there is some flexibility in the choice of amino acids). Now - for this to happen 2000 times comes out 10 to the power of 20 to the power of 2000 which is 10 to the power of 40,000 as you know.
But - let's look at what we know (meaning biologists and not astronomers). The estimate today is that there are peptides 32 amino acids long that can replicate:
The probability of the formation of such a peptide - given a uniform division - is 10 to the power of 40. Still low... but assuming that the ocean has 10 to the power of 24 liters, and the concentration of amino acids is per million liters (a very low concentration) - you get 10 to the power of 31 "opportunities" per year." That is, 10 to the power of 40 opportunities after a billion years
Did you get that, Rafael?
Raphael
Let me try to explain to you slowly, because you are not the sharpest pencil (yes - insult me). Hoyle's calculation is based on the random creation of an entire cell, a cell that contains 2000 proteins. A protein is about 300 amino acids long. The probability of a random creation of a single protein is 20 to the power of 300, but Hoyle "eased" and determined that it is 10 to the power of 20 (because there is some flexibility in the choice of amino acids). Now - for this to happen 2000 times comes out 10 to the power of 20 to the power of 2000 which is 10 to the power of 40,000 as you know.
But - let's look at what we know (meaning biologists and not astronomers). The estimate today is that there are peptides 32 amino acids long that know how to replicate :(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v389/n6652/full/389706a0.html)
The probability of the formation of such a peptide - given a uniform division - is 10 to the power of 40. Still low... but assuming that the ocean has 10 to the power of 24 liters, and the concentration of amino acids is per million liters (a very low concentration) - you get 10 to the power of 31 "opportunities" per year." That is, 10 to the power of 40 opportunities after a billion years (http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life).
Did you get that, Rafael?
Polish.
Let me explain to you again slowly:
1. Hoyle calculated. He said he got 1 in ten to the power of forty thousand.
2. Based on this, I said that the chances are lower than her consecutively winning the first prize in the lottery many times.
3. Others think Yul is wrong. Among them is you. I believe you.
4. I ask if Hoyle was wrong then what is the correct calculation and what is the result it yields?
5. You will call your father a stubborn type, a piece of beast.
Raphael
You really don't understand what's wrong with Hoyle's calculation?
elbentzo
You're right, of course, but there's also a point in re-answering (if you happen to have a link to those comments of yours I'd be happy to reuse them) on a specific claim, even if silly or false, because it's still out there. The answer is no for the brazen type Rafael. There is an educational interest in this, to present a rational way of thinking (about a certain matter and focused as much as possible) so that readers who do not believe in such a way of thinking, and of course do not possess relevant knowledge, will see a more correct way to approach the subject.
In any case, since I do not believe that Raphael is able to present here the calculation that underlies the stupid statement he presented (which for me the discussion is limited to at this point), there is no fear that I will waste too much time for me (or any of the readers).
Raphael,
My question is not related to possible alternative calculations nor to what others besides you have written here (the vast majority of which are matters of taste), the question concerns only the statement you made, which is nothing less than stupid and I will be happy to show you this if you present the detailed calculation that led you to it.
Raphael
Hoyle, unlike you, is not an idiot. I know you haven't read his book, and that's why you don't understand (not only because of that...). Hoyle explains his calculation, and his explanation is based on an incorrect assumption. I explained it but you insist on not understanding.
Rafael, I'm tired of talking to you too. Your repentance blew your mind. Too bad. Simply, I don't want to leave your lies unanswered.
Friends, Albanzo enters the picture. The order will move to a stand - stand still!
K. I recommend that you really ignore me. That way you can avoid the simple question that you don't know how to deal with and it is - if Hoyle's calculation is wrong then what is the correct calculation and what is the result it yields.
Bye.
Miracles,
I still haven't decided if you're funnier or more miserable.
1. You say that we know for sure that life was formed on planets that resemble Earth and when I corner you then you claim that you were just playing word games with me. Slippery sneaky did we say?
2. You say the probability is 1 because it has already happened. On the other hand you say that Hoyle's calculation is wrong not because the correct calculation is 1 but because of another reason. That is, if Hoyle's calculation is not correct, then there is another calculation that is correct and is not 1.
Listen, why don't you mess with someone else's brain? You are done with me.
K.
Why waste your time? I remember you were present the last time Raphael told the exact same lies. You were there when I went over the calculation with him and showed him the mistakes. You were there when I explained to him what a probability density function is and I gave him a crash course in statistics. You know he already knows that every 6st semester first year math student knows how to find the error in these calculations in 7-XNUMX seconds.
So why? just ignore. Raphael no longer exists. This is the only way to kick him and his scumbag off the site. And let it be clear - it is not meant for religious people. It means idiots and liars.
Raphael
Your opacity is amazing - you really don't want to understand. There is no calculation here!!!!! The probability is one 1.0 - and this is not the result of a calculation. It has already happened - like with the salt!!!!!!!!!!
I said that on all the planets we know, which are similar to the Earth, life was created. Do you really not understand Hebrew Raphael? Except for the Earth - do you know another planet with the same past and the same present? 🙂
Hoyle's calculation is wrong - he took a protein of a certain length, and assumed that the probability of the formation of this protein is the same as the probability of the formation of any other protein of the same length - but this is not true!!!!!!!!!!
Raphael - I answered you simply, in a language that any fool can understand. Are you implying I was wrong?
K.
I will continue to ignore your jabs because I know this is your way of deviating from the topic of the discussion and not dealing with the hard questions. But I keep everything and promise to answer this too at a time and place convenient for me.
And for that matter - the calculation was already presented by Hoyle and rejected by others. But no one else has presented an alternative calculation. Maybe you can offer such a calculation? Do you agree with Nisim that the calculation leads to a result of 1.0?
Miracles,
I simply decided to adopt the instructions of K. Regarding conducting a business discussion on the website, therefore although I have answers to your questions and countless questions for you - I will "lock" at this stage on the subject of the discussion until white (or black) smoke rises, therefore I will not allow you to escape to other districts despite your tireless efforts to do so.
Well, let's get back to the point, I repeat the question -
Please explain how we know *for sure* that life formed on other planets even though we don't even know how life formed on our planet.
Successfully.
Miracles,
Stop abusing him, it's not nice. He really doesn't understand, explain to him in simpler terms.
Raphael,
You wrote: "The luck we needed to be here is equivalent to winning the first prize in the lottery a very large number of times *in a row*."
Since I have already seen several "calculations" of this kind, when they were all incredibly wrong, let me assume that the calculation you present is also wrong. However, if you present the calculation that leads to this claim I will be happy to show you the errors in this calculation. I'm already telling you that the mistakes are related to the use of an incorrect statistical model, but I don't want to be too late, present a calculation and we'll discuss it.
Raphael
I assume you understand that what is meant by "certainly" is "beyond a reasonable doubt". Of course there may be a God, or a Zeus, but it is improbable to think so, given what we know of the world.
Raphael
Do you notice that you only refer to certain sections in my comments? I wonder why 🙂
Well - we know one planet like ours - on which life has definitely formed. I'm willing to admit that I may be wrong and Weil is right: life was actually created on another celestial body, but I don't think that affects the essence of the discussion between us.
Raphael - You have to understand that in terms of science there is no question here. Your entire belief is based on denying science. It's not just that you ignore my questions. I asked you about the laws of nature - and I would be happy to clarify.
Miracles,
At this point I will ignore the "compliments" you give to my intelligence since I have an interest in moving forward.
"We know for sure that all the planets we know and that there were suitable conditions for the formation of life on them - indeed life was formed on them!!! Amazing, isn't it?” - indeed amazing. Please explain how we know *for sure* that life formed on them even though "we don't know how life formed" even on our planet.
Raphael
The explanation is simple, although I fear it is beyond your comprehension. Forgive me for being blunt but your arrogance is just out of place.
The probability of an event that has already happened is 1.0. I will give the simple example again - maybe for the hundredth time you will understand? Take a cup of salt and throw it in the air. The salt crystals will disperse in a certain way. According to your method (the method used by Sir Fred Hoyle at the time - and which is known today as Hoyle's fallacy). The dispersion we received is not possible 🙂
I will give you another reason for my confidence - we know for sure that all the planets we know and that there were suitable conditions for the formation of life on them - indeed life was formed on them!!! Amazing, isn't it?
We don't know how life originated - and we don't know what the conditions were like on Earth 4.5 billion years ago. We do know a number of ways in which life could have formed given certain conditions on Earth.
There is something I don't understand about you - on the one hand you argue that there must be an external source for the laws of nature. On the other hand - you don't accept that there are laws of nature. Are you ready to say once what you do believe?
Rival and WD
Note that Nissim did not answer like you that we do not have enough information to perform this calculation, but he says that the probability is 1.
Miracles,
Well done, I appreciate you.
So basically what you are saying is that the conditions that prevailed then on Earth *necessarily* led to the formation of life. Right?
Can you explain this scientifically?
Raphael
"If you say I'm showing ignorance and have no idea of probability just so you can't answer a simple question - that's the mother of all evasions."
As you can see - I'm not saying this to avoid. You know me - I immediately say what I think.
Raphael
The probability is 1.0
Miracles,
Beautiful. And what is the correct probability?
And if you say that you don't know what the correct probability is, then the next question will be - so how do you know that the sentence is not true?
Raphael
Not true.
Miracles,
If you say I'm showing ignorance and have no idea about probability just so you can't answer a simple question - that's the mother of all evasions.
Take a direct question and try to answer it directly - is the following sentence true "The probability of life forming spontaneously on another planet in the universe today that has the *exact* conditions that existed on our planet at the time life was formed there is lower than the probability of a miracle winning the first prize in the lottery A million times in a row." Possible answers:
1. Right
2. Not true
3. Do not know
Raphael
My belief that everything is without planning and without intervention has an evidentiary and mathematical basis.
If you want, and express a willingness to learn, and show a little more understanding of what is said here, I would be happy to expand.
Raphael
If I am all determined, according to your words, then where am I avoiding?
I am ready to put my every belief to the test and answer every question.
And yet - you have no idea about probability, I explained why, and you continue to show ignorance...
Miracles
You are the master of dodges. You will learn a little from a rival and even in this case also from WD.
In conclusion, you say that you don't even know what the first life form is, so there is nothing to talk about probability.
But what you are XNUMX% sure of is that everything happened without planning and without any intervention, right?
Raphael
I look at my previous responses - each time I say the same things, and each time you continue to show an unwillingness to try to understand.
Raphael
How can we talk about probability when you don't even know what it is? To explain - think about the following example: you take a glass of salt and throw it into the air in the space of the room. What is the probability that you will get the same distribution of salt crystals that we got?
If you understand the example - you will understand that your question has no meaning.
Beyond that - how can one talk about the probability of a certain event without knowing what that event is? After all, we don't know what the first life form is, do we?
Raphael
On your recommendation, I went to the pharmacy to take pills and the pharmacist asked me where you got your medical certification in Hiopitz or in Antebka. I went to the last judges, they checked the family tree from the ancient man and did not find your name. I approached Lilit and Samal and they said to me "Let not his share be with us because he is of the seed of Amalek."
Miracles
Again you put things in the salad that don't belong. Who spoke now on what do I base my faith? We talked about the probability of the formation of life and more than that of the formation of all the conditions that preceded the formation of life that are necessary for the formation of life. I said that this is a very small chance that can be compared to the chance of consecutively winning the first prize in the lottery a very large number of times. Do you agree with it or not? There is no point in getting into the semantics of whether probability belongs to what has already happened or only to the future because everyone here understands what is meant.
Raphael
"Well, then we stayed where we were."
Right.
are you able to accept it
Like Raphael - probability only talks about the future. To talk about the past, you need to base yourself on Bayes' law.
Raphael, please - don't base your faith on a lack of understanding...
Raphael
Hoyle was a great and reliable astronomer, without any understanding that life originated in distant bodies. Wickramasinghe does understand a little about the subject, but he messed up big, for example - when he called a famous and real fossil a fake.
And in any case - their number, which you quote without understanding, is not only wrong, it is also wrong in perception. No researcher claims that a complex protein is formed randomly! This is a lie that suits Christian preachers and Jewish preachers.
Raphael
We don't know how life began. There are several hypotheses, but we have a difficult problem - we do not know what the ancient conditions were on Earth. We do know that the conditions for the self-formation of purines, pyrimidines and amino acids are not extreme, and it is very possible that such conditions existed here in the past.
Raphael
We don't know how life began. There are several hypotheses, but we have a difficult problem - we do not know what the ancient conditions were on Earth. We do know that the conditions for the self-formation of purines, pyrimidines and amino acids are not extreme, and it is very possible that such conditions existed here in the past.
Hoyle was a great and reliable astronomer, without any understanding that life originated in distant bodies. Wickramasinghe does understand a little about the subject, but he messed up big, for example - when he called a famous and real fossil a fake.
And in any case - their number, which you quote without understanding, is not only wrong, it is also wrong in perception. No researcher claims that a complex protein is formed randomly! This is a lie that suits Christian preachers and Jewish preachers.
Like Raphael - probability only talks about the future. To talk about the past, you need to base yourself on Bayes' law.
Raphael, please - don't base your faith on a lack of understanding...
Life
Say hello to ET and don't forget to take the pills on time.
Well, then we stayed where we were.
Raphael
Here is some information in all probability -
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%94%D7%A1%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA
Now let's get to your questions.
"Is there a probability?"
If you read a little you can probably answer for yourself. If not then the answer is no. Probability refers to how likely it is that a certain event will occur. An event that has already happened is not really relevant to the matter.
If your question is what was the probability of all these things before they happened. So the answer is exactly the one your opponent gave you.
We do not have enough information to make this calculation.
Raphael
How fun it is for me that members of other civilizations meet with me. Next time I will ask them to meet with you too so that you don't feel deprived. Hoping you can do something else besides cut air.
walking dead
So why argue with him? He will not be Leibovitz, he will not be the Rabbi (Rabbi Kook) and certainly not a Rashi. Just someone who puts a kippah on his head and thinks that if he learns a few verses or one page of Gemara he knows everything? Rabbi Akiva said "he knows that he does not know, Darga" Raphael will never be there.
What a piece, WD found its kind.
Say WD what are you actually saying? What is your contribution to the discussion?
Is there a probability? No probability? Is the probability of creating life adapted to the universe? The probability of creating a universe adapted to life?
Why just chatter?
Life
Don't worry, I am well aware that Raphael has the world view of a 5 year old. My fallacy is that I mistakenly think that like a 5 year old he is capable of learning things.
rival
So what is the probability of the formation of life according to the Drake formula? And why do these civilizations not communicate with us but only with the delusional life?
walking dead
Raphael thinks we are the crown of creation and I'm not so sure about that. He does not know the expression and austerity of the sect. His approach is that by virtue of being a person of faith, his approach is "I and nothing else" and the conclusion from Deuteronomy is that there cannot be intelligent life in the universe. His lack of understanding is complete.
Raphael
For the five hundredth time (approximately). The universe is not specially tuned for us. We are adapted to it.
It is not the chance of life forming, but the chance that there will be conditions on a certain planet that will allow life (temperature, etc.)
Raphael,
You love Wikipedia, so here's an excerpt from the "Life Extraterrestrial" entry there:
"Modern thoughts about extraterrestrial life: the idea was a hot topic at scientific conferences, and at one of them the astronomer Frank Drake created a formula called the 'Drake Formula'. Many of the factors in the Drake formula are unknown (eg, how likely is a star similar enough to our sun to have planets). By placing the best guess that exists in the various factors in the equation, it emerges from the formula that in our galaxy, the Milky Way, there are between a few dozen and thousands of civilizations that have reached such a technological level that they can communicate with us."
rival,
No problem. Just allow me to assume that even if you could do the calculation and even if you would get a much, much higher probability, it would still be a very low probability that was considered winning the first prize in the lottery a very large number of times *in a row*, so I wasn't wrong but you.
Raphael,
We do not have enough knowledge to make such a calculation.
I know this is not the answer you wanted, but it is what it is.
By the way, I'm not only talking about the possibility of the formation of life, but also about the possibility of the development of the universe as it looks now, and this even before the beginning of the formation of life.
By the way, I'm not only talking about evolution, but also about all the conditions for the formation of the universe as it appears today, even before the beginning of life.
rival,
You must know better than him. You said I was wrong and he was wrong - so give me the correct number.
There is no point in avoiding. I'm not talking now about anything else except our chance to be here and comment on the science site. Only it. So how likely is it that you know about him?
Also, note the title of the section you quoted from: "Low probability of random evolution".
I think it has already been explained to you here many, many times that evolution is not a random process, absolutely not.
Raphael,
Tell me what astronomers understand about biology?
rival,
So say you want proof. If you say I'm wrong then you're the one who has to prove it.
But, no matter we will go towards you. Below is a quote from the "Intelligent Planning" entry in Wikipedia:
Astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramsingh estimated the probability of creating life, and according to their conclusion (known by its opponents as "Hoyle's error"), it is one in ten to the power of forty thousand.
Now we will hear from you what the correct probability is in your opinion or in the opinion of those who oppose the above estimate.
Raphael,
You are the one who claims that the chance of life development is equal to winning the first prize in the lottery a very large number of times in a row, you claim - the burden of proof is on you.
It is allowed to say "I don't know", this is also a legitimate answer.
We are not debating the fact that we are here. But you still haven't explained why I'm wrong when I say that the luck we needed to be here is equivalent to winning the first prize in the lottery a very large number of times *in a row*.
The chance... is high enough!
It is a fact that we are here 🙂
rival,
is that so? What is the chance according to your calculation?
Raphael,
Here you are wrong.
True, and just to understand how lucky we were, it's worth noting that the luck we needed to be here is equivalent to winning the first prize in the lottery a very large number of times *in a row*. What is very much?! imaginary!!!
Raphael,
You also need luck to win the lottery, but it is a fact that there are winners almost every week 🙂
So we probably won too, what fun for us.
It all depends on luck
As usual, an interesting and enriching article.
Just a small criticism, the wording of the article is poor and feels like it came from Google Translate.
The criticism is justified but the source, apart from of course the telephone interview I conducted with him, is a press release from the Hebrew University. Anyway, I'll take care of it
A little late but I wrote, I also deleted a few duplicates. Avi