why Astrobiology is a joke.
And they call
Intelligent Design
pseudoscience?
There is far more evidence of design
that there is
of their faith-based belief system garbage they have sold to the masses.
Let’s Throw Mathematical Light
- “On the Origin of Life: How the First Cell Membranes Came to Exist” (UC San Diego Today)
- “How did life begin on Earth? A lightning strike of an idea” (Harvard Gazette)
- “New research suggests rainwater could have helped form the first protocell walls” (University of Chicago News)
- “All Life on Earth Today Descended From a Single Cell. Meet LUCA.”
- (Quanta Magazine)
- “Drawing a line back to the origin of life: Graphitization could provide simplicity scientists are looking for” (Phys.org)
- “Breakthrough discovery explains how all life on Earth began”
- (The Bright Side of News)
(Because its what people wanna hear:
There is no God.
It's all an accident.)
"And on and on. Much or all of this is creative storytelling, half-truths, or outright falsehoods."
(Ive said it for years
they are just making shit up at this point.)
"If they really were making progress, wouldn’t that mean they would be converging on the same truth?"
(Great point.)
"The reality is that theories of how life came about from non-life, spontaneously and without intelligent guidance, face enormous statistical hurdles. Storytelling is fun. Statistical analysis is less so. But bear with me as I throw some mathematical light on the origin of life."
"Despite decades of research and numerous variations, including proposals like the iron-sulfur world, lipid world, and protein world hypotheses, scientists have not been able to develop a fully coherent and plausible scenario for the origin of life. These attempts, numbering in the dozens or more, have faced significant challenges in explaining the transition from non-living chemistry to the complex, self-replicating systems that characterize life. Hence the conceptual chaos we observe in popular reporting about life’s origin."
“Almost Like a Miracle”
"This has been well expressed by Eugene V. Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. As he wrote in his book The Logic of Chance (p. 252):
"Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure — we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth.
(This is the entire reason
they are looking for life somewhere else.
"Well since we cant explain it here?
And therefore do away with God?
If we can just find "life" somewhere else?
Then we will have accomplished our aim
(Eliminating God)
without even having to explain
how life got here.
(Since we cant explain it anyway.)
That is 100%
what the garbage field
of Astrobiology is all about.)
"Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem."
(Somebody needs to go tell all the Cosmologist, the Particle Physicist the Astrobiologist and the Astrophysicist that. Because I don't think they got the email about just how hard it is to get to life, let alone complex forms of it here.
"Lets just go look for it somewhere else Jim."
"Okay Bob, sounds good.")
"A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides
to the origin of translation;
(That's my favorite:
"the origin of translation"
Why would something
"evolve"
into something
that needed something else
to translate it?
DNA/RNA Transcription?)
"through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle."
(Newsflash:
IT WAS/IS.)
"When a distinguished computational biologist like Koonin uses language of that kind (“almost like a miracle”), we should take note."
(Nah, just go read the quanta magazine piece above, its all good.)
"There is a main reason for the unbridgeable barrier. The cell operates as a sophisticated, self-reproducing chemical factory. It requires a minimum set of components that function cooperatively and in a highly integrated manner. This sophisticated collaboration enables the cell to maintain its complex processes and replicate itself. The cell is an integrated system that requires a minimal set of interconnected, interdependent components to operate."
("There is no such thing as a simple cell."
Chuck Missler 20 or so years ago.
All the interconnected parts of the cell could not have evolved independent of each other.
It woudnt work.)
"As University of North Carolina biochemist Charles W. Carter Jr. wrote in 2017,
emphasizing the level of complexity needed
for the cell to function as a living unit:
"Studies of gene–replicase–translatase (GRT) systems reveal that gene replication and coded expression are interdependent. Living systems now produce proteins from information encoded in genes using protein translatases whose genes are copied using protein polymerases. Could self-organization of both processes be so strongly coupled that they emerged simultaneously?"
(No, they couldn't have and notice:
"coded expression"
What coded it then?
Codes don't write themselves.
"Well AI blah blah blah..."
Something wrote the AI code
that's writing its own code dipshit, shut up already.)
"Living systems now
produce proteins from
information encoded
in genes."
(Something
(an intellect)
had to have coded the information.
Why?
Because information never creates itself etc.)
"Now, Here Comes the Math
"By determining the minimal set of proteins required for a basic functioning cell, we can perform probability calculations to estimate the likelihood of a minimal proteome — “the complete set of proteins expressed by an organism” — arising spontaneously. These calculations provide insights into the statistical improbability of life emerging by chance alone."
"As a near-minimal synthetic organism, the J. Craig Venter Institute has introduced the JCVI-syn3.0 bacterial strain. With a proteome of 438 proteins, it serves as the baseline for our calculations."
"Considering these factors, for a typical protein of 250 amino acids, we can do a probability calculation. Essential regions (active site, binding site, structural core) amount to around 50 percent, or 125 amino acids. Less critical regions also amount to around 50 percent, or, again, 125 amino acids. Let’s do our calculation considering the functional regions of proteins."
"Taken as a given, the number of proteins is 438. The average protein length is 250 amino acids. The critical region is 50 percent of each protein, or 125 amino acids."
"Here we go with the probability calculation for one protein. For the essential regions, (1/20)^125 ≈ 1.5 × 10^163. For the less critical regions (1 in 5 specific amino acids), (1/5)^125 ≈ 2.8 × 10^88 Combining these calculations, we get: 1.5 × 10^-163 × 2.8 × 10^-88 ≈ 4.2 × 10^251. This estimate is consistent with other estimates of the rarity of proteins when scaled by length.4 For all 438 proteins, then, the result is (4.2 × 10^-251)^438 ≈ 10^109,938."
A Comparison with Powerball
Let’s compare that probability with the probability of winning the Powerball lottery multiple times in a row. We first need to calculate the odds of winning at Powerball just once. The odds of that are approximately 1 in 292,201,338. For easier calculation, let’s express the odds as 3.42 × 10^9. Now, we need to find how many consecutive Powerball wins would equal the probability we calculated for the proteins. The number is 10^-109,938 which equals (3.42 × 10^-9)^x. We’ll take the log of both sides and obtain the result: -109,938 which equals x × log(3.42 × 10^-9). In turn, -109,938 equals x × (-8.46). Solving for x, we get the result: 109,938 divided by 8.46 or about 12,996."
"This means the probability of all 438 proteins forming spontaneously is roughly equivalent to winning the Powerball jackpot 12,996 times in a row. This estimate does not include the fact that multiple copies of proteins would likely be required. It also leaves out the DNA required to manage the production and maintenance of proteins, and the need to interconnect proteins properly. For the interconnection challenge, see physicist Brian Miller’s article at Evolution News.
(IT'S ALL A SATANIC LIE
YOU HAVE FALLEN FOR!
WAKE UP!)
"This astronomically large number illustrates the extreme improbability of such a complex system arising by chance alone. It highlights the challenges in explaining the origin of life through purely random processes."
(And that's just to get to a simple organism,
not to mention the fact that random processes
don't encode the information needed.)
(It's just beyond preposterousness.
It really is.
And people knew
this 20 years ago?
(Chuck Missler said it would be like winning the lottery 900x or something like that 20 years ago.)
WHY?
would anybody still believe this fairytale
this day and age
about life coming from nonliving things?)
"We can express the argument this way:
A minimal functional cell
(Minimal, as in:
"There is no thing as a simple cell.)
requires a specific set of integrated proteins. The probability of this specific set of proteins forming spontaneously is astronomically low (equivalent to winning the Powerball lottery 12,996 times in a row). Therefore, the spontaneous formation of a minimal functional cell through random processes is virtually impossible.")
"Are There Alternative Explanations?
The astronomical improbability of the spontaneous formation of even a minimal set of functional proteins necessary for life presents a significant problem for purely naturalistic explanations for the origin of life. We can see, then, why researchers in the field are, as Rice University chemist James Tour has put it, “clueless” about how life’s origin came about."
(But that doesn't give anybody the clickbait ad revenue they need to stay in business yo.)
"When we are faced with such daunting improbability, it is reasonable to consider alternative explanations.
(It most certainly is.)
"Most scientists seeking a resolution of the puzzle don’t want to go there, whether for reasons of philosophical outlook, peer pressure, or personal preference."
(At that point?
they become ideologues
pushing their faith-based belief system
on the uninformed.
NO MORE!
They will become defrocked
from the societal priesthood of our time
if they violate the central dogma of their faith:
ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE.
JUST NOT GOD.
Tough.
Science is supposed to go
where the evidence leads.
Not your personal preference(s).
These origin of life types got jack.
"However, when examining highly specified and complex systems that appear to be fine-tuned for function, especially when the probability of their chance occurrence is vanishingly small, the inference to design becomes a logical possibility, at the very least."
(To deny such?
Is to simply be irrational.
Plain and simple.
Don't care who you are,
or how bad it pisses you off.
What ever happened to admitting
you were wrong about something?
Accountability is a thing of the past apparently.
I'm so glad I grew up when I did.
Strong people admit when they were wrong, shortcomings, failings, faults etc.
I should know,
I got plenty of em
and I don't try and hide
em from anybody.
Or?
At a minimum?
JUST ADMIT
that another possibility exist
outside of the faith-based belief system
you have been
BRAINWASHED
by the GOD of this world
(Satan)
into believing?
That's the part that gets my blood boiling.
The unwillingness to even admit any other possibilities exist outside of their fairytale.)
"The argument for design is strengthened by the observation that living systems exhibit characteristics often associated with designed objects — such as information content,
(Just tell me where the information came from.
They all avoid it
like the fucking plague
because they know
they can never explain it.
YOU CAN FIND ANOTHER EARTH
ANOTHER SOLAR SYSTEM
ANOTHER GALAXY
100% JUST LIKE OURS.
YOU CAN FIND SUITABLE CONDITIONS
THAT MATCH UP
100% JUST LIKE OURS HERE.
AND IF YOU DONT HAVE THE INFORMATION NEEDED?
TO MAKE IT ALL WORK?
YOU AINT PROVED NUTHING.
PERIOD END OF STORY.
AND THE FACT THAT NOT ONE:
COSMOLOGIST
PARTICLE PHYSICIST
ASTRO-PHYSICIST
ASTROBIOLOGIST
EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST ETC
EVER BRINGS ANY OF THAT UP?
TELLS YOU THEY KNOW THAT IT IS TRUE.
THEY JUST DONT WANT YOU TO KNOW.
"goal-directed processes, and
interdependent parts functioning as a whole.
(That simply does not evolve people.
Whole concept is nonsense.)
"The minimal cell, with its precisely coordinated set of proteins and genetic instructions,
(That came from where again?)
"bears hallmarks of purposeful arrangement rather than random assembly."
(To deny that?
Is simply not to be
thinking rationally
or logically.)
(And yes microscopic evolution occurs, Ive written all about Darwin and the problems he overlooked etc.
Cells didn't evolve.
The evidence is
OVERWHELMING
that they couldnt have.
There is no such thing as a simple cell.
To look for life elsewhere
is to BELIEVE
that it was an accident here.
The information in the genetic code
and the extreme unlikelihood of chance alone creating life a
re evidence to the contrary.
TRY AGAIN.
What's your opinion Ethan?
Come explain it to me.
I got all day.
Cause this I gotta hear.
No comments:
Post a Comment