31–40 of 62 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It came from the energy that the Sun pumps into the system.
I understand we aren't a closed system. But that still doesn't explain to me where the complexity came from.
https://www.teepublic.com/t-shirt/22098576-complexity-and-en...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It came from the energy that the Sun pumps into the system.
I don't know why so many people forget that the laws of thermodynamics are all about closed systems, which the Earth is very much not .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It came from the energy that the Sun pumps into the system.
I don't know why so many people forget that the laws of thermodynamics are all about closed systems, which the Earth is very much not .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know why so many people forget to explain where _the complexity_ comes from and just drive right off the road assuming I don't know something basic and can distract from having to answer the real question about the complexity of the information in DNA and its origins. Not a very generous argument style you have there.
Have you never heard the joke about a million monkeys typing on a million towers eventually producing the complete works of Shakespeare? Little by little variation is accumulated when it’s beneficial, and the organism dies fast when it’s not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand we aren't a closed system. But that still doesn't explain to me where the complexity came from.
The only question is where the first self-replicating structure came from. As soon as you have a self-replicating structure, you have evolution. Evolution is driven by these self-replicating structures competing for the available energy. A more efficient replicator outcompetes its less efficient siblings at exponential speed. If more complex replicators are more efficient, then complexity evolves naturally. It's basi…
Not quite, you also need the replication to have random errors.
Implications for the search for extraterrestrial life! The unusually unique features of the cells suggest that it MAY have evolved elsewhere in the universe.
“How could something so complex have started here? There must be a wizard who made it on rigel 7”
But who made the wizard?
“…”
The problem is, if it could have been created elsewhere then it could have been created here. It’s a meaningless statement. It’s like saying “no she didn’t shoot him, she called a man from mexico and he flew over and pulled the trigger and then gave her the gun and flew back”, you’re just making something up and adding random extra complexity with no evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're all very much mixed at this point. But think of the other possibility: That the ancestor of the archaea lineage evolved on Earth while the ancestor of the bacterial lineage came from space.
> while the ancestor of the bacterial lineage came from space. I don't believe this is supported by evidence. Finding a few organic molecules in a meteorite is pretty thin, and as Carl Sagan pointed out the lethal doses of radiation in space make panspermia highly unlikely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you never heard the joke about a million monkeys typing on a million towers eventually producing the complete works of Shakespeare? Little by little variation is accumulated when it’s beneficial, and the organism dies fast when it’s not.
This is also a bad argument. You probably know very well that if a cryptographer can force you to employ infinite monkeys on typewriters to guess their key, they'll declare victory. You need a mechanism that searches and focuses the space of possible chemistry, that forces life into being. If you look at the timeline for the emergence of life, I don't think it's one that supports an infinite monkey type of mechanism.…
That's just what I can recall. There's more about DNA/RNA and amino acids pairing, but I can't remember it off the top of my head.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only question is where the first self-replicating structure came from. As soon as you have a self-replicating structure, you have evolution. Evolution is driven by these self-replicating structures competing for the available energy. A more efficient replicator outcompetes its less efficient siblings at exponential speed. If more complex replicators are more efficient, then complexity evolves naturally. It's basi…
> As soon as you have a self-replicating structure, you have evolution. Not quite, you also need the replication to have random errors.
On a DNA/RNA level, various nucleotides have affinity not only for their normal partner, but less so for other partners. This becomes especially important as environmental damage (from the energetic systems we all live in) cause alterations in the chemical structure of the nucleotides. That's just one method of mutation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know why so many people forget that the laws of thermodynamics are all about closed systems, which the Earth is very much not .
I don't know why so many people forget to explain where _the complexity_ comes from and just drive right off the road assuming I don't know something basic and can distract from having to answer the real question about the complexity of the information in DNA and its origins. Not a very generous argument style you have there.
There isn't a way to answer questions based on faulty assumptions, like "Why did you murder JFK?" People have actually been quite kind in giving you "sort of" answers such as "It came from the energy that the Sun pumps into the system."
I'll also point out that when people make the faulty assertion that everything tends toward decreasing complexity, they usually try to follow up with some intelligent design argument. You haven't done that in this post, but that is probably why you're getting answers that are a bit guarded or combative, because people are prepared for you to take this discussion to a truly ignorant place.