All of your points are excellent. It is obvious that I do not have the background in biochemistry necessary to carry this on in the fashion you would prefer.
You state that a nonliving protein is "completely directed". By what?
There were only two, small points I wanted to make. You proposed that the odds of life spontaneously generating are one chance in 2^410 or more than 10^123 . All I was saying is that that's only if you are calculating with totally independent events.
As soon as you throw in the possibility of a self-replicating protein of significantly smaller size then the chances get down to 10^50 according to you. This is already significantly more possible.
Finally, once you have a self-replicating molecule the chances of there being mutations in the replicating process leading to other, shall we say, interesting developments are much higher than any one thing happening as if by magic (ie as a one 10^123 chance).
The "completely directed" means directed towards replicating, creating more, becoming more life-like, as opposed to a bunch of building blocks randomly bumping into each other in a primordial alphabet soup.
And if gradual evolution is to be accepted, why are there no 2-5 cell creatures - why unicellular and many-cellular, no few-cellular? Surely it would be adaptive to have a bicellular organism with one able to work in acid, one in base, and the inactive one goes dormant during its non-advantageous state (myriad other examples are simple to imagine).
This is a strange argument. Why does evolution need to go through every possible state to get where we are? In any case, we are constantly finding new species. (Wasn't a new species of deer just discovered in China or something? A big, mammal walking around under our noses for 5000 recorded years and we've never catalogued it.) Just because we haven't uncovered an entire fauna of low-cellular creatures doesn't mean they are not out there.
I'm not saying your belief in creationism is wrong, I'm just saying that there might be some ramifications you may want to make in your arguments if you'd like to be more effective. All of your data about the possibility of a bunch of AA's coming together and making life in one fell swoop don't mean anything if that's not the expected path of it happening. You didn't give any mention of the possibility of catastrophes (asteroids, volcanoes, etc) injecting energy into the system, for example. A lot can happen over millions of years, and the whole idea is that something has to happen just once and stick in order for there to be life. Just handwaving and saying the "possibility for life being created in the particular fashion I've described is so low as to be preposterous that it's proof of God" is not sound.
I find your attempt to educate me about "science" amusing as you are taking the position of someone who is attempting to defend a theory based in mythology versus someone who is attempting to help your credibility. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with creationism per se, it's interesting, it's just that it's very hard to recreate, and having theories about things that are very difficult to reproduce or that do not imply much tangible is more akin to philosophy than anything else. Evolution, on the other hand, makes specific predictions about the nature of life. These are testable. People have theorized that evolution can account for the generation of more complicated life from simple beginnings. This is testable, and is being tested right now. Creationism is a done deal. It's over. You either believe it or you don't and it's extremely difficult to collect "evidence" for it. This makes it a difficult theory for a scientist to stand behind.
The chances of all the basic building blocks of the simplest living creature magically coming together in one place might be low, but if you allow for self-replicating proteins as a stepping stone to "life" then that condition is not necessary.
It may be possible to get to something resembling a living creature through successive iterations and mutations of a "not-life" protein. These can happen very, very fast and are completely directed (in the sense that they are non-random, as you proposed).
My mom sets all the clocks in the house 20 minutes fast.
Are you saying that you are used to the clocks being 20 minutes ahead? I'm missing the point, I think.
I think the only 'irritating' time-related traits my fiancee has (which I also happen to share, I might add) are 1) having 2 alarm clocks for the morning
I use one alarm clock. The fucker wakes me up within 7 hours of the time I fall asleep. If you thought about putting TWO alarm clocks in my bedroom I would dump your ass so fast you would be confused.
and repeatedly resetting them over a period of time until awaking (say, half an hour, an hour... there-about)
The only way that you could remain in my bedroom, after I've thrown you out for having two alarm clocks, and were exhibiting this sort of behavior is to have a SCATload of cash and be willing to split it 90/10 with US on the plus side.
Your story is commendable. Perhaps you could write a newsletter. BUT the only thing I can give you massive props for is realizing that: " waiting to the very last possible moment to leave for an engagement, and then running in a couple minutes late (to no dire effect) "
Fuck time. For personal engagements, it's way overrated.
Have fun with your girl. Make her crawl. It's a good time for all.
My SO is like this and it drives me fucking nuts having all the clocks set anywhere from 5 to 20 minutes in advance. She has it all set up so that she "gains time" from when she gets out of bed to when she gets in her car, ie. the bedroom clock is 20 minutes ahead, the kitchen 15, and the car clock 10.
It's not worth a serious argument though because I don't usually use clocks anyway. It's just annoying as hell when one of my buds asks me the time and I'm like, "Uh, well that clock is 10 minutes ahead, I think. Er, wait, that one's fifteen, it's the other one that's ten. Well, it's like 3:15 plus or minus 10 plus or minus 5."
I used a $10 keyboard for three years before my girlfriend made me throw it out. She didn't like it and that was that.
The upgrade was fine in any case. I'm now using this big honking metal keyboard with "Packard Bell" on it as the only redeeming feature. Well that and all of the keys being in the "right" place.
I even have a "macro" button! But I use vim so it doesn't help.
Slashdot Mirror
Why'd you bother posting that? It's offtopic and trite.
Put some heart into your troll.
I think he was quite obviously being funny?
If it was so obvious, why are you asking us?
Page widening is a thing of the past.
You should come and wallow in -1 for a while, really get to know Slashdot.
Yeah, baby, yeah!
Many illiterates have friends.
All of your points are excellent. It is obvious that I do not have the background in biochemistry necessary to carry this on in the fashion you would prefer.
You state that a nonliving protein is "completely directed". By what?
There were only two, small points I wanted to make. You proposed that the odds of life spontaneously generating are one chance in 2^410 or more than 10^123 . All I was saying is that that's only if you are calculating with totally independent events.
As soon as you throw in the possibility of a self-replicating protein of significantly smaller size then the chances get down to 10^50 according to you. This is already significantly more possible.
Finally, once you have a self-replicating molecule the chances of there being mutations in the replicating process leading to other, shall we say, interesting developments are much higher than any one thing happening as if by magic (ie as a one 10^123 chance).
The "completely directed" means directed towards replicating, creating more, becoming more life-like, as opposed to a bunch of building blocks randomly bumping into each other in a primordial alphabet soup.
And if gradual evolution is to be accepted, why are there no 2-5 cell creatures - why unicellular and many-cellular, no few-cellular? Surely it would be adaptive to have a bicellular organism with one able to work in acid, one in base, and the inactive one goes dormant during its non-advantageous state (myriad other examples are simple to imagine).
This is a strange argument. Why does evolution need to go through every possible state to get where we are? In any case, we are constantly finding new species. (Wasn't a new species of deer just discovered in China or something? A big, mammal walking around under our noses for 5000 recorded years and we've never catalogued it.) Just because we haven't uncovered an entire fauna of low-cellular creatures doesn't mean they are not out there.
I'm not saying your belief in creationism is wrong, I'm just saying that there might be some ramifications you may want to make in your arguments if you'd like to be more effective. All of your data about the possibility of a bunch of AA's coming together and making life in one fell swoop don't mean anything if that's not the expected path of it happening. You didn't give any mention of the possibility of catastrophes (asteroids, volcanoes, etc) injecting energy into the system, for example. A lot can happen over millions of years, and the whole idea is that something has to happen just once and stick in order for there to be life. Just handwaving and saying the "possibility for life being created in the particular fashion I've described is so low as to be preposterous that it's proof of God" is not sound.
I find your attempt to educate me about "science" amusing as you are taking the position of someone who is attempting to defend a theory based in mythology versus someone who is attempting to help your credibility. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with creationism per se, it's interesting, it's just that it's very hard to recreate, and having theories about things that are very difficult to reproduce or that do not imply much tangible is more akin to philosophy than anything else. Evolution, on the other hand, makes specific predictions about the nature of life. These are testable. People have theorized that evolution can account for the generation of more complicated life from simple beginnings. This is testable, and is being tested right now. Creationism is a done deal. It's over. You either believe it or you don't and it's extremely difficult to collect "evidence" for it. This makes it a difficult theory for a scientist to stand behind.
Don't feel bad. I thought your post was funny.
The chances of all the basic building blocks of the simplest living creature magically coming together in one place might be low, but if you allow for self-replicating proteins as a stepping stone to "life" then that condition is not necessary.
It may be possible to get to something resembling a living creature through successive iterations and mutations of a "not-life" protein. These can happen very, very fast and are completely directed (in the sense that they are non-random, as you proposed).
My mom sets all the clocks in the house 20 minutes fast.
Are you saying that you are used to the clocks being 20 minutes ahead? I'm missing the point, I think.
I think the only 'irritating' time-related traits my fiancee has (which I also happen to share, I might add) are 1) having 2 alarm clocks for the morning
I use one alarm clock. The fucker wakes me up within 7 hours of the time I fall asleep. If you thought about putting TWO alarm clocks in my bedroom I would dump your ass so fast you would be confused.
and repeatedly resetting them over a period of time until awaking (say, half an hour, an hour... there-about)
The only way that you could remain in my bedroom, after I've thrown you out for having two alarm clocks, and were exhibiting this sort of behavior is to have a SCATload of cash and be willing to split it 90/10 with US on the plus side.
Your story is commendable. Perhaps you could write a newsletter. BUT the only thing I can give you massive props for is realizing that: "
waiting to the very last possible moment to leave for an engagement, and then running in a couple minutes late (to no dire effect) "
Fuck time. For personal engagements, it's way overrated.
Have fun with your girl. Make her crawl. It's a good time for all.
You, my man, have set yourself on a course fraught with difficulties and despair.
Good luck. I applaud your choice in battles.
I'm working on it. Jebus. Give me a break.
My SO is like this and it drives me fucking nuts having all the clocks set anywhere from 5 to 20 minutes in advance. She has it all set up so that she "gains time" from when she gets out of bed to when she gets in her car, ie. the bedroom clock is 20 minutes ahead, the kitchen 15, and the car clock 10.
It's not worth a serious argument though because I don't usually use clocks anyway. It's just annoying as hell when one of my buds asks me the time and I'm like, "Uh, well that clock is 10 minutes ahead, I think. Er, wait, that one's fifteen, it's the other one that's ten. Well, it's like 3:15 plus or minus 10 plus or minus 5."
Funny. I'm not interested in your newsletter though because it will probably just be a rehash of ceejayoz's.
Funny. Newsletter?
Stupid like a fox!
Happy July 4th you filthy pig fuckers.
At least we're not _cold_ filthy pig fuckers.
Wow, you're quite the retard.
How'd you manage to even type this up and send it off to the internet?
I don't get it. What else are they going to call it?
Yeah, you're right. It's not a "redeeming" feature.
I meant it's "the only feature on it that might be an indicator of what model keyboard it is".
Salient? Applicable? Noteworthy? I just can't think of the word I want right now.
# The Caps Lock actually LOCKED down.
I haven't seen such a thing since my grandmother's typewriter.
That would be awesome!
dd, yy, p
Hah. Nowadays all I ever do is:
shift-V
j,j,j, (or whatever)
y
cntrl-W l (or whatever)
j [or k]
p
vim r0x045!
I used a $10 keyboard for three years before my girlfriend made me throw it out. She didn't like it and that was that.
The upgrade was fine in any case. I'm now using this big honking metal keyboard with "Packard Bell" on it as the only redeeming feature. Well that and all of the keys being in the "right" place.
I even have a "macro" button! But I use vim so it doesn't help.
Doo piles of pants r0X0r5 your 50CX0r5 in a 80X0r?
Dude, you made $150.
Yeah, you're flamebait.
You cannot be SUBTLE in THIS DAY AND AGE.
Your humor must BE LIKE A SLEDGEHAMMER.