/sci/ - Science & Math

Either zero intuition for numbers or absolutely no idea how complex even the simplest conceivable cell is

>>15735832
there was a thread here a few months ago with a pdf in it that went through calculating the probability of such an event transpiring and how long it would likely take and the timeframe that was settled on was about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times longer than the age of the universe, so it effectively showed that either abiogenesis is fake and gay or the big bang theory is. the two propositions are mutually exclusive.

>>15735843
Right, well then obviously we're missing a big piece of the puzzle. That doesn't surprise me, given that we have no idea what consciousness is. It seems to me that we don't know what the real difference is between life and non life.

>>15735879
>It seems to me that we don't know what the real difference is between life and non life.
And we never will until people are allowed to question the Darwinian evolution dogma without being excommunicated from academia via abuse of the peer review system.
And that will never happen until the political agenda outlined in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is abandoned because Darwinism is a part of that agenda, see protocol #2, part 3 for the full details

>>15735883
huh? Anon I took my melatonin to go to bed and I'm getting sleepy. Can you repeat that in retard speak?

>>15735832
>you don't get a cell out of purposeless chemistry in 100 million years.
>Maybe 10^10^10^10 years.

>>15735832
Well duh, God made us.

>>15735832
The probability is obviously one hundred percent.

>>15735832
there are billions of years and 10^25 planets thats so much time and matter, i dont think there is a lack combination opportunity.

>>15735832
Nah OP, I'm pretty sure you're right. We don't exist. We're just the imaginary state of a universe that is 10^10^10^10 years old, even though we don't exist, in the same way that the numbers in the sequence 9129129,9129130,9129131,9129132 keep going even if nobody is counting them.

>>15735832
yes, primordial soup theory is indeed dumb, mainly due do thermodynamic equilibirum. hydrothermal vents theory is much better.

>>15735832
>a whole fucking cell pops into existence
Nobody thinks this is what happened. Obviously a fully formed cell didn't just appear one day.
But you're a /pol/tard and probably a christnigger as well, so trying to explain anything to you would be a pointless exercise.

Yeah but you can strike lucky and get a hot immediately. T max isn't there same thing as mean

>>15735832
It doesn't have to be a whole ass cell forming all at once. Any sort of thing that even marginally increases the chance of itself forming within the environment, will tend to dominate over time. Until resources are exhausted, something better overtakes it or it reaches equilibrium.
Start smaller. Like so:
>yummy random RNA soup
>one cheeky RNA happens to catalyze surrounding RNAs, breaking them back down into soup
>they break down eachother, so not much change
>one is randomly more resilient to breaking itself down
>similar RNAs are more likely to survive, thus their population increases
>it later gets btfo by the RNA that can both break down other RNAs, and help create its predecessor RNA chunks

Man I hate this keyboard j. C. Denton

>>15737440
The sun is basically a hydrothermal vent

>>15735832
>>one day by chance a whole fucking cell pops into existence and now life starts
... said no one but you. What a dumb fucking thread.

>>15735832
You are a fucking moron RNA forms into stable structures by itself and double lipid by layers do to. A soap bubble functions just like a double lipid bilayer.

And you know what is real neat?RNA can come in forms that tend to self assemble material around it into structures.

Volcanic mud made from ash encourages the formation of double lipid bilayer bubbles.

All it takes is enough volcanic activity for RNA capable of copying itself to get trapped within the mud bubbles to start a chain reaction chemical reaction that starts evolving.

>>15735832
cells didn't "pop out of nowhere", life started as various individual organelles that developed symbiotic relationships. the cell wall and the traditional cellular structure came later, either to survive outside outside of the normal habitable zone of non-cellular life, or to defend against parasitic and predatory organisms and viruses. or both.

>>15737641
Prove it and get your nobel prize bucko

>>15735832
yeah it's rare which is why we are alone in the observable universe.

>>15737658
I’d rather go be a gastroenterologist. Post docs don’t make shit. I don’t care to play with biological legos for twenty years while eating ramen and getting no pussy.

>>15735843
JWST already disproved the big bang theory

>>15737593
So you imagine that something less complex than a cell, that is able to copy itself and is able to persist without degrading as it is subject to various selection experiments, developed first?

That's a cell. Your magical protocell doesn't escape the complexity problem, and name calling is no defense for your improbable origin myth.

>>15737603
This has to be bait. RNA that actually exists today has to be stored in -80C temperatures to keep it around without degrading, there is no selection mechanism that creates this gigachad RNA that doesn't just fall to pieces in hours on early earth, it's literally just a nucleic acid it isn't building armour from selection pressure wtf

>>15735832
>what are pressure, temperature, and catalysts

>>15737778
so if the universe is older than 13,800,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years there has been time for evolution as theorized by Darwin to take place and if the universe is only 13,800,000,000 years old then there has not, but JWST says that the universe is older than 13,800,000,000 years

>>15737645
How did these organelles find each other, and replicate themselves at a rate greater than the rate at which they degrade?

>>15738012
can you explain how jwst disproves big bang theory?

>>15738012
It didnt disprove it. It found galaxies were far more evolved than models predicted in the earlier universe. In other words, there is more spiral galaxies than elliptical galaxies theorized.

>>15737641
If I take a billion cells, chop them up into pieces, and up them under your volcanic mud, what happens first: a new, live cell emerges, or they all dissolve into simple compounds?

>>15738020
>>15738041
In the beginning God made the universe
>NOOOOOOO!!!!!
>in the beginning albert einstein the sacred jew of SOIENCE!! made the universe!!!!
>god is not real, that why its OK for me to masturbate and tell lies and steal
In the beginning God made the plants and animals
>NOOOOOOO!!!!!
>in the beginning charles darwin the sacred jew of SOIENCE!! made the plants and animals!!!!
>god is not real, that why its OK for me to masturbate and tell lies and steal

>>15737995
A molecule, perhaps like RNA, can copy itself without the need for a cell.

>>15738797
Stop worrying wendy

>>15738070
shut up you stupid fucking fagtard

>>15735832
>one day by chance a whole fucking cell pops into existence and now life starts
Life was probably going on before cells. Or it was going on inside cells and outside them for a while.

Honestly atoms are really an abstraction on the nature of ideas rather than a real physical thing. If you see the world as composed of ideas you will always wind up looking for an atomic base. The real flaw is that science assumes ideas and words are supreme, a very christian notion. Reality is not just ideas it is experience, emotion, ideas, change many different things. Hence science will always fail to explain the true world.

>>15739383
Do you feel and experience being smart when you spout all these words that are supposed to manifest intellect?

>>15737609
no, hydrothermal vent produce hydrogen neccessary for reduction of CO2 to organic carbon. (sure, oxygenic photosynthesis splits water to get reduction power, but that evolved later)

>>15738003
>This has to be bait. RNA that actually exists today has to be stored in -80C temperatures to keep it around without degrading,
The reason RNA degrades so quickly nowadays is mainly because of RNase, which is everywhere and can easily contaminate a sample. If you can keep RNase out of your sample, you can store RNA at room temp for quite a while. The reason most people don't do this is because the air is swimming with microorganisms that can somehow get into your sample.

>>15737645
You're talking about eukaryotes, which weren't around for like the first billion years of life.

>>15739397
Yes I do. Its fun to feel smart :)

>>15739408
Good thing reality consists of feelings, otherwise your smartness wouldn't have a medium.

>>15739409
Reality is more than just feelings :)
But they are most important.

>>15738046
>You're not gonna get primitive life if I chop up modern life in a blender and wait a week therefore Genesis is true.
This is a common creationist fallacy.

>>15739421
You strawman my argument, adding "modern" where I'm imagining a simple cell, and saying "a week" where I'm giving you all the time in the world, and then asserting that this strawman is a result of me believing in something that I have never mentioned once.

All this goes to show how weak your position is. You can't even imagine that if I gave you the components of a billion simple cells in close proximity, that they would do anything except disintegrate.

>>15740645
what did you expect? atheists are all fundamentally dishonest people.
they're not here to discuss science, they're here to shill their atheist propaganda on everyone

>>15739375
You need something that is more likely to create a successful copy of itself than it is to die before doing so. The simplest possible form that can achieve this that anyone knows of is a prokaryotic cell. You could probably make something a bit simpler than a current day bacterium, but the complexity would still be extremely high, and nobody knows of anything less complex that has such a functionality. In fact it seems plausible that a cell is the simplest possible reliable replicator.

If you cannot replicate yourself, you cannot move towards higher forms of complexity.

>>15735832
Within a short time on a small lab scale there forms directly longer molecules like formose and even longer(look up formose reaction and Miller Urey experiment). Now scale that up on earth and look how RNA( or Xeno nucleic acid)and ribozymes form. Biology is getting raped by big pharma and should do more ground research like a big Miller Urey experiment. Why does physic have billion heavy projects for finding le dark matter or super symmetric particles but biology and biochemistry still has to fight for it's place. I really expect there would form longer rna and many autocatalytic cycles within weeks.

>>15735832
>constantly undergoing various reactions, forming new compounds which mostly degrade
>mostly degrade.
So the ones that didn't degrade, stuck around and in doing so they created a new chemical environment for other compounds to be stable in.

>>15735843
Or, hear me out, their math was wrong.
Wrong might be too strong, their equation was Incomplete.

>>15738003
At room temperature and pressure.
Did you even watch the Titan search effort?
It's pretty cold on the ocean floor.