[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 98 KB, 236x379, Screenshot from 2019-10-03 17-15-36.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11028554 No.11028554[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

are we supposed to just sit here and believe that something like this spontaneously came into existence out of pure randomness? Atoms literally just colliding together in a random way, somehow, joined together in this exact structure and formed this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7UFDUcstW0

>> No.11028564

>>11028554
What research are you basing your suggestion that it didn’t arise naturally on?
You know randomness isn’t even real, right?

>> No.11028565

>>11028554
>Cells reproduce by collision
Anon...

>> No.11028567

>>11028554
No. Microbiology is basically a big hoax at these point, most of these chemicals' behavior and function are completely unknown and possibly unknowable. There is no "walking protein" or whatever, it's just a hypothesis without proof

>> No.11028569

>>11028564
>You know randomness isn’t even real, right?
Retard

>> No.11028571

>>11028565
what? nigga we are more low level than that. Pic rel is a protein.

>> No.11028607

>>11028567
I mean there are literally pictures of a transport molecule doing this.
Have you ever considered you might be a moron who's ruined his critical thinking with memes?

>> No.11028616

>>11028569
Randomness is not falsable
>inb4 but muhh quantum mechanics!!

>> No.11028619

>>11028569
I must, also, be retarded.

>> No.11028625

>>11028554
>randomness
>>>/x/ shit

If there were randomness or even chaos then entropy wouldn't exist.

>> No.11028627

>>11028625
switch out "randomness" for "entropy" then.
does it really change anything? you huge faggot.
are you happy the semantics are now correct?
are you?

>> No.11028629

>>11028625
I don't believe in randomness, but why do you think entropy wouldn't exist without it

>> No.11028631

>>11028607
>thinks a computer animated "dramatization" gif means "caught on video"

>> No.11028637

>>11028554
Its you think its like throwing millions of dice and having them all come up 6.
But its really throwing millions of dice over and over again for millions of years and keeping the ones that land on 6

>> No.11028642

>>11028637
if its so easy then why does no other life exist in the universe?

>> No.11028643
File: 273 KB, 517x396, 1570064545742.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11028643

>>11028629
>>11028627
Entropy is never random in any manner. It is the toppest of top laws of physics. It controls everything and everything you perceive to be random or chaotic. If the latter two were real then entropy couldn't function and would not exist in any manner.

>> No.11028645

Isn't there some music that fits anything? ..except jazz.

>> No.11028647

>>11028642
>if I haven't seen it it doesn't exist

>> No.11028648

>>11028616

How do you get from:
>Randomness is not falsable
To:
>You know randomness isn’t even real, right?

There is a pretty big leap in your reasoning here.

>> No.11028649

>>11028554
Evolution is not random

>> No.11028653

>>11028642
If that is true, it defeats any argument for intelligent design.

>> No.11028661

>>11028642
Prove it doesn’t.

>> No.11028666

>>11028631
>dat reading comprehension
Why are you so stupid bro?

>> No.11028674

>>11028631
It’s literally been videod there’s a gif of it somewhere

>> No.11028714

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/what-happiness-looks-like/

Fake.

>> No.11028776
File: 284 KB, 1920x1080, DRAGON GIRL SIBEL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11028776

>>11028554
no actually knows but you are just as dumb for saying it's impossible

>> No.11028780
File: 62 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault (10).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11028780

flagella can flagellate.. seriously just look at your sperm under a microscope sometime at atleast 400 mag and you can see that molecular motors are not a joke

>> No.11028785

>>11028554
Anon, those animations are FAKE! IRL it bounces around pretty much fucking randomly and only roughly moves forward. It can't work at all without atoms just colliding together in a random way.

>> No.11028838

>>11028616
>falsable
babby can't spell its new werd

>> No.11028842

>>11028607
>ruined his critical thinking with memes
Memes can't ruin something that never existed.

>> No.11028866

>>11028554
no, they got assembled by magical atom gnomes. atom gnomes themselves being assembled by atom atom gnomes

>> No.11028882

OP doesn't seem to really grasp the timescales involved or the maxim that complexity builds upon complexity.

Evolution is cold hard bitch

>> No.11028955

>>11028554
>complexity can't arise on it's own
Everything in the universe would disagree with you there.

>> No.11029016

>>11028653
I hole-hardedly agree, but allow me to play doubles advocate for a moment.

Most, excluding Pantheists, believe that the intelligent designer transcends the perceivable universe. How would a lack of life within the universe prove the lack of intelligent design? I want to see your thought process.

Personally, I agree that life COULD exist somewhere.

>> No.11029125
File: 922 KB, 400x225, 1395164600238.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11029125

>>11029016

>hole-hardedly

>> No.11029140

>>11028616
Yeah, it is falsifiable.
>Predict a thing more reliably than randomness should permit

>> No.11029142

>>11028554
Do you even know what the word random means?
>>11028564
>You know randomness isn’t even real, right?
Yikes.

>> No.11029175

https://youtu.be/YF3WLfimsb4

>> No.11029269

>>11028780

The protein in question is a kinesin, and it moves very differently to dynein in your post

>> No.11029471

>>11029016
Well if you start from the premise that we can't conceive some inconceivable life that is outside the observed universe, how could I argue? He'll if I know. I was also devil's advocate. I'm cool if we were made by aliens. That is what a being from out of this world would be. If we are getting into other dimensions, that's science thinking there may still be a Santa Claus.

>> No.11029480

>>11029125
>>11028838
Are you new? That gets boring.

>> No.11029503

>>11029471
For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality.

The point is that arguing of an intelligent design is already outside the scope of our perception as beings within our "container." I see where you're coming from, and i agree. It all boils down to "what do we want to believe?"

Quite frankly, this question may never have a correct answer in our lifetime.

>> No.11029512

Even I believe in this shit unironically and I'm french celestial girlfriend poster.

OP you have no reason to believe that wouldn't form on it's own.

And yes she is fucking real and I'm not delusional.

>> No.11029532
File: 109 KB, 768x900, kinesintree-768x900.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11029532

>>11028554
no, you're not.

>> No.11029537

>>11029512
In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite.

You have no reason to believe that it would. And yet, everyone chooses to believe something at some point.

>> No.11029540

>>11028554
That's a non-scientist very loose artistic depiction of something that isn't what the title says.

>> No.11029546

>>11028554
>Atoms literally just colliding together in a random way, somehow, joined together in this exact structure and formed this
yeah, after about a billion years of more primitive proteins interacting in a way that promoted their reproduction

>> No.11029572

>>11028554
Ah Dynein.
So the method is fluorescent “marking”, the single molecule has a flourescebt chemical bonded to it which shows up in the imaging. The movement of the molecule is then modeled. The “walk” and “strut” is the consistent explanation so far for the differences in distance covered in the time allotted. There was an alternative model that dynein creeped but this has not been borne out by the data.

>> No.11029579

>>11029546
>>11028554
It’s not so random. You know how eukaryote cells evolved? They basically swallowed other cells and formed a symbiotic relationships. We have these living things in us and we are ourselves made up of many billions(?) such things.

>> No.11029610

This world has no God because you're literally in hell.

>> No.11029618

>>11029537
>pre-madonnas
Minus well cut off your nose despite your face for all intensive purposes

>> No.11029704

>>11029618
I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go. Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once.

>> No.11029768

>>11029503
>arguing of an intelligent design is already outside the scope of our perception
Im not arguing for or against. I don't think it is outside our perception, just because we haven't perceived. You're talking magic. If you can't measure it, it might not exist. And I'm poking for more fun word play. I'm worried about this >>11029618
Hope that's just you fooling.

>> No.11029778

>>11028564
You mean randomness is just an unknown cause or law

>> No.11029865

>>11028616
>Randomness is not falsable
1+1 = 2 is not falsifiable, does that mean it's bad juju?

>> No.11029893

>>11029778
Not him but how can anything be random when everything has a cause? Maybe everything is random but not anything.

>> No.11029895

>>11028554
It's not at all scientific, but I believe everything is in some way sentiet, including fundamental particles. Our accepted perception regarding what constitutes sentience and intelligence prevents us from even considering that as a factor.
No , don't argue and tell me how it's wrong, and inb4 the R word - I get that. It's just a feeling, I acknowledge this is unacceptable.

>> No.11029907

>>11029142
>Yikes.

Yikes.

>> No.11029924

>>11029142
>Yikes
Cringe

>> No.11029942

>>11028554
nope, darwinian evolution is not pure randomness at all

>> No.11030683

>>11028554
>he doesn't know about reionization era and how atoms, structure came into existance just like that

>> No.11030742

>>11029942
Selection isn't random, but changes are.

So supposedly, having half a motor is better than not having it, and having two thirds of a motor is better than having half a motor, and so on... even though the motor stays completely useless until the final random mutation makes is useful, so who knows how were the incomplete motors that couldn't work selected for?

>> No.11030805

>>11028567
>Microbiology is a hoax you guise!!
>W-what do you mean there's experimental proof?

>> No.11030808

>>11029924
Have sex

>> No.11030811

>>11028631
Electron Microscope nigga

>> No.11030814

>>11030808
Give pussy

>> No.11030815

>>11028554
Wow i guess your 10 minutes of biased searching on google completely disproves nearly a century of biochemistry and the hundreds of universities and thousands of scientists who actually study the field. Gee i wish i was as smart as you.
Idiot.

>> No.11030933
File: 21 KB, 473x355, 1562113895107.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11030933

>>11028554
>it was magic, bro!

>> No.11031151

>>11028554
yet here you are, a product of your dad's slow swimmers

>> No.11031253

>>11030742
what you're talking about is the primary reason for why we have bizarre inefficiencies in all lifeforms

for example with humans the starkest thing is how retarded our genitals are, both the testicles being vulnerable and the vagina bleeding out once a month

>> No.11031270

>>11030742
>the motor stays completely useless
This is incorrect.
- The "motor" could develop from a previous structure with a different function (IIRC the current understanding is that at least one form of the flagella is a repurposed "syringe")
- an inefficient motor is still better than no motor
- a structure need not be positively selected *for* for it to be passed on, it only need not be selected *against* (eg. male nipples - they do nothing, but they aren't enough of a burden that nipple-less men are more reproductively successful)

>> No.11031665

>>11028554
Humans area really fucking bad at grasping probabilities.

>> No.11032101

>>11028567
lol what an idiot, I literally assemble molecular motors in a tube and then look at them under the EM

kys

>> No.11032116

>>11031270
>an inefficient motor is still better than no motor
free energy!

>> No.11032128
File: 18 KB, 392x500, 1538671465824.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11032128

>>11029016