Freethinker.nl

sarnian schreef: En wij waren er bijna net uit : panspermia als bron van leven op aarde is uiterst onwaarschijnlijk.

siger schreef:

sarnian schreef: En wij waren er bijna net uit : panspermia als bron van leven op aarde is uiterst onwaarschijnlijk.

Snel even "uiterst" ertussen geplakt. Leugenbrok.

sarnian schreef:En wij waren er bijna net uit : panspermia als bron van leven op aarde is uiterst onwaarschijnlijk.

siger schreef:Wie waren er bijna net uit?

siger schreef:Dus, jij en ik waren er bijna net uit dat we verschilden van mening. Nu begrijp ik het.

LordDragon schreef:siger leuk, en idd niet uit te sluiten. Ik heb me niet echt in de panspermia discussie gemoeid, maar ik heb wel een vraagje. Waarom niet panspermia en abiogenese? Lijkt me ook een mogelijkheid.

MVG, LD.

Fishhook schreef:ik bedoel deze claim:

Sir Fred Hoyle a mathematician and astronomer calculated that the probability of one simple enzyme forming by chance is 10 to the power of 20 (one with twenty zeros behind it), to 1. Hence for one cell to form, about 2000 enzymes are needed, which makes the probability of the first self replicating cell forming by random movement of atoms as 10 to the power of 40000 to 1. One bitter critic of Hoyle begrudgingly says that that this figure is 'probably not overly exaggerated'.

ScienceDirect schreef:Previous calculations based on simple combinatorial analysis over estimate the number of sequences by a factor of 100.000. The number of cytochrome c sequences is about 3,8 × 10^61 [1 met 61 nullen]. The probability of selecting one such sequence at random is about 2,1 ×10−^65 [64 nullen achter de komma]. The primitive milieu will contain a racemic mixture of the biological amino acids and also many analogues and non-biological amino acids. Taking into account only the effect of the racemic mixture the longest genome which could be expected with 95 % confidence in 1.000.000.000 years corresponds to only 49 amino acid residues. This is much too short to code a living system so evolution to higher forms could not get started. Geological evidence for the “warm little pond” is missing. It is concluded that belief in currently accepted scenarios of spontaneous biogenesis is based on faith, contrary to conventional wisdom.

The first thing I want noted about my father is that he is not in any way, shape or form a Creationist. He does not support Intelligent Design. He supports Darwin’s theory of evolution and points out that it is one of the best-supported theories in science.

It is absolutely crazy to assert that my father is a Creationist because he quotes the Bible in his scientific publications. He quotes Greek and Roman myths considerably more frequently than the Bible, yet no one has used that as evidence that he is a pagan, or Dionysian or Apollonian.