Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Actually, I did.
Actually, it does. You said:
Emphasis mine.

All of matter is governed by probability, at the fundamental level. All of it.

Quantum mechanics is the study and definition of said probability.

Hence, you have managed to reduce the last 100 years of physics (including this computer, the operation of which is also dependent on certain probabilities) to pseudo science.
Modifying it to be as theorhetically correct as possible will still leave uncertainty in it. To make it as accurate as possible, work with changes in energy (potential and kinetic). Then, because of uncertainty in the energy of the object, and the edges of the object, you find that in reality, it's only an apporiximation.

The edges only are defined by probability of finding matter there. The energy is only the probability of finding electrons in particular states at certain times. The total energy is the sum of the rest mass, the kinetic energy (of every thing in it, which is just the mean of the object), and the potential (again, an average across space--which isn't well defined).



Oh, and this (which I just realized--take home tests blow):

The situation is not complete. Why is it that object there? Why is at height H? Probability.

Once its actions begin to occur, the statistical average approaches d=.5gt^2 with pretty decent accuracy.

Coragyps

DrGH, wherever he is at the moment, has many pages of them. Try Googling "abiogenesis" while we all wait for him to wander by.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

And you've already made an assumption which is likely invalid.
When it alters the energy and chemical composistion of the are, then it gives a great deal about it.
Sure. If we know it.
Nor am I. You proposed the experiment (get life to happen on its own again).


Incidentally, given



No, what I said was life was around for 2.5 billion years--it had taken about 2 billion to start. Sorry if it wasn't clearer there.

And most of the world became inhabited around 5-6 hundred million years ago.

yguy

Your grasp of physics is impressive indeed - especially when compared with your abject blindness to the obvious.

Here's the thing: the distance the pebble will fall is not governed by any equation whatsoever, but by the physical realities which the equation describes. The equation is not the governor, but the governed, as it is merely a codification of what our observations have led us to conclude.

Now, since we know that an equation which can predict an event with greater than 99% accuracy doesn't govern the actual event, how can we possibly believe that probability - which in the realm of abiogenesis hasn't predicted a damned thing as far as I'm aware - governs anything whatsoever?

Doubting Didymus

Yguy. I notice that you are still operating under the impression that evolution is random. That is an insurmountable hurdle for you. No one could seriously believe that random chance could assemble anything so complicated as a living cell, and no one does. Evolution is not random at all: ameobas evolved from simpler ancestors by the nonrandom cumulative selection of beneficial mutations. This applies to all lifeforms other than the first replicators, which were simple enough to occur by chance. They were not cells at all, but were probably small and simple RNA molecules.

Very important: evolution is not random.

yguy

It was not I who made the link between evolution and probability, so I don't know where you're getting this idea.

Doubting Didymus

You are clearly under the impression that the evolution of lifeforms equates to the random 'falling together' of the neccessary atoms. I did not mean for my post to be a direct reply to your current exchange on probability: I have come late to this thread. That is all.

yguy

If you read the opening post, you will see that I haven't made any claim that abiogenesis is a random process - quite the contrary, in fact. My experiment was suggested for those who apparently do - so it appears your attempt to educate would be better directed at Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ.

Doubting Didymus

No, JTDC is correct. Abiogenesis probably has a very large random component. It is evolution that is not random. Once random molecular interactions had produced a replicating RNA strand (I think they can get as puny as a mere 200 bases), evolution can produce the rest of biodiversity. (that includes amoebas, obviously).

yguy

Then I don't know what I said that you object to. I don't remember making any claim in this thread regarding probability as it relates to evolution in general.