So what is Entropy?
To follow in the tradition of Maimonides. Entropy is NOT a tendency to disorder! I need to thank Joe Felsenstein for directing me to Frank L. Lambert’s insights on a previous thread probably best left alone. Here is a great site to elucidate Lambert’s insights:
What about Evolution? Can complex systems arise naturally and spontaneously into higher tiers of complexity and order and opportunity—according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics— and all without divine intervention commonly described as Intelligent Design or Irreducible Complexity?
Sean Carroll has much to offer on this question:
Participants should refrain from arc-reflex boiler-plate diatribes echoing previously held opinion and first examine what Carroll has to say. Failure to do so will merit cyber-smack downs.
See what I mean? Clearly, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You pick up some words, you imagine that you’ve got it, then you get back into the “it must be magic” mode that betrays your lack of understanding.
Holy crap. You truly have no idea.
Of course not. I never said it took place the way you describe. That’s all in your misinformed imagination.
That’s your idea Mung. Not mine. Mine is informed by an understanding about how chemical reactions take place, by understanding of the dynamics of DNA and RNA associations, with each other, with their complementary strands, with themselves, and with catalysts. My idea is also informed by the experiments where these things actually happen.
As I said, you have no idea. Thanks for confirming, but it’s enough. Since you’re unwilling to learn, I suggest you to stop embarrassing yourself, and just move on.
Unlike you I did not get my education by watching YouTube.
You stopped reading right there, didn’t you?
No, you’re the one assuming this. Why do you think that the DNA double helix was present in the first life?
This is a very interesting and valid discussion. You are right if the explanation is not material then science stops. Since science requires limited resources to make progress I would argue that certain scientific endeavors should be prioritized over others. I am arguing until you make a reasonable case for the simple to complex model minimum resources should be spent on OOL projects.
You have only validated that you have low standards for validation.
You are right I committed a logical fallacy. The problem remains you are trying equate travel to the other side of the globe to travel to the other side of the galaxy.
And I think your standards are too low. Science is a game of limited resources and proper allocation of those resources should steer us away from investing in rainbows.
You’re repeating yourself.
I enjoyed our conversation. It now seems repetitive, so I’ll leave it here.
By the way, I looked for catalytic peptides from random libraries at google scholar. Look what I found. The field looks rather prolific.
I enjoyed it too. Thanks for the Google link. 🙂