dailygalaxy.com— Stephen Hawking believes that one of the major factors in the possible scarcity of intelligent life in our galaxy is the high probability of an asteroid or comet colliding with inhabited planets.
Sep 26, 2009View in Crawl 4
Also keep in mind that the comet doesn't have to actually hit Jupiter for us to be protected. It simply has to pull it off a collision course with earth.
Just because there's a bigger threat doesn't meant it's the only threat. You're more likely to die from cancer than eaten by a shark, but you wouldn't be saying that while you were getting eaten by the shark.
There is no such as chemical affinity as far as pre-DNA molecules becoming attracted to each other is concerned. It's not like you could take a DNA molecule, separate it, put the parts next to each other, and they'd just gravitate towards each other and chemically bond out of the ordinary. Biologists have to go to great lengths to get pre-DNA molecules to interact at all, much less merge in just the right way at just the right time, and in just the right order...otherwise you get a non-functioning clump of pre-DNA molecules.And I never said that chemical attraction is random. Such are governed be mathematically predictable forces. But, THAT is not in question. What is random is having the right molecules bump into each other in just the right way, for long enough, and without any interference over and over and over and over for several billion times...just to get one of tens of thousands of pre-DNA molecules.Having the right molecules meet in just the right way millions of times over and over is indeed random.Now, go back to biology class, open your mind to exactly what has to happen for natural processes to do it all, and...stop calling others names.
"There is no such as chemical affinity as far as pre-DNA molecules becoming attracted to each other is concerned."Gee, that's not what this research suggests: <a class="user" href="http://www.genmay.com/frontpage/index.php?p=vB814372" rel="nofollow">http://www.genmay.com/frontpage/index.php?p=vB8143 ...</a>Oh, and you're talking DNA, when you should be talking RNA.Perhaps you shouldn't be talking about things you demonstrably know jack s**t about, fool."Having the right molecules meet in just the right way millions of times over and over is indeed random."Millions aren't necessary. Only a few are. You obviously need a primer on the science you're trying (and failing) to address. Here: <a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg&amp;feature=related" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg&amp;fea ...</a>"Now, go back to biology class, open your mind to exactly what has to happen for natural processes to do it all, and...stop calling others names."I think I'll keep calling you a fool, because demonstrably you are. You don't know *ANYTHING* about abiogenesis, and yet you talk about it, and continue to talk about it and spread your idiotic lies.
ferretmanSep 27, 2009
Hey, insults are uncalled for, Moralogic.Clean up the act.
ceryn1126Sep 27, 2009
Also keep in mind that the comet doesn't have to actually hit Jupiter for us to be protected. It simply has to pull it off a collision course with earth.
creamenatorSep 27, 2009
That's if to say we can get Aerosmith to compose another rock ballad..
Closed AccountSep 27, 2009
i think cities should be built under the oceans, let the water scrub the carbon... Flying cars anyone
shinyplasticSep 27, 2009
Just because there's a bigger threat doesn't meant it's the only threat. You're more likely to die from cancer than eaten by a shark, but you wouldn't be saying that while you were getting eaten by the shark.
davidnivenSep 28, 2009
There is no such as chemical affinity as far as pre-DNA molecules becoming attracted to each other is concerned. It's not like you could take a DNA molecule, separate it, put the parts next to each other, and they'd just gravitate towards each other and chemically bond out of the ordinary. Biologists have to go to great lengths to get pre-DNA molecules to interact at all, much less merge in just the right way at just the right time, and in just the right order...otherwise you get a non-functioning clump of pre-DNA molecules.And I never said that chemical attraction is random. Such are governed be mathematically predictable forces. But, THAT is not in question. What is random is having the right molecules bump into each other in just the right way, for long enough, and without any interference over and over and over and over for several billion times...just to get one of tens of thousands of pre-DNA molecules.Having the right molecules meet in just the right way millions of times over and over is indeed random.Now, go back to biology class, open your mind to exactly what has to happen for natural processes to do it all, and...stop calling others names.
mnementh2230Sep 28, 2009
"There is no such as chemical affinity as far as pre-DNA molecules becoming attracted to each other is concerned."Gee, that's not what this research suggests: <a class="user" href="http://www.genmay.com/frontpage/index.php?p=vB814372" rel="nofollow">http://www.genmay.com/frontpage/index.php?p=vB8143 ...</a>Oh, and you're talking DNA, when you should be talking RNA.Perhaps you shouldn't be talking about things you demonstrably know jack s**t about, fool."Having the right molecules meet in just the right way millions of times over and over is indeed random."Millions aren't necessary. Only a few are. You obviously need a primer on the science you're trying (and failing) to address. Here: <a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg&amp;feature=related" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg&amp;fea ...</a>"Now, go back to biology class, open your mind to exactly what has to happen for natural processes to do it all, and...stop calling others names."I think I'll keep calling you a fool, because demonstrably you are. You don't know *ANYTHING* about abiogenesis, and yet you talk about it, and continue to talk about it and spread your idiotic lies.