Divine inventions: The Ribosome

[Black Rose]

How exactly did this evolve? Abiogenesis seems unlikely. Where else could it have come from but The Creator (God). Bible is irreverent to this topic so please don't bring up creationism.

 

[Rook]

So when science has not yet pried something open with rational observation,the only alternative is a god? How is this not creationism? For eons it was thought that the earth was stationary, created by god, yet that has been disproven. How then can one continue to grasp at such false straws if a more logical approach is possible and propable?

 

[Black Rose]

So your answer to efficacy is nothing but rationalization. I expect more from this thread.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Ask a biologist?

 

[Black Rose]

Ask a biologist?

From the future? What do we currently know?

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

From the future? What do we currently know?

Currently, we know that from extreme simplicity can arise extreme complexity, from the laws of physics. It is infinitely improbable that there is then an omnipotent omniscient etc creator who cares about us in any way (a meaningless dust of life when there is, most likely, more life in the universe) and that nature seems to work perfectly without. Not to mention that the idea of the god started when we had no chance at all of understanding the world around us. It happened after the cognitive revolution, after the part in which we developed abstract functions of our brains, i.e. could imagine things that aren't really there. I wander why.
We live in the age where we can go beyond our primitive subjectivities. Everything else is a disgrace.
I am speaking generally about how you definitely should not be biased in the favor of the existence of any deities, it is simply irrational to be. If you want anything more specific (like the question you asked) you will simply have to read a few science books and be very critical of everything while doing so.

 

[Cognisant]

...

Looks kinda mechanical doesn't it?
Like somebody intentionally built it, like a machine.

Is that what we are, deep down, are we made up of machinery on a molecular level, are we just incredibly sophisticated autonoma?

Is god an engineer?
I suppose then if you want the best interpretation of god's will you'd ask an engineer wouldn't you?

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

Derp a herp: Chance ("big bang")?

An series of an infinite number of accidents over trillions of years each contradicting the second law of thermodynamics along the way?

ROTFLOL

ATP Synthase is another one of the countless infinitely fascinating mechanisms (Deorxyribonucleaicacid etc) supporting life which surely are ALL products of random chance. Absolutely none of it has been masterfully ordered, composed, and orchestrated by any sort of higher order. That would imply some degree of uncertainty and any degree of uncertainty + faith in said higher ordering power/ influence = Heresy. Burn them at the stake

 

[Rook]

So one should fill uncertainty with a deity? Quantum physics operate on chance and uncertainty. So in a universe were the fundemental forces are guided by uncertainty, the development of complex mechanisms is only possible through intellegent design, and not by chance, a fundemental denominator?
I scoff at replacing uncertainty with the certainty of a deity.

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

So one should fill uncertainty with a deity? Quantum physics operate on chance and uncertainty. So in a universe were the fundemental forces are guided by uncertainty, the development of complex mechanisms is only possible through intellegent design, and not by chance, a fundemental denominator?
I scoff at replacing uncertainty with the certainty of a deity.

Deity is an inefficient and (from our side) lazy solution to the question of uncertainty.

 

[Seed-Wad]

Problem with the human mind is that it can only use processes with predictable outcomes (more or less the same as linear processes). Nature can sample from whatever process it likes, and does so from all processes simultaneously, and thus can create things that would be almost impossible to think up when using only linear processes.

To understand complex behavior we need to research complex functions. Go study chaos theory, non-linear dynamics, and the likes, and you'll become much less phased by this seemingly impossible complexity and grace.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

Problem with the human mind is that it can only use processes with predictable outcomes (more or less the same as linear processes). Nature can sample from whatever process it likes, and does so from all processes simultaneously, and thus can create things that would be almost impossible to think up when using only linear processes.

To understand complex behavior we need to research complex functions. Go study chaos theory, non-linear dynamics, and the likes, and you'll become much less phased by this seemingly impossible complexity and grace.

And from whence sprang this "nature" you speak of?

 

[SpaceYeti]

An series of an infinite number of accidents over trillions of years each contradicting the second law of thermodynamics along the way?

Okay, I'm even less convinced you're for real. This one sentence requires four errors of understanding. Most creationists can't even pack their sentences that full of shit.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

Okay, I'm even less convinced you're for real. This one sentence requires four errors of understanding. Most creationists can't even pack their sentences that full of shit.

(just to be sure you know I was being sarcastic).

If you already knew I was being sarcastic:

please be specific and deconstruct the sentence you've quoted and specifically delineate the "four errors of understanding".

Perhaps we shall discover something about one another's position. Maybe you are right...convince me.

 

[SpaceYeti]

From the future? What do we currently know?

Frankly, I don't know exactly what's known. I'm not a biologist. That's why I suggested you ask one. Mayhaps a Google search would be the next best thing if you can't find one. I've emailed, and gotten a reply from, Dr. Kenneth Miller, though, as well as several other professional biologists. You could at least try to get a hold of them and ask though, no?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

How exactly did this evolve?

1. Specific to the ribosome, spindles guided by an as of yet unknown cellular mechanism.
2. What is life?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Currently, we know that from extreme simplicity can arise extreme complexity, from the laws of physics. It is infinitely improbable that there is then an omnipotent omniscient etc creator who cares about us in any way (a meaningless dust of life when there is, most likely, more life in the universe) and that nature seems to work perfectly without.

Same question: What is life?

Not to mention that the idea of the god started when we had no chance at all of understanding the world around us. It happened after the cognitive revolution, after the part in which we developed abstract functions of our brains, i.e. could imagine things that aren't really there. I wander why.

Enlightenment, you say?

We live in the age where we can go beyond our primitive subjectivities. Everything else is a disgrace.

I am speaking generally about how you definitely should not be biased in the favor of the existence of any deities, it is simply irrational to be.

This is bull. Nothing is experienced or interpreted objectively, nor can it be. It's equally irrational to rule out possibilities that one cannot comprehend or conceive.

So one should fill uncertainty with a deity?

Divine uncertainty ftw. Hail Eris!

Quantum physics operate on chance and uncertainty.

Or does it actually operate on agency?

So in a universe were the fundemental forces are guided by uncertainty, the development of complex mechanisms is only possible through intellegent design, and not by chance, a fundemental denominator?
I scoff at replacing uncertainty with the certainty of a deity.

Reciprocal causality much?

 

[SpaceYeti]

If you already knew I was being sarcastic:

please be specific and deconstruct the sentence you've quoted and specifically delineate the "four errors of understanding".

An series of an infinite

Infinity isn't claimed by any biological theory.

number of accidents

Accidents require some kind of plan which goes awry in the first place, whereas here there's no indication of a plan or accidents in or against it's favor.

over trillions of years

Hasn't been that many.

each contradicting the second law of thermodynamics along the way?

No biological theory contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.

ROTFLOL

Indeed.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Infinity isn't claimed by any biological theory.

The limit of evolution.

No biological theory contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.

Life is an organized process. Recall the subforum you're in and its unfriendliness to "objective" absolutes.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

Infinity isn't claimed by any biological theory.

So how does your version of biology explain the origin of time and space, then? Claims of time and space not existing are irrelevant, of course, as practically all biological theories include the variables/ givens of time & space.* If time and space exist, there must be infinity as presently (unless there is a memo I didn't get) time isn't stopping anytime soon.

My version of biology states that we don't know the origin of time and space exactly but that doesn't mean time and space don't exist (yours demands this). But their existence is definite in the first place and its possible to refine a development of further deductions towards a clearer understandings of the powers/ forces which created time and space in an iterative manner (thought processes similar to those seen in nature across time and space to create life).

Accidents require some kind of plan which goes awry in the first place, whereas here there's no indication of a plan or accidents in or against it's favor.

The absence of a plan is still a plan.

Furthermore I submit one piece of evidence (and there is as much evidence, within infinite scales, as there are stars in the universe) that there is a plan:
Earth being just the right distance from the sun with just the right chemical balances to support biological life as we know it. Statistically, one would have to be a completely obtuse, hopeless moron to think that such things happened in the absence of a plan/ by chance. For any such one reading this right now: please don't go to Vegas or play the stock market until you get the logic center of your brain straightened out.

Evidence of accidents against a higher order's plan: Trisomy 21.

Hasn't been that many.

*I thought time and space didn't exist?

No biological theory contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.

The mathematical demands of the equations do (as interpreted by atheists as they ignore the input of order completely and/or provide no explanation): from the macroperspective where does the higher order energy come from in the atheist's version?

 

[SpaceYeti]

The limit of evolution.

... What limit? What are you talking about?

Life is an organized process. Recall the subforum you're in and its unfriendliness to "objective" absolutes.

No biological theory contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, though, including evolution. If it did, either it would get dropped as a theory, or the second law would get dropped as a law. So, basically, either prove the theory contradicts the second law and become rich and famous, or just make wild claims on an internet forum.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

No biological theory contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, though, including evolution. If it did, either it would get dropped as a theory, or the second law would get dropped as a law. So, basically, either prove the theory contradicts the second law and become rich and famous, or just make wild claims on an internet forum.

Its really quite simple. Its not that the second law of thermodynamics contradicts the evidence or the beliefs of those who believe in the existence of a higher power/ influence. In fact, the second law of thermodynamics completely ratifies/ justifies this belief in the existence of a higher ordering power/ influence. A the same time, the second law of thermodynamics (if true) clearly contradicts the (atheistic) idea that you can get something from nothing:

Posit #1: Entropy exists

then

Posit #2: the second law of thermodynamics is valid

then

posit #3: what provides the fuel of the higher order which is required to be fed to the systems whose existence depends on entropy? (biological life forms)

then

Posit #4a: those who believe in a higher ordering power/ influence governing the production of fuel for entropic systems have an explanation. Albeit fuzzy, there is an explanation beginning with, if nothing more even, the position that this higher power exists (whatever exactly it is)

Posit #4b: those who don't believe in a higher ordering power/ influence have no explanation at all. Atheists demand one believe in the "miracle" of something from nothing.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

*knocks both of your heads together*

So how does your version of biology explain the origin of time and space, then?

Biology says nothing about space and time. It talks about life and what it does within space and time.

The absence of a plan is still a plan.

Not really, though I get what you're saying in the respect that it's an equal Markov option.

Furthermore I submit one piece of evidence.

Evidence of accidents against a higher order's plan: Trisomy 21.

Both humbug.

...

It hinges on the nature of the universe, which we've already discussed ad nauseum. Why so obsessed with this pseudo-objectivity fetish of yours?

 

[Black Rose]

No biological theory contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.

Cars do not violate the laws of thermodynamics yet without intelligence no cars are made by the so called laws.

So to with biology. You expect cars(biology) to rise from the primordial ooze unabated by matters ineptitude. This is akin to expecting the sphinx being sculpted by the wind with desert sand.

 

[Black Rose]

The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine. - J. B. S. Haldane

http://youtu.be/4jtmOZaIvS0

 

[SpaceYeti]

Its really quite simple. Its not that the second law of thermodynamics contradicts the evidence or the beliefs of those who believe in the existence of a higher power/ influence. In fact, the second law of thermodynamics completely ratifies/ justifies this belief in the existence of a higher ordering power/ influence. A the same time, the second law of thermodynamics (if true) clearly contradicts the (atheistic) idea that you can get something from nothing:

This "something from nothing" idea has nothing at all to do with atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. That's all. There's no other requirement for the title. Being an atheist doesn't mean you believe anything came from nothing, nor does it require you not to. It's entirely neutral on every subject you can imagine except whether or not you believe a deity exists. That's the limit of it's influence.

I get the impression you're discussing the Big Bang, though, which does not posit that anything came from nothing, thus your claims relating to the idea are still entirely moot.

Posit #1: Entropy exists

then

Posit #2: the second law of thermodynamics is valid

then

posit #3: what provides the fuel of the higher order which is required to be fed to the systems whose existence depends on entropy? (biological life forms)

Posit 3 is a question, not something being posited. I'll answer it, even; Life gets energy from food. Some life eats other life or bio-matter or whatever, and other life gets energy from the sun, thus all life gets their energy, directly or indirectly, from the sun. The sun's energy comes from the interaction of it's own mass, it's gravity forcing nuclear fusion under extreme pressure. This source of energy does not get replenished. The sun will die in ~5 billion years.

then

Posit #4a: those who believe in a higher ordering power/ influence governing the production of fuel for entropic systems have an explanation. Albeit fuzzy, there is an explanation beginning with, if nothing more even, the position that this higher power exists (whatever exactly it is)

Good for them, I suppose, but so what? Believing something exists isn't a good reason to suppose you're correct.

Posit #4b: those who don't believe in a higher ordering power/ influence have no explanation at all. Atheists demand one believe in the "miracle" of something from nothing.

Firstly, I do have a basic understanding of Big Bang cosmology, so I actually do have a partial answer. Well, part of a partial answer. Secondly, I don't suppose the lack of an answer means the guy who claims to have one is then necessarily correct. It used to be believed that lightning was the direct action of gods, but now we understand that it's not. The fact that people didn't understand how lightning worked back then doesn't mean the people claiming it was a god were defaulted into the "correct answer" slot. If I don't have an answer for something, then I don't have an answer for it. I'd prefer the answer, but I'm not going to make up whatever I want and then pretend it's the answer. That's an argument from ignorance, and specifically a god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Cars do not violate the laws of thermodynamics yet without intelligence no cars are made by the so called laws.

So to with biology. You expect cars(biology) to rise from the primordial ooze unabated by matters ineptitude. This is akin to expecting the sphinx being sculpted by the wind with desert sand.

Do cars reproduce with variation, and are they subject to attrition?

 

[Black Rose]

Do cars reproduce with variation, and are they subject to attrition?

Variation must first have structure otherwise it reduced to simplicity. The wrongs that we face may only be that we first had to be given even a single gift of having beginning to try for purpose. I do not preclude the necessity of evolution. Only that epigenetics explains variation so that the fossils could not be known as the same or separate species.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Variation must first have structure otherwise it reduced to simplicity. The wrongs that we face may only be that we first had to be given even a single gift of having beginning to try for purpose. I do not preclude the necessity of evolution. Only that epigenetics explains variation so that the fossils could not be known as the same or separate species.

You did not answer my question. Do cars reproduce with variation, and are they subject to attrition?

 

[Black Rose]

You did not answer my question. Do cars reproduce with variation, and are they subject to attrition?

No

 

[SpaceYeti]

No

Then how is it a valid comparison when those are the two necessary components of biological evolution?

 

[Black Rose]

Then how is it a valid comparison when those are the two necessary components of biological evolution?

evolution by natural selection is not abiogenesis. Only when the first life began does natural selection take effect. Explain the beginning of Life.

 

[GodOfOrder]

evolution natural selection is not abiogenesis. Only when the first life began does natural selection take effect. Explain the beginning of Life.

Likely little bits of amino acids congealed over time. Eventually, some clusters were able to replicate. They continued to do so until they were either supplanted, destroyed, or established their dominance in the system. These replicators then probably began to form little lipid sacks around themselves for protection. They continued to replicate. As time went on they continued to grow in sophistication, through adaptation by natural selection. Eventually these primitive replicators became what we call "cells". It was ground up the whole way. Or that is my understanding anyway

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Or that is my understanding anyway

Guided by what process/force?

Basically, how is consciousness derived from nonconsciousness?

 

[Black Rose]

proc·ess1
ˈpräˌsesˈpräsəsˈprō-
noun
1.
a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.

@GodOfOrder

The cell replicates using a process like forging a steal sword or baking bread or building a combustion engine. These do not just happen in random order or by random part construction. Why would replicators produce ribosomes, they are complex and only one of hundreds/thousands of components in a cell?

 

[GodOfOrder]

Guided by what process/force?

Basically, how is consciousness derived from nonconsciousness?

That is a whole new topic that would probably deserve its own thread.

But I admit that my understanding is itself far from complete, adequate, or certain. I have gathered it from places like Dawkins' The Selfish Gene and others. Say what you wish about certain parts of his theories, but his base premise, that life at its most basic would be entities capable of replication, seems to be sound. From there, one sees all of the trappings of these replicators as mere extensions of said replicator, bodies minds and all. But on a more grounded note, there are self replicating crystals, and I think even perhaps strands of artificial DNA. If we can make such basic things, why couldn't they manifest in nature?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgh2E-b8E2g

But on a more hypothetical note:

Imagine all of the matter in the universe being jumbled up and reorganized in random combinations and permutations. There are only two things that can't exist; things which require more matter than the sum total available, and things which require types of matter that do not exist. By randomly shuffling all of it, anything can come out. That is everything from a Ford Explorer, to You, to a useless jumble of crap. All that matters in this case is the potentiality for a thing to be produced by this process. The probability of any given object to be generated is unimportant. (And if I do this an infinite number of times, I shall probably see each outcome at least once).

The point of my little hypothetical is a simple one. It proves that complexity implies nothing. A thing can exist simply because it can. Design is not required. Granted it is not at all an appropriate metaphor for the creation of life, it is just a little side point I thought was worth mentioning.

 

[Black Rose]

Drop a glass cup it shatters. Drop the shatters the cup reforms?
Begin with a big bang a universe appears from gas. Begin with another bang and everything is hats that clump to together?

Where does order come from GodOfOrder? Even chaos follows mathematics. Do cell form from the fractal mind of God?

 

[redbaron]

The argument that, 'science can't explain it' isn't an argument for a creator.

 

[Rook]

Drop a glass cup it shatters. Drop the shatters the cup reforms?
Begin with a big bang a universe appears from gas. Begin with another bang and everything is hats that clump to together?

Where does order come from GodOfOrder? Even chaos follows mathematics. Do cell form from the fractal mind of God?

Order? An illusion! Our universe is guided by propability. Look towards Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, were the momentum and position of a particle cannot be known at the same time. Is this order, or is it a universe guided by indeterminate results?

Once again, the concept of a deity is flung into the argument, the mysterious aspects of the universe explained away as some manifestion of a creator. When we see a brick, we see simply billions of atoms forming an object, and the light reflected off it. A brick is a complex, chaotic construct, and it will take more than a human lifetime to map every atom. It is also complex, but does that imply that a deity created it?

Intellegent design is the stale outcry of creationism as it slowly sinks into a pit of irrationality.
Do you not see the faults in your logic? The quick conclusions and desperate theories you grasp unto?

To be deluded is easy, to be enlightened, hard.

 

[SpaceYeti]

evolution by natural selection is not abiogenesis. Only when the first life began does natural selection take effect. Explain the beginning of Life.

Not my job. Ask a biologist. Everything I learned about biology in the last decade was learned online or from discussions with actual biologists (I wasn't even in college, I simply went up to them or emailed them. Unless they're in a hurry, they won't just ignore a sincere question), both of which are things you can do. It's a lot of information, and I remember a minority of it at best.

If you want to, though, we could assume we know nothing about the topic, and thus have no answer at all. From this lack of information, I would conclude nothing.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Where does order come from GodOfOrder?

Why does order require a cause? Why can't it simply be an innate aspect of the universe?

 

[walfin]

An alternative to God - a really amazing freak accident involving very very high voltage electricity from somewhere that had some kind of very specific voltage waveform.

Electricity is needed for abiogenesis.

But even then you could just say that God was the one who created that bolt of electrical power .

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

Likely little bits of amino acids congealed over time. Eventually, some clusters were able to replicate. They continued to do so until they were either supplanted, destroyed, or established their dominance in the system. These replicators then probably began to form little lipid sacks around themselves for protection. They continued to replicate. As time went on they continued to grow in sophistication, through adaptation by natural selection. Eventually these primitive replicators became what we call "cells". It was ground up the whole way. Or that is my understanding anyway

Sure. Seems legit. Now, where did the little bits of amino acids, their context, and the energy in the system surrounding them come from in the first place?

Those who believe in a higher ordering power/ influence have an answer (though perhaps fuzzy at times).

Those who do not...do not. (but generally they refuse to admit it and go to great lengths to obfuscate their lack of explanation).

 

[Hawkeye]

Sure. Seems legit. Now, where did the little bits of amino acids, their context, and the energy in the system surrounding them come from in the first place?

Those who believe in a higher ordering power/ influence have an answer (though perhaps fuzzy at times).

Those who do not...do not. (but generally they refuse to admit it and go to great lengths to obfuscate their lack of explanation).

Those that believe in a higher power do not have an answer at all... They have a belief that something beyond their concept of understanding makes things work.

Religion differentiates itself from science by being too lazy to figure out a potential reason why; it would rather cast it off as something we'll never know.

 

[GodOfOrder]

Sure. Seems legit. Now, where did the little bits of amino acids, their context, and the energy in the system surrounding them come from in the first place?

Those who believe in a higher ordering power/ influence have an answer (though perhaps fuzzy at times).

Those who do not...do not. (but generally they refuse to admit it and go to great lengths to obfuscate their lack of explanation).

The context is a young earth with frothing, mineral rich, seas and good temperatures. (By the way scientists have, in flasks, created similar conditions and found that amino acids tend to form) The energy comes from the sun and outer space, the same places that it has always come from. You don't really need much more of a jump start than that. It is just a matter of waiting until these amino acids form into something that replicates, and at that stage life behaves more like some mechanical algorithm than anything else. And the simple fact is, where eternity is concerned, the likelihood that something will eventually arise is high, even if that particular outcome is in itself improbable.

 

[Black Rose]

The argument that, 'science can't explain it' isn't an argument for a creator.

Its simply a matter of pattern recognition. Many people see different patterns and therefore have opinions. I see allot of positivism in this thread.

Why does order require a cause? Why can't it simply be an innate aspect of the universe?

Or an innate aspect of God. It does not matter what I think it matters that metaphysically we have no answers that can be formulated in reasoning alone because we simply don't see what is from every other point of view.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

The context is a young earth with frothing, mineral rich, seas and good temperatures. (By the way scientists have, in flasks, created similar conditions and found that amino acids tend to form) The energy comes from the sun and outer space, the same places that it has always come from. You don't really need much more of a jump start than that. It is just a matter of waiting until these amino acids form into something that replicates, and at that stage life behaves more like some mechanical algorithm than anything else. And the simple fact is, where eternity is concerned, the likelihood that something will eventually arise is high, even if that particular outcome is in itself improbable.

yes, yes many of those who believe in a Higher Power are well aware of the Miller-Urey experiment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

So: where did the "young earth with frothing, mineral rich, seas and good temperature" come from?

and where did the, "the sun and outer space, the same places that it has always come from"?

you said, "You don't really need much more of a jump start than that. It is just a matter of waiting"

But where did the fuel for the jump start come from? Furthermore:

"Waiting" for an infinite series of permutations to create a higher order without outside interventions would be moronic as the likelihood of chance providing the opposite of entropy is perhaps, at best, infinitely impossible (or at least an asymptote's approaching infinity of nothing worth of hope).

you say, "And the simple fact is, where eternity is concerned, the likelihood that something will eventually arise is high, even if that particular outcome is in itself improbable"

 

[GodOfOrder]

"Waiting" for an infinite series of permutations to create a higher order without outside interventions would be moronic as the likelihood of chance providing the opposite of entropy is perhaps, at best, infinitely impossible (or at least an asymptote's approaching infinity of nothing worth of hope).

you say, "And the simple fact is, where eternity is concerned, the likelihood that something will eventually arise is high, even if that particular outcome is in itself improbable"

Most of what you say will just lead to an infinite regress. I say how stars are formed. You ask another question and say "where did all the matter come from?" etc. Its pointless. Am I allowed to get ahead of you and just say that the "big bang" was not something from nothing, because that is where your headed isn't it?

But as for the part of you I actually quoted;

As an example if the chance of something is slim, say 1 out of 1000, in any isolated occurrence that event will be unlikely. But repeat this a few thousand times, and you are likely to see it happen once or more, the probability goes up. Increase or decrease the probability all you want, it doesn't matter.

So when I say eternity, consider the age of the earth. Life supposedly arose after about a couple billion years. The number is significantly large. I have no trouble imagining that in that time some type of self replicating matter formed eventually, by itself.

 

[Black Rose]

Given Infinite amount of time with the nuclear dynamics of stars will some form in the shape of Micky Mouse? Or will planets do the same?

 

[GodOfOrder]

An obvious straw man of the most pitiful order. You may as well bring up the crocoduck.

Don't be so foolish as to suppose that I should think an entire cell would appear at once. That is daft. A strand of molecules that couples and separates in order to form copies of itself is no a masterwork of complexity. When I speak of something arising, that is the type of thing I mean. It occurs as different amino acids form, eventually becoming more complex. It is these that eventually evolve into something you would recognize as life. It occurs one small step at a time.