R
rossum
Guest
I don’t know. I have not read his book. He may also have had data that was not in his book.What data do you think Jacques Monod had?
I don’t know. See above.Was he unjustified in drawing his conclusion?
In general yes. I have already said that a bacterium is more probable than a human brain.Do you agree with Hawking’s conclusion?
A single amoeba can live for less than a year. A higher clade of amoeba can live for hundreds of millions of years. You have not indicated whether you are talking about individuals, species or clades. That is what is imprecise.I specified an amoeba and a dinosaur. What is extremely imprecise about that?
Just that, it works. Why would I need more?So what is the non-scientific evidence for the truth of Buddhism - apart from your claim that “it works”?
Did you bother to read beyond the title? The second sentence of the article itself reads: “New neuroscience research may help explain the exiled Tibetan leader’s unremitting compassion for all people.” Is there any point in my posting links to articles if all you read is the title?That was the title of the article which:
There is a book called “Genesis”; it says nothing about Adam or Eve because neither are mentioned in the title of the book.
Find a better theory and you will get a Nobel prize. Einstein found a better theory than Newton’s. Until a better theory comes along we will continue to use the best we have to hand. At the moment in biology the theory of evolution is the best we have. Abiogenesis does not have a theory yet, but it does have a number of hypotheses that are being worked on. There is a place there for a new theory, all you need is some experimental support. All science is provisional; find a better theory, gather experimental support and your name will be in lights.Yet in practice you don’t allow for the possibility of error with regard to the fundamental laws of science?
To appear? less likely. To survive? more likely. An amoeba’s lifetime is far shorter than a human lifetime.So the human brain is far less likely to appear and to survive than amoeba?
Hardly. Once started, life can continue to survive as long as the environment does not change too much too quickly. Life has already survived the Snowball Earth. It will not survive being engulfed by the Sun. Some sort of life would probably survive anything much short of that, though a repeat of the Late Heavy Bombardment might succeed in killing everything.It demonstrates that the survival of life on this planet has been against overwhelming odds for more than three billion years.
The long term survival of any particular species is much more precarious. IIRC mammal species tend to last for about 1,000,000 years on average though I am open to correction on that figure.
Not particularly. Life adapts to its environment, so a slowly changing environment will not threaten life. A quickly changing environment over the whole planet will, hence my comments about the Sun or a repeat of the LHB.Doesn’t that strike you as a remarkable fact?
rossum