Re: I'm surprised...
- From: John Larkin <jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 14:18:29 -0800
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:13:34 +0100, theJackal
<f_a_s_t_g_s_f_r_i_d_e_r@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>Rubbish? LOL. Be reasonable man . I know a mathematician who disagrees with both of us.
>>>Generalizations are always dangerous.
>>>Give an example of an event which has occured with a probability of 10^-20 . NONE is the
>>>answer.
>>>
>>
>>If an experiment has a positive-outcome probability of 1e-20, and you
>>repeat it 1e25 times, it's practically guaranteed to hit.
>>
>>So, consider, on a planet the size of Earth, covered mostly by water
>>full of organic stuff, bathed in UV and other interesting stimuli, how
>>many chemical experiments are performed in a billion years?
>>
>>Hmmm... assume 1e20 per liter per second...
>>
>>John
>>
>Its more complicated then that. If you have ever tried carrying put any chemical
>reaction in the lab you'll know.
Of course I have.
> You have to give precise inputs like temperatures ,
>chemical , precise quantities and so forth just to get one chemical reaction in the right
>direction and thats in controlled conditions. Here we are talking about chemical
>reactions which have not been duplicated in labs because of their complexity and we are
>talking about just one type of protein necessary for life! Life is not made of proteins
>but much more then that .. so the probabality curve strongly tends toward zero!
If you perform, say 1e80 random chemical experiments, only one has to
work right, and make a compound that can replicate and be the basis
for the next steps. That methodology doesn't have a lot in common with
Tuesday-afternoon Chem101 labs.
John
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: I'm surprised...
- From: theJackal
- Re: I'm surprised...
- From: Dirk Bruere at Neopax
- Re: I'm surprised...
- References:
- Re: I'm surprised...
- From: bill . sloman
- Re: I'm surprised...
- From: theJackal
- Re: I'm surprised...
- From: Dirk Bruere at Neopax
- Re: I'm surprised...
- From: theJackal
- Re: I'm surprised...
- From: David Brown
- Re: I'm surprised...
- From: theJackal
- Re: I'm surprised...
- From: John Larkin
- Re: I'm surprised...
- From: theJackal
- Re: I'm surprised...
- Prev by Date: Re: calculator for resistive divider using standard resistor values?
- Next by Date: Re: universal programmer
- Previous by thread: Re: I'm surprised...
- Next by thread: Re: I'm surprised...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|