Refutation of a Statistical Argument Supporting Coevolution (Origins)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, March 07, 2010, 22:25 (5373 days ago) @ David Turell

Ah hell, there's alot here. I'll break it up.-" There is, e.g., an infinite number of (macroscopically) exact copies of the earth with everything that exists on it, although the probability that a given observable region of the universe (hereinafter O-region) carries one of such copies is vanishingly tiny. This picture seems counterintuitive in the extreme but it is a direct consequence of eternal inflation, the dominant model of the evolution of the universe in modern cosmology [3-5]."-In other words, statistically, all permutations and combinations will eventually be tried, or possibly even have been tried already. -"Thus, although the model of eternal inflation cannot be considered proved,"-Means that the entire paper is raw speculation following from the assumption that "eternal inflation" correct. (They are specific about which kind, at least.)-"How such a system could evolve, is a puzzle that defeats conventional evolutionary thinking."-And the earth is round? Still waiting...-" The MWO model dramatically expands the interval on the axis of organizational complexity where the threshold can belong by making emergence of complexity attainable by chance (Fig. 1). In this framework, the possibility that the breakthrough stage for the onset of biological evolution was a high-complexity state, i.e., that the core of the coupled system of translation-replication emerged by chance, cannot be dismissed, however unlikely (i.e., extremely rare in the multiverse)."-Sounds like the writer is about to simply formally state what I had said myself last spring...-"Prior to the onset of biological evolution, there could be no function, just complexity, and the emergence of any level of complexity is guaranteed by the MWO model."-Yup. This paper up to this point is basically saying that the many-universes scenario guarantees that life will be created by chance in at least one of the universes in consideration. -What this paper says, is that (knowing what we know now) chance only has an automatic win if an MWO scenario is correct. -I don't hate this article at all, it simply verifies what I said back when I first came to this thread. There is no evidence of MWO, and we lack a method of abiogenesis--so therefore the question is far from solved. IF MWO is somehow proved it simply means that irreducible complexity is an invalid argument. A good paper, but very, very, very, speculative.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"