Refutation of a Statistical Argument Supporting Coevolution (Origins)
> 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.-Agreed. Did you want to comment about the calculation in the commentaries? That replication and translation mechanisms are unlikely to the extent of 10^-1080. I'm back to my chance odds. It is in the final comment.
Complete thread:
- Refutation of a Statistical Argument Supporting Coevolution -
xeno6696,
2010-02-23, 22:01
- Refutation of a Statistical Argument Supporting Coevolution -
David Turell,
2010-02-23, 23:03
- Refutation of a Statistical Argument Supporting Coevolution -
xeno6696,
2010-02-24, 00:26
- Refutation of a Statistical Argument Supporting Coevolution -
David Turell,
2010-02-24, 01:36
- Refutation of a Statistical Argument Supporting Coevolution - xeno6696, 2010-02-24, 15:06
- Refutation of a Statistical Argument Supporting Coevolution -
David Turell,
2010-02-24, 01:36
- Refutation of a Statistical Argument Supporting Coevolution -
David Turell,
2010-03-07, 00:51
- Refutation of a Statistical Argument Supporting Coevolution - xeno6696, 2010-03-07, 22:03
- Refutation of a Statistical Argument Supporting Coevolution -
xeno6696,
2010-03-07, 22:25
- Refutation of a Statistical Argument Supporting Coevolution - David Turell, 2010-03-07, 22:31
- Refutation of a Statistical Argument Supporting Coevolution -
xeno6696,
2010-02-24, 00:26
- Refutation of a Statistical Argument Supporting Coevolution -
David Turell,
2010-02-23, 23:03