undefined | Better HN

0 pointskrapp1y ago0 comments

Evolution doesn't assume "DNA from nothing," rather that DNA itself is the result of evolutionary processes from simpler chemical precursors[0]. We know that emergent complexity exists, and it doesn't require a supernatural cause.

The problem is, people can't comprehend the complexity that can result in millions or billions of years of iterations, so they assume it must be magic, because that seems simpler and more intuitive. But nature is rarely intuitive at the scale of human understanding.

[0]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/

0 comments

throwitaway2221y ago

Even so, the physics of everything being amenable to life, etc... seems like just as easily none of that could have existed. Instead, we have gravity, strong nuke forces, and everything on up (temperature, water molecules) that all seem to be "pro life".

It's like everything in the universe wants existence and to be felt by something. I can't just assume coincidence because of that.

krappOP1y ago

> It's like everything in the universe wants existence and to be felt by something. How so?

We have one example of life existing anywhere in the universe, our own biosphere. Everything else in the universe that we observe appears dead or hostile to life as we know it. If it's the case that "everything in the universe wants existence and to be felt by something" it seems weird that this universal cosmic need expresses itself through mostly insects and bacteria and a few primates on one planet, and everything else is mostly dark matter and gamma rays and black holes and burning gas.

mrkeen1y ago

> seems like just as easily none of that could have existed.

There is infinite stuff which does not exist.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse