Poor science fiction contains preposterous bits that are so absurdly unlikely that it pretty much ruins the story. When Charles Darwin first proposed his theory of common descent in the mid 19th century, it was legitimately fascinating and worth considering. As experimental and observational science accumulated, however, we learned about molecular machines built from specific protein structures, molecular computers that calculate cell fate according to various signaling pathways10, and, as Craig Venter put it:
“All living cells that we know of on this planet are “DNA software”-driven biological machines, comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA.”
Even using the most optimistic extreme upper limits for the probabilities of blind and mindless nature coding the digital information for thousands of functional proteins necessary for an operating cell, including the required molecular machines, those probabilities are so infinitesimally small that if Eugene Koonin thought we needed an infinite number of universes to explain the origin of RNA translation, that is nothing compared to getting an entire cell up and running. So what possible explanations do we have? Kirk Durston , “On Fantasy in Modern Science” at Evolution News and Science Today:
Which brings us to… the multiverse! Or, as Durston would put it, to science fiction. Evidence-freefun cavorting in the clothes of science.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
See also: The multiverse is science’s assisted suicide
Kirk Durston: In Defence Of Experimental Science
Backing up the particle physicist who said there is baked-in bias in science.