How was a stable ecosystem achieved through evolution?
If a species required to keep another in check, in order to prevent other species going extinct, due to over hunting, took millions of years to evolve, why was there always a balance? Also, if there weren't carnivores to keep herbivores in check, how was plant life not extremely in danger of being wiped out?
Yet it seems the ecosystem was always stable, and the only thing which has ever been a detriment to it, is Human life. Which is mostly caused by over hunting and pollution.
Another question, how does evolution explain the Cambrian explosion? It can't.
Aside from that, there are many things which go against evolution.
Why have we stopped pursuing truth?
I thought Science attempts to better itself, yet the evidence against evolution keeps piling up, and we continue to feed it to young minds when we know it is not correct.
>>7694843
- Ecosystems are never stable, as they are always changing to some degree small or large. A truly stable ecosystem is technically not possible, as if a stable ecosystem is artificially created it would destabilize once the artificial control is lifted.
- Species don't keep other species in check, as what this describes is artificial selection not natural selection. Evolution by natural selection occurs as a result of various factors like competition, adaptation to new niches, and large changes in the inhabited ecosystem.
- Plant life regulates itself through ground surface area and access to sunlight. If there is no more surface area for seeds to grow into plants on, then those seeds don't grow into plants. This occurs in rainforests today.
- Humans being a detriment to ecosystems is true if you are considering biodiversity. Species that go extinct usually do not have that high of a fitness in respect to other species that do not go extinct with human settlement anyways.
>>7694843
You are making the very common mistake of assuming evolution is going "towards" something. It doesn't have a purpose or end goal. It just happens.
>>7694913
I haven't studied the Cambrian explosion in detail, so I can't discuss it too well. Most of my knowledge of evolution is about how evolution occurs since I'm not studying biology past what I need for my major.
There's some dispute about the rapidness of the Cambrian explosion, but it seems that increased oxygen/ozone and the Ediacaran extinction caused the Cambrian explosion to happen.
>>7694928
>inb4 biblelife
This just has a lot of information, all of which is scientific.
There are a ton of videos on youtube of biologists and microbiologists slamming evolution.
I can go find them and post if you wish.
>>7694928
Sorry here is link
http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm
>>7694937
If you want me to comment on them, I have some spare time to do so
Protestant, I assume?
>>7694946
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2RZzyFTTXo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApJ-nvNoTSg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LTaPIK7maY
This video is not exactly related but would like to know what you think about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LTaPIK7maY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJoOhbf3_Ts
>>7694953
This is not a thread about religion.
It is about the search for truth and the lies of evolution.
Science vs Religion threads are against the rules.
>>7694957
fifth video was a copy.
This is the unrelated video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeNwxj_8Uao
Symbiotic relationships were a core development to ecosystems.
From what ive learned, some organisms developed to consume the exhaust and excrement of other organisms. Then competition began once one organism becomes to large and everything adapts in its own way or moves away or dies off.
Its all a system based on consumption, reproduction and, for lack of a better word, random outcomes.
>>7694959
It is about religion though. You believe evolution is wrong because it goes against your religion, not because you understand evolution. You may think you understand it and that your arguments and videos are making valid points about it, but they don't. There is no point in trying to discuss this rationally because clearly you are an irrational person who has already made it an important part of your personality to deny the science and evidence for evolution. Enjoy your thread.
>>7695032
No.
I believe evolution is wrong because the evidence goes against it.
Okay, well since you are such an expert, please tell us why all of the videos I posted are wrong.
When in all of them except for one, which is a video about Kaku, it's all coming from biologists and microbiologists, many of which of master and their Ph.D.
You are the one that doesn't understand evolution.
>>7694843
Op every organism is just fighting for themselves and it just happans that these organism fall into symbiosis as it collectively raises fitness of the ecosystem.
>>7695095
>I believe evolution is wrong because the evidence goes against it.
Yes, that's what I said. You think the evidence goes against it, but you are only willing to believe this because it goes against your religion.
>Okay, well since you are such an expert, please tell us why all of the videos I posted are wrong.
Again, what would be the point? If I absolutely disproved everything in those videos you would still believe evolution is wrong tomorrow, because you are religious. So no, I am not going to take the time to respond to your wall of bullshit. Nice try.
>>7695211
No, I believe it because that is where the evidence leads.
Evolution is an old pagan belief anyway.
Darwin wasn't the first to be wrong, or the first to be wrong about it.
>>7695211
You couldn't disprove them if you tried.
I'm sorry but, I'll take a biologists word and microbiologists words over yours any day.
The argument the how-can-evolution-explain-cambrian-question...
Cambrian explosion of life is not meant to be some sorts of "explanation" as OP proposed. From geological background.... stuff that dies is dead and its never coming back again... The thing is that Cambrian is that significant is becouse we have first very well preserved things that look like stones but are very odd-shaped (you can call them fossils). That means that if u assume the fossils are traces of life from very long ago this is the time they originated (the point zero)
Before cambrian in the pre-cambrian (Archean, precambrian and such) period you can find only soft fossils (fossil traces of soft organisms) called the Ediacarian fauna and the fossils are very scarce. Afterwards it was for organism to have a skeletal/mineralised body which get preserved better.
So you can try to explain evolution in a borad sense on the case of cambrian explosion like this:
At first you have bunch of soft fossils and later on you have hard fosils. The change from soft to hard skeletons was a result of some change in eviroment where the organisms lived. You can say that there was a higher survivabilityof organisms that had harder parts (here comes the realm of biological niches) and then a disaster struck. Bunch of soft bodied fossils died and most of the hard ones remained. You get normal progressive Darwinian evolution (from soft bodies to hard bodies). And skeletal organisms now much more dominant in the sea even if they are younger try to fill the biological niches left behind after soft bodies. This is called (Evolution through Punctuated equilibria) where u have an explosion.
There was another big one in Ordovician and also Silurain, Carboniferous...
You cant explain evolution through cambrian explosion but u can put this "weird phenomena" into time perspective and corellate.
>>7695267
>I'm sorry but, I'll take a biologists word and microbiologists words over yours any day.
OK, so you admit evolution is real.
We've observed DNA under a microscope. It's been proven to mutate.
Tell me OP, how do different breeds of dogs come into existence?
>>7695412
Fucking checked, OP. Coming in for the mate.
I'm proud to be a monkey desu. Monkey, Primate, whatever. Grunt like a gorilla; see how amazing it feels. #ProudToBeAPrimate #HighlyEvolved
>>7695443
Acronym tee bee aytch equals desu desu.
>>7695095
How many papers have they published and in what journals?
Of those papers; how many are cited by other papers?
>>7695267
>Evolution is an old pagan belief anyway.
Citation needed.
>>7694843
Stability is an illusion, yo.
>>7695530
Yeah, the illusion goes away when you take a long-term view. Ecosystems change all the time, often within the human lifespan, and sometimes within mere days. Just look at algae blooms due to fertilizer runoff.
>>7695395
No, most biologists with Ph.D and microbiologists say Darwin's model is crap.
>>7695412
Micro-evolution.
This is nothing compared to what Darwin proposed, that all life emerged from a single origin. What they teach in schools is that life came from a rock, and slowly morphed into all the different species we have today.
Did you know the wolves, foxes and dogs are all the same species?
That is why they can interbreed.
We can't interbreed with anything, certainly not any chimp/ape.
>>7695443
Confirmed for underage.
>>7695484
http://www.resurrectisis.org/PaganEvolution.htm
http://creation.com/evolution-ancient-pagan-idea
http://www.ukapologetics.net/09/1holden.htm
>>7695559
>We can't interbreed with anything, certainly not any chimp/ape.
That actually hasn't been tested, so we don't know. There's strong arguments on both sides of the viability of a humanzee.
>>7695578
>How did aids come to be
We are a different species.
We can't, we don't need to test it. We know it can't be done.
We know the wolves and dogs as well as foxes can interbreed because they are all the same species.
Also, appeal to ignorance.
>>7695267
>Evolution is an old pagan belief anyway.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-9822514.html
OP, listen to him. You are retarded. What kind of evidence would change your mind about evolution? I can help an anon out
>>7695590
The Pope is an idiot.
The Catholic church has been infiltrated and destroyed.
Also
>an evolutionist appealing to the authority of the pope
Seriously? I hope other people give you shit for that.
Also, nothing. I know evolution is false.
Just because you aren't out of high school yet doesn't make evolution true.
How old was your text book again?
Probably approaching 20 years old.
All the evidence goes against it.
Quit being blind.
>>7695604
Oh, you're a Protestant.
Opinion trashed.
>>7695607
>not knowing the history of Protestantism
>pretending to know anything about what you hate
I just want it to be known that you guys turned this into a religion thread.
I came here with scientific questions and posted videos on science, when you couldn't answer them you went straight to religion.
ITT: OP tries to defend a belief contrary to the consensus of the mainstream scientific community for the sole purpose of being edgy, and thinks that he knows better than thousands upon thousands of academic professionals because of something he read on the internet
>>7695619
Show me all of the evidence that supports evolution.
That is peer reviewed, and backed with evidence.
I'll be waiting.
Evolution is complete garbage and anyone that is out of high school/primary knows it complete garbage.
>>7695559
>No, most biologists with Ph.D and microbiologists say Darwin's model is crap.
Saying Drawin's original evolution model is crap does not mean these biologists and microbiologists do not believe in evolution
>>7695654
They don't.
Watch the videos I posted.
>>7695700
I'm lazy summarize them
but anywho...
>4 or 5 PHD biologists disagree with evolution
>therefore they all do
>>7695710
Summary
"Evolution is bull shit."
>>7694869
>Species don't keep other species in check, as what this describes is artificial selection not natural selection.
huh?
>>7695267
Oh boy you sure know how to get them riled
>>7695095
>be you
>some dickhole with virtually zero training in evolutionary biology
>thinks he can blow the lid off of an extremely well established branch of science
>thinks that a handful of youtube videos made by fucktard sellouts who are like 50th author on two papers give him the prerequisite knowledge to enter a discussion about evolution
>>7695868
>be me
>start thread about evolution
>ask real questions
>get no real solid answers with proofs backing them up
>enter you
>insults
>name calling
>nothing added to the thread
>thinks people with degrees in evolutionary biology are shills
>experts don't know what they are talking
>butt mad
Quit projecting.
Everyone with half a brain knows evolution never happened.
>>7694843
>imagine earth is ruled by herbivores, there are no carnivores
>the biggest threat to an herbivore's existence in this world is competition over food from other heribivores, so no animals have developed good defense against other animals
>population is regulated by the amount of plant life
>an animal has a mutation which causes it to be able to eat animal meat
>this new carnivore has a huge amount of herbivores to prey on, it reproduces massively and its genes have been passed on
>2 things now happen
>herbivores develop defenses against predators
>other predators may arise which prey on herbivores and carnivores
>carnivores develop defenses against other predators
>it's now an arms race. Herbivores must be able to find food and avoid becoming food. Carnivores must be able to take down prey while avoid becoming prey themselves
>with many different and climates, different animals find themselves well suited to different terrains and become specialized
voila, evolution
If you look at the existance of life as being 1/X of the Universes entire time, it's not really "stable".
Nothing is actually "stable" in the traditional sense, that would be free-energy machine.
If you were to look at the entirety of life on Earth sped up to 1 minute, it would look like it's spasming. You have blooms and extinction periods while life is evolving.
We're a spark of flint in burning Universe.
We should just enjoy it while it lasts.
>>7695887
Except those change takes millions of years.
All herbivores will die before their defenses develop.
>>7695890
If the Universe had expanded a fraction slower it would have collapsed billions of years ago, a fraction faster and galaxies wouldn't have been able to be formed.
Life on Earth is the same.
>>7695928
>If the Universe had expanded a fraction slower it would have collapsed billions of years ago, a fraction faster and galaxies wouldn't have been able to be formed.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the stability of life in the cosmos, let alone on a single planet.
There are a nearly infinite scenarios that could play out that could wipe out all life here.
The fact there are mass extinctions and blooms proves there is no such thing as true homeostasis.
True homeostasis is dream.
It's in the same category as "evolving into energy beings".
>>7695934
I was comparing it to the conditions required for life on Earth.
Read the whole post anon.
>nearly infinite scenarios which could wipe out life
And only one scenario which can form it.
Think about that for a second.
Evolution don't real it says so in the Bible.
If you disagree you're a fedora nerd loser.
>>7695877
>Be you
>think that some scientist with virtually zero publishing impact that will say anything to get on tv who doesn't even have a degree in a biology is an expert because it's convenient for you to think so
>not asking real questions because you don't understand what real questions are in evolutionary theory
>this thread shouldn't exist in the first place
The only people who deny that evolution is a valid theory are the people who feel threatened by it. People can call themselves secular evolution deniers, but it just so happens that they're also religious wackos (or sellouts) 100% of the time.
And people that think that they are qualified to enter a debate whenever it is convenient for them. I bet that if you worked for an oil company you'd suddenly think that watching three youtube videos made you qualified to have an opinion on whether or not climate change were happening and human-driven.
>>7696059
>several scientists
>loads of evidence
>a ton of evolutionists admit the only other explanation for the Cambrian explosion is creation
>but they reject it
>still not adding anything meaningful to the thread
>making assumptions
>making baseless assertion
>claims to understand science and evolution
You are a master of memes.
>>7695586
>We are a different species.
Indeed we are, but we can still be taxonomically categorized as being part of the same family as Gorillas, Chimps, and orangutans. We can make these distinctions not only through homologous comparisons, but through phylogenetic comparative methods.
>>7695586
>We know the wolves and dogs as well as foxes can interbreed because they are all the same species.
I think the word you're looking for is "genus".
>>7695969
There are many scenarios, that have been demonstrated, that can lead to the spontaneous formation of organic molecules. I suggest that you do more research into it.
>>7695636
I'm not an evolutionary biologist, and neither are you. Unless you're looking to become an expert yourself, you should leave it to the experts.
>>7694913
>Cambrian explosion
Most likely it is an explosion of life-that-fossilizes and NOT an explosion of life-without-ancestors. Hence no need for your ''creator''.
>evidence against evolution
Hahaha. Good one.
Just read talk.origins senpai. The religion section is garbage, the rest is great.
>>7694843
>How was a stable ecosystem achieved through evolution?
In short, evolution drove phyla which drove speciation, then the biospheric mass of bacteria became so pervasive that the O2-CO2 mix stabilized at 21%. (Note that the mix may have risen as high as 35%.)
>>7695604
I asked you a question and I was ready to post all the evidence, sources, papers that confirm and support evolution.
Then your post is like:
>call pope idiot
>call people "evolutionist" like it`s not a mainstream thing to just accept evolution as a fact
>muh all evidence goes against it. So much you don`t even cite one.
I believed in some sort of evolution even before reading any textbooks whatsoever. Because it`s just enough not to be retarded to notice that things do change over time and the environment shaped the world around us. You can`t be helped OP, you were destined to be a retard and we can`t help you. Unless youre a troll. In which case 3/10
>>7694843
>If a species required to keep another in check, in order to prevent other species going extinct, due to over hunting, took millions of years to evolve, why was there always a balance?
It required nothing in order to do nothing. The balance ( in a long time, because there is no balance in a short time, never) is passive.
/thread
And yes i just made this image especially for this thread.
>>7694843
You're getting this all twisted. You shouldn't think of this as 'balanced' as with scales, try thinking about it more like a chemical equilibrium. There are reactions still going on, and at any given point the ratios might be different, but on average you could say there's a 'balance'. Same idea with nature. Unless there's a major shock to the system, you have a rough balance, created from all the different species pushing against each other.
>>7696243
Because why?
Because of physiological and anatomical similarities?
What does that prove?
>>7696251
They are the same species, canis, I believe. After that it breaks into sub-species like canis vulpis.
>>7696335
Can you post sources?
>>7696841
Well, they are experts, and they say it's bull shit.
>>7696886
That's not what it is though.
There is a ton against it.
>>7697250
Here is just one.
http://www.changinglives.org.au/evolution.html
This contains several examples.
>>7697300
A whole bunch of nothing requiring nothing to do nothing.
Makes perfect sense and is entirely logical.
"The evidence points to an intelligent designer of the vast array of life, both living and extinct, rather than to unguided mindless evolution." (Nancy M Darrall, Speech Therapist at the Bolton Community Health Care Trust in the UK. She holds a PhD in Botany from the University of Wales.)
"Evolutionary theories of the universe cannot counteract the above arguments for the existence of God." (John M Cimbala, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Pennsylvania State University. John holds a PhD in Aeronautics.)
"The correspondence between the global catastrophe in the geological record and the Flood described in Genesis is much too obvious for me to conclude that these events must be one and the same." (John R Baumgardner, Technical Staff Member in the Theoretical Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory. John holds a PhD in Geophysics and Space Physics from UCLU.)
"We have already seen that no such system could possibly appear by chance. Life in its totality must have been created in the beginning, just as God told us." (John P Marcus, Research Officer at the Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Plant Pathology, University of Queensland, Australia. John holds a PhD in Biological Chemistry from the University of Michigan.)
"The fossil record is considered to be the primary evidence for evolution, yet it does not demonstrate a complete chain of life from simple forms to complex." (Larry Vardiman, Professor from the Department of Astro-Geophysics for Creation Research, USA. Larry holds a PhD in Atmospheric Science from Colorado State University.)
"I … have no hesitation in rejecting the evolutionary hypothesis of origins and affirming the biblical alternative that 'in six days the Lord God created the heavens and earth and all that in them is'. (Dr Taylor is senior lecturer in Electrical Engineering at the University of Liverpool. Dr Taylor has a PhD in Electrical Engineering and has authored over 80 scientific articles.)
"I believe God provides evidence of His creative power for all to experience personally in our lives. To know the Creator does not require an advanced degree in science or theology." (Timothy G Standish is an Associate Professor of Biology at Andrews University in the USA. Dr Standish holds a PhD in Biology and Public Policy from George Mason University, USA.)
"At the same time I found I could reject evolution and not commit intellectual suicide, I began to realise I could also accept a literal creation and still not commit intellectual suicide." (AJ Monty White, Student Advisor, Dean of Students Office, at the University of Cardiff, UK. Dr White holds a PhD in the field of Gas Kinetics.)
"So life did not arise by natural processes, nor could the grand diversity of life have arisen through no-intelligent natural processes (evolution). Living things were created by God, as the Bible says." (Don Batten, a research scientist for Answer in Genesis in Australia. Dr Batten holds a PhD in Plant Physiology from the University of Sydney and worked for 18 years as a research scientist with the New South Wales Department of Agriculture.)
"In the words of the well-known scientist, Robert Jastrow, 'for the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story [of the quest for the answers about the origin of life and the universe] ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (Jerry R Bergman, Instructor of Science at Northwest State College, Archbold, Ohio. He holds a PhD in Evaluation and Research from Wayne State University and a PhD in Human Biology from Columbia Pacific University.)
>>7697382
OP, I`m sorry but this article is bullshit. Let`s review the website first then we can talk about the article itself. According to this website these are some of the most popular articles: "How To Stop Binge Drinking", "Escaping A Life Of Prostitution", "God’s Intervention In My Life", "Good Reasons To Read The Bible 2"
Now my question is. Have you just seriously based your worldviews on an article from this website or are you just trolling? Now about the article itself.
First error:
>Random, mindless, blind and unguided processes never achieve anything.
Have you retards never heard of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2vgICfQawE
It`s literally just 4 lines of rules but if you actually run it complexity increases over time.
Cont.
>>7697469
>4 lines of rules
>rules
>guides
>not random
>not blind
>not mindless
>unguided, random, blind, mindless
So, a program which is designed to work, and FOLLOWS a guide, works? Wouldn't have expected that.
>>7697506
You haven`t watched the video have you? That`s not the point.
There`s no such thing as random anyway, every event can be traced back step by step to it`s origins. The program is not guided in a sense that there is no line of code directly telling the program to draw gliders etc. across the screen these structures just emerge on their own after a few thousand iterations. It`s a great example on how you can start out with something so simple yet get something complicated out in the end. Now using this, can`t you imagine what could have happened when the first self replicating cell popped into existence?
>So, a program which is designed to work, and FOLLOWS a guide, works? Wouldn't have expected that.
What if I told you this is actually how nature works? Here`s some actual evidence if you want:
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/16/6837.full
And even then, evolution can be proved in so many ways this is just one approach there`s many more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg
>>7698376
>popped into existence
Things don't pop into existence
Cause and effect dude.
Yet it remains a theory and not a law.
Because evolution fails on so many levels.
>>7694843
Nature always stabilizes itself because nature evolved an ecosystem to better circulate organic matter and keep the world's climate natural.
>>7697506
>>unguided, random, blind, mindless
>So, a program which is designed to work, and FOLLOWS a guide, works? Wouldn't have expected that.
Not him, but you're being deliberately obtuse.
Conway's Life has far less rules than biochemistry.
>>7695559
Dogs and Wolves are the same species you fucking idiotic faggot, C. lupus and C lupus familiaris
Same as humans and neanderthals, which you might notice we DID interbreed with
That said, your implication that any scientist would actually believe "darwin's theory" is invalid and god or a divine origin are necessary is fucking ridiculous.
You're a nigger and should kill yourself.
KILL YOURSELF KILL YOURSELF KILL YOURSELF KILL YOURSELF KILL YOURSELF KILL YOURSELF
>>7695612
Because we know from tbe getgo you can't be reasoned with, as if stripped of all your shitty "evidence" you'll still be a religious nut fuck and nothing we say can change that.
At least we can call you out for it, you retarded mongrel.
Get with the fucking times.
>>>/his/
Is where you should go to spread your pseudoscientific justifications, yes justifications, not evidence, but rather made up shit to "prove" your faith is right.
>>7698550
They are still rules.
Evolution is blind.
>>7698575
I said they were the same species. The rest of your post is schizophrenic tier.
>>7698587
Evolution fails on so many levels. That cannot be denied.
>>7698581
None of you have tried to reason anything, except for about 2 posts. I'm not the one who brought up Religion or divine necessity, I brought up how evolution fails to explain many things, and the ordered systems cannot rise from unguided randomness.
People ITT need to read these books.
Signature in the Cell, Stephan C. Meyer
Darwin's Doubt, Stephan C. Meyer
Darwin's Black Box, Michael J. Behe
Signature of Controversy, Klinghoffer
Just to name a few.
>>7699741
412*
>>7699484
NIGGER YOU DON'T ENTROPY, DO YOU?
>>7699484
>They are still rules.
As in chemistry.
>Evolution is blind.
So is Conway's Game.
>Evolution fails on so many levels. That cannot be denied.
Actually, that's denied by everyone but a small fringe of generally religiously-motivated kooks.
>I brought up how evolution fails to explain many things,
No you haven't. You've brought up a few creationist talking points and then spent the rest of the thread rambling about how you think the majority of biologists are Creationists.
They're not.
>ordered systems cannot rise from unguided randomness.
This is blatantly, obviously, wrong.
Anyone who seriously believes that is either so deep in denial it's not funny, ignorant of basically everything, or lying.
>>7699728
>Stephan C. Meyer
>Michael J. Behe
>Klinghoffer
Oh boy, some real top-notch names there.
Why not throw in fucking Ray "Bananaman" Comfort?
>>7697382
>Because of physiological and anatomical similarities?
>What does that prove?
That certain anatomic traits we possess could not have occurred unless we shared common ancestry. Not to mention all of the DNA evidence that supports these comparisons.
Hell, we even share most of the same retroviruses.
That is the distinction between homology and analogy. It's the exact reason why you're classified as a mammal.
>They are the same species, canis, I believe. After that it breaks into sub-species like canis vulpis.
Nah, It's Genus.
Your comparison was missing something. There are no extant human genus' left, but if it helps move the point forward we do have a trace amount of neanderthal DNA.
>>7699484
>They are still rules.
>Evolution is blind.
Clearly, biochemistry has more rules than Conway's Life.
I bet you're going to vote for Trump.
>>7701739
>There are no extant human genus' left,
Well, no OTHER extant genuses.
>>7695969
If there are infinite scenarios how is there only one which forms life?
