We know that once we stop learning and call ourselves learned, we become useless members of the scientific society.
Christian De DuveRead
If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe.
Interpretation
The complexity of life raises questions about the role of chance in evolution.
Christian De Duve highlights the improbability of life emerging from random atomic arrangements, suggesting that the success of evolution may not simply be a matter of chance but instead hints at a deeper design or order within the universe. This thought-provoking statement encourages us to contemplate the intricate processes that led to the development of life and the universe we observe today.
In practice
During a lecture on evolution, one might quote this to illustrate the complexity of life's origins.
We know that once we stop learning and call ourselves learned, we become useless members of the scientific society.
The act of smelling something, anything, is remarkably like the act of thinking. Immediately at the moment of perception, you can feel the mind going to work, sending the odor around from place to place, setting off complex repertories through the brain, polling one center after another for signs of re recognition, for old memories and old connection.
It is to them [fossils] alone that we owe the commencement of even a Theory of the Earth ... By them we are enabled to ascertain, with the utmost certainty, that our earth has not always been covered over by the same external crust, because we are thoroughly assured that the organized bodies to which these fossil remains belong must have lived upon the surface before they came to be buried, as they now are, at a great depth.
Modern agriculture is the use of land to convert petroleum into food.
If there is any kind of animal which is female and has no male separate from it, it is possible that this may generate a young one from itself. No instance of this worthy of any credit has been observed up to the present at any rate, but one case in the class of fishes makes us hesitate. No male of the so-called erythrinus has ever yet been seen, but females, and specimens full of roe, have been seen. Of this, however, we have as yet no proof worthy of credit.
Physics is very muddled again at the moment; it is much too hard for me anyway, and I wish I were a movie comedian or something like that and had never heard anything about physics!
The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.