> Because any other hypothesis has to explain why it violates the conservation of energy and matter.
This comment is so infuriating. I may not be a genius, but I did manage to eek out a degree in physics. I think I, and anyone here on HN should be given the benefit of the doubt that they can figurer out if energy conservation is being violated.
Simply from a principle of assuming that the person suggesting the hypothesis is not an _idiot_, you could infer that any of these alternative hypotheses do _not _ violate energy conservation.
I have found myself arguing with people who took the view that the conservation of energy and matter does not apply to sufficiently complex biological systems.
Comments
> Because any other hypothesis has to explain why it violates the conservation of energy and matter.
This comment is so infuriating. I may not be a genius, but I did manage to eek out a degree in physics. I think I, and anyone here on HN should be given the benefit of the doubt that they can figurer out if energy conservation is being violated.
Simply from a principle of assuming that the person suggesting the hypothesis is not an _idiot_, you could infer that any of these alternative hypotheses do _not _ violate energy conservation.
I have found myself arguing with people who took the view that the conservation of energy and matter does not apply to sufficiently complex biological systems.
I am quite serious.