Is origin of life research a scan?Why can't we recreate life in a laboratory?
You made a thread about biology while being unaware of the term abiogenesis which describes exactly you're talking about.
>>16164228Yes it's not reproducable
>>16164211It's just information and complexity theory at this point
Because we just can't!
>>16164211>why can't we replicate a win in the lottery int the lab?>is winning the lottery impossible?
>>16164211You need all of Earth's water when life appeared, in your lab, for some tens of millions of years. Long experiment to replicate in lab
>>16164564Miller Urey Experiment and Formose reaction. If we spend only a few millions on a big reactor with hydrogen nitrogen or ammonia and oxygen I think we will get a lot of results in a few months.
>>16164228He's also unaware of panspermia, let's point and laugh at OP. BTW panspermia is the solution to your problem OP, we came from space.>>16164555110% incorrect. You can recreate that. Just run a simulation enough. They have simulated gambling games that do just this, eventually some player wins the casino game grand prize aka the lottery. I am autistic and have been studying the lotto in my state and it seems to be rigged somehow, scratch offs for sure. Specific gas station in specific majority black towns in the inner city often get huge wins that seem statistically impossible. So perhaps winning the lottery is impossible, if it's rigged and not rigged for you. Scratch off's may be shadow reperations where lotto officials flood poor black areas with winners. I live in a poor majority white rural area, statistically far fewer winners. I've done on the ground tests in various cities across the state and this data backs up my hypothesis. Poor white communities get less winners, poor blacks and big cities more winners. inb4 big cities play the lotto more so have more chance to win!I accounted for that and the data points to specific parts of a big city that are majority black get impossible win rates. >>16164564Cope, i've studied abiogenesis and this is a misleading and down right lie about what is needed to runt he experiments. They only need to prove basic concepts to prove it "could have happened this way" and they have failed over and over and over. >We can't prove our bullshit theory because it's impossible to prove. That's how we know we are right now STFU!That's called an "unfalsifiable theory" and considered taboo in science. If it's unfalsifiable it's not science. Such hypocrites accuse what they don't like as unfalsifiable junk science when it's not and then hide behind the same logic fallacy when it suits them.
>>16164211what is this elementary school ass photo
>>16164694Panspermia does not explain life, it only move the origin somewhere else
>>16164211can't we? >phospholipid bilayer >nucleotides >life spontaneously formsgg ez God
>>16164211https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE2rjPfCc9Q&t=470s
>>16165655I'm going to hack you using my mind today unaware sleeping fags. You wait and see. I'll make you unable to fart.
>>16164238It is, but only when humans interfere. It is nigh impossible to observe it naturally.>>16164576>if we just interfere with a natural cycle and design them the way we want to... intelligently!>16164694>panspermiaNow there's an interesting idea, Prometheus Bob. The question still is us having originated from one single celled organism. >scratch offs>Specific gas station in specific majority black townsSo go to those and win. Black people tend to not fuck with the white man in their neighborhood so long as you don't look them in the eye and treat them like wild animals.>unfalsifiable theoryThe people who are supportive of it are usually "I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE!" faggots or people who reject reality and just want to spit in the face of religion for no reason other than hatred.>>16165404Kek. It makes less sense than an AI generated image. That wrench would weigh too much for that pocket, and what the fuck is he putting in that test tube?>>16165655>30 minute video>no excuse for it to be 5 minutes long
>>16164694>specific parts of a big city that are majority black get impossible win ratesAre you saying all II need to do to win the lottery is buy big scratchers in a ghetto?
>>16164211>Why can't we recreate life in a laboratory?because 1) we're not 100% certain of what happened, so we can't yet replicate it, and 2) the odds are so low that a successful run needs about 1.5 billions years to succeed.
>>16164555lol, good one
>>16165443This is one argument that Tour made that is really quite convincing. Why are they bothering trying to make life in prebiotic conditions when they can't make it with anything available on the market, short of living organisms. This would actually be a monumental breakthrough. It is vaporware, like thundercuck would say.
>>16165693You don't understand what abiotic means. You have simple non organic substances that would occur naturally on most planets and moons that form organic substances and later on maybe even self replicating organic things. Look at the giant amount of short carbon hydrogens on Titan which is a pretty cold moon. On many planets like earth we still have a lot of geological dynamics which change temperatures, bring minerals that can act as a catalyst (look at non biological oil) and change the chemical composition of the reactor(earth). Because we can only do abiotic experiments on a smaller scale and in a very short frame we should change the condition to maximize success. Such experiment proof that life can form from non-biological things under the right conditions. Kys creationist nigger
>>16164694>Specific gas station in specific majority black towns in the inner city often get huge wins that seem statistically impossible.Sure, its so specific you can't even name it so anyone else could verify that you are or are not full of shit.>Scratch off's may be shadow reperations where lotto officials flood poor black areas with winners.lmfao you are so retarded how can you even come up with these ridiculous scenarios?
>>16165404>elementary school ass photoCheck this man's hard drive immediately.
>>16165988Again, we cannot observe that life has come from the same source. What you're talking about is still a form of natural selection, not the origin of life. We have a lot of "cans" and "mights" but we have never seen it in action, and never will. I'm not saying it's intelligent design nor is it creationism, I just don't like when it is spewed as absolute fact when it isn't. It probably is, but probably isn't definitely. What can be observed is that the 2nd most significant change only occurs when humans intervene.I also have issue with people deliberately ignoring and mocking religion, because if they took a little time to approach with an open mind they may not act like monkeys toward religious people. There are retarded religious people, sure, but religion on its own and especially the significance of Christianity, should be respected.
>>16166066Why do you keep bringing up religion ? Even if it was proven that life originated on earth without an external intervention, creationism can just adapt to that and say god created those conditions in the first place. I dont believe a single person on earth would reject their religion if there was a definite proof released tomorrow.
>>16164211it's all fake and gay
>>16166113>Why do you keep bringing up religion ?Because you said, "Kys creationist nigger". I'm neither creationist nor nigger, I'm just pointing out the significance of religion and the respect it should have. People who spit on religion are dishonest with reality and themselves. Creationism always adapts, sure, but those people are also lying to themselves. However, the bible is pretty direct on the whole young earth theory, so it can contradict science entirely. There are some facets of evolution being possible, what with life being created from the earth. Just remember, it's people that are retarded, not religion. There are retarded sciencefags too.The books of the bible are so significant to scientific advances it's downright retarded to reject religion outright. The church paved the way for modern science as we know it today. This division of church and science and disrespect going both ways is another Jewish trick to keep us hating each other.
>>16164211>Why can't we recreate life in a laboratory?https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenobot*Yawn*
>>16166139>The church paved the way for modern science as we know it today.Yes the church thought science was a way to learn about God the second it started contradicting the Bible the church scientists split and that's how the first universities started.At one point the church was important to science, but that isn't the case anymore.
>>16166148>stitch together bits of already living things>lo, I have created life
>>16166156Wait, do you think life has some magic property that can't be explained by the molecules marking it up?
>>16166159No laboratory in existence can even synthesize protoplasm, but they can create mini black holes at CERN.Why do you suppose that is?
>>16166151I never said it wasn't. The church split with the Origin of the Species, but if they looked a little deeper it would still align with the bible. Many modern discoveries do. Point entirely is religion should be respected, not spat on and swished aside. It may become useful some day.>>16166159>magic propertyYeah, a property that distinguishes organism from inorganic things. You know. Life? >that can't be explained by the molecules marking it up?Definitely. If you look at a human and our chemical makeup, and attempt to synthesize a human being from those chemicals, that is not life, but might give the appearance of it.
>>16166163>>but they can create mini black holes at CERN.>Smartest and most scientifically literate basedjack poster.>>16166174>Religion should be respected.Which one and why? You seem to think somehow religion and science are aligned but they really aren't. Religion deals in unfalsifiables and metaphysics. Science deals entirely in nature and evidence based reasoning.>If you look at a human and our chemical makeup, and attempt to synthesize a human being from those chemicals, that is not life, but might give the appearance of it.a.k.a souls/magic
>>16166190He's not wrong, protoplasm can't be created. You're ignoring his entire argument, shitskin.>Which one and why?All religion, as all of them have impacted the world for good or bad. There is only (((one))) religion that should be disrespected, so I should not say all, but 99.9% of them. I am not a fan of Islam, but I respect its significance and benefits to history, for example.>Religion deals in unfalsifiables and metaphysicsNot really, it deals with the world we don't know, and some might argue the point of life is to "understand the world God created so we may get closer to God." Religion is a lot more than unfalsifiables and metaphysics. >Science deals entirely in nature and evidence based reasoningNot entirely, at least not anymore. Look at all the gender studies and that nonsense. Science degraded to a bunch of malarkey in the new millennium.
>>16166201>He's not wrong, protoplasm can't be created. You're ignoring his entire argument, shitskin.Okay.>The rest of your postI see now that you are retarded and there's no point in continuing this conversation.>>16166163>Why do you suppose that is?We actually can make protoplasm. Those xenobot things make protoplasm when the replicate. We could genetically modify a bacteria to produce lots of protoplasm but there isn't any reason to.If you wanted to make protoplasm from scratch then as of now we don't have tools that can manipulate things on an atomic level, but there isn't anything stopping us from making protoplasm if we had those tools.Also, CERN doesn't make mini black holes and even if they did black holes are technically a lot simpler than protoplasm.
>>16166228>I'm just going to throw out your arguments and call you retarded with no rebuttal I know I've argued with you on here before, and every time you can't come up with a solid argument you just throw it out like some jewish faggot. >We actually can make protoplasmXenobots are not 100% synthetic. If they were, I would say you have an argument, but it still requires extraction of stem cells and human interaction. >We could genetically modify>We couldThen do it, there is a reason. It's called research.>if we had those toolsWe have them. Atom manipulation has been a thing since the late 80s.>CERN doesn't make mini black holesFinally something we both understand. However, the technology to create such a particle accelerator is quite complex, and if we can't do it with all this technology, how does that prove anything in regards to the origin of life?
>>16166139>Because you said, "Kys creationist nigger".I didn't say that though (just for the record). I don't really want to start argue about religion, but I don't think it requires my respect at all. I have no problem with religion as a whole, nor do I with religious people, I know that religious people do a lot of good in the name of their religion, just like they also do a lot of bad things.Whatever the bible contributed to science today is irrelevant, I don't ask christians to respect the greek mythology, the antique egyptian mythology or whatever else came before them. It's funny you ask people to respect the bible and then immediately speak of jewish tricks. If anything, christians owe more respect to judaism than scientists owe to christianism.Religion has always existed to fill a hole that our knowledge can't fill. In a way, it's an early form of science, it's how a conscious, thinking creature tries to interpret the world and organize his knowledge of it in a way that makes sense to him. Of course, over time that hole in our knowledge has considerably shrinked but it'll never be completely gone. It will always exist and people will fill that hole with good and bad intentions.
