If life can form spontaneously why can't a scientist make this happen in a lab?
>>16275040Spontaneously? You're not familiar with heavy elements and billions of years of molecular combinations that didn't produce life, are you?
>>16275045DO IT IN A LABFUCKING RETARD
>>16275040abiogenesis has been disproved
>>16275060I see your mad because life cannot be created in a lab therefore humans don’t really understand biological organisms if they did life could be created in a lab.Cope and seethe faggot
>>16275060They made amino acids in the 1950s remember?
>>16275040I thought you pic was a meme, but it's literally the first image on Wikipedia.
>>16275045why does it take billions of years to make life?
>>16275040> Habitable worldLMAO
>>16275293https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis/
>>16275040because we still don't have an idea of how it went
>>16275040>why can't a scientist make this happen in a lab so far?FTFYBecause, though no impossible , it is unlikely and so far it hasn't happened.
Because you need the Prime Mover - God.
>>16277088>Prime Mover - GodThough I too enjoy that subject much, by definition, it is not science. Theology this way, please:>>>/his/>>>/x/
>>16275040Nick Lane is working on it. Believe it or not, there isn't a lot of money being spent on this intellectual curiosity.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLaTU-t1CQM
Reactions support limited chemical range which creates lateral RNA adoptionAuto-chemical associations
>>16275040Several experiments have shown that the building blocks can form spontaneously, but nobody has a million years to sit around waiting for them to spontaneously combine into a replicator
>>16275040Skill issue
>>16275238So many are falling for the evolution of molecules meme, further cementing the status quo evolution of the gaps theory. One thing that is nice about it is that it will refute itself, because they can actually perform meaningful experiments on the simple substances. It feels like I am watching the scaffolding being put together to build the domino to knock down all others. When natural selection in the simple substance proves to be an invalid hypothesis, natural selection and evolution will be void with it.
>>16275319lol
>>16278650irrelevant, the process can be sped up since atheist already know the end result.
>>16278650>the building blocks can formthats not really true though. please see picrel
>>16275886>answersingenesisYou're an idiotWhy can't you read the actual scientific literature? Why do you demand to be fed the info second hand through a creationist website?
>>16278666Except natural selection and evolution are directly observed so it can't be refuted at this point. Molecular evolution is real.>>16278666Your God isn't real and he didn't create humans 6000 years ago. Stop coping
>>16278687>creation.comWhy are creationists all over /sci/ and other boards lately?
>>16278666>666Confirmed demiurge trick
>>16278735>NOOOO I WONT READ WHAT A Phd biologist has to say if i disagree with his beliefsnotice how you say nothing about the content but focus on the source. i noticed.
>>16278739>Your God isn't real and he didn't create humans 6000 years agohow would you know
Obvious bait thread and people still respondSAD!
>>16278823The content is worthless as it comes from a creationist apologetics website.>>16278827Because we've proven that humans evolved from a common ancestor with chimps 5 million years ago
>>16278831sorry bro but Im from hyperborea. you do you and have chimpsex or something
>>16278831>The content is worthless as it comes from a creationist apologetics website.lol what incredible intellectual cowardice. He's more qualified to talk about the subject than you are im quite sure of that
>>16278842Nope. You're a monkey and evolved from a common ancestor with chimps. Hyperborea isn't real and Robert Sepehr is a moron. You getting angry at this doesn't mean anything. We've proved it and it doesn't matter that you don't like it.
>>16278846He's not. He'd publish in an actual journal if we were.Creation.com and answersingenesis are not valid sources.
>>16278849>Creation.com and answersingenesis are not valid sources.I accept them as such. your move
>>16275040If the sun was formed spontaneously, why can't scientists create a copy of the sun in a lab?
>>16278852>I accept them as suchThen your opinion is irrelevant. You also can't do basic math
>>16278854you make an appeal to authority when the same twats you love so much are proponents of the climate pseudo science and fans of the covid cult. your opinion has no power here
>>16278857Climate change is real and measurable, and the covid virus is real and measurable. You pretending white people crawled out of a warm cave of hyperborea is an extremely pathetic and delusional.Yes, you're a monkey. Yes, you evolved from a common ancestor with chimps. Yes, you're almost genetically identical with black people. You getting angry at this doesn't mean anything.You also can't do basic math. It's very very obvious with "people" like you.
>>16278849>. He'd publish in an actual journal if we were.he does that too. there are thousands of creation believing publishing scientists and it drives atheists nuts.>NOOOOO i refuse to read what they say!!!!!1
>>16278849
>>16278900Of those five instruments is one of them the faggot or even the trutruka
>>16278900Look at those soulless NPC eyes.
>>16278972you have great counter arguments, very convincing and solid. well done.
>>16278972>I WONT READ ANYTHING FROM THAT WEBSITE I HEARD ABOUT>NOOOOOOOOOOOO>calls other people NPClol, good one
>>16278742They probably had nothing better to do, they've already fucked their whole family with inbreeding and pseudo medicine why not try to fuck with some randos in the internet. Just apebrain behavior, instead of building something they have to bother other people with their toddler level blabbering
>>16279153the real NPCs are those who never bother to check out what others really say and just repeat stupid things like you just did.
>evolution has to be real because to believe otherwise would call my atheism into question>and if my atheism isn't an unquestionable utter certainty then I might have to reassess the addictive hedonistic bad habits i use muh atheism to justify>what if i have to give up on porno, masturbation, drugs and constantly telling lies to everyone i know?
>>16279259Evolution has been directly observed multiple times
>>16279278adaptation has been observed multiple times. One kind of animal changing into another kind of animal has not been observed, and life coming from non life hasn't either.
>>16275040give me a second nigga, I'm working on it
>>16279291>adaptation has been observed multiple times.That's evolutionYou saying "adaptation isn't evolution" is false because adaptation is, in fact, evolution. There is no difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution, you need to stop with the low IQ creationist talking points >One kind of animal changing into another kind of animal has not been observedThat's speciation and has been observed many times. "Kinds" in the creationist worldview isn't even well defined or real.For example, archeopteryx is "half bird half lizard", if you want an example of something "between kinds".>life coming from non life hasn't either.There are multiple self replicating polypeptides that are known. One is only 32 amino acids long. This will be solved in a few years
>>16279320>There is no difference between "micro" and "macro" evolutionThere is if the changes are bounded, which is what has been observed. Creatures have a range of adaptability within which they remain viable (can live, function, reproduce etc). Outside of that they are not viable and die.> archeopteryx its just a bird. later and more thorough examinations concluded this but the idea that its a transitional form stuck in the public mind.>has been observed many timesyou are encouraged to provide some examples of this.>This will be solved in a few yearswe'll see. in the meantime, since you seem to have an interest in the debate, what do you think of what this guy has to say? >>16278900>>16278687inb4 IM NOT READING THAT
>>16279320>"Kinds" in the creationist worldview isn't even well defined or real.tell me about 'species' then. consider all cat species - within the family of 'cats' they can all interbreed, perhaps not every species with every other, but all within the family of cat can at some point interbreed. But a cat will never breed with a dog.there are vagaries on both sides of this,
>>16279356>but the idea that its a transitional form stuck in the public mind.It’s a transitional form because it has a bony tail, teeth and fingers. It’s not the only bird like that in the fossil record either, and all of them are transitional>perhaps not every species with every other, but all within the family of cat can at some point interbreedDo you seriously expect a lion to be capable of interbreeding with a house cat? Species are defined by genetic distance and lack of gene flow today. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s a whole lot fucking better than “kinds” where apparently humans and chimps are different kinds while an entirely family of cats, class of birds or even suborder of snakes are apparently the single kinds
>>16279356>There is if the changes are bounded,Which they aren't, not in the way you're saying There is nothing stopping chihuahuas from eventually turning into a mouse like thing, which would be a "different kind", as an example>its just a bird.No, it isn't. It's a direct proof of something between birds and reptiles.>later and more thorough examinations concluded thisNo, they didn't. Its creationists saying "it's just a bird!" To cope with the direct transitional form.We also have over 6000 fossils of over 22 different species showing the transition to modern humans, they are transitional forms, but you guys just go "thats just an ape!" Or "that's just a human" despite the objective transition happening across the species and fossils.>you are encouraged to provide some examples of this.Ring speciesCanine transmissible venereal tumor>what do you think of what this guy has to say? There's a known polypeptide which is 32 amino acids long. This forms an upper bound on the minimal amount of amino acids in a specific sequence required to start to self replicate (it could be fewer but need not be larger)The chance that this appears given random sequential trials is about 10^40However, trials in the world are not sequential, they happen all over the place at the same time over time. Trillions of trials simultaneously across the ocean during early earth, which was and is extremely rich in amino acids (as is the universe in general)There was maybe 10^24 liters of ocean during the early earth. If we assume a VERY DILUTE distribution of amino acids at 1 million per liter (when in reality it would be trillions per liter but I'm diluting it), then we cycle through 32 strings of amino acids, you would have about 10^31 of these 32-amino-acid self replicating molecules across the ocean in 1 year. And that's assuming extreme dilution and only 1 self replicating polypeptide let along all the other self replicating peptides or polynucleotides.
RNA came before amino acid. it's RNA that delivers amino acids to ribosomes (also made of RNA) that manufacturer proteins which are chains of amino acids
>>16279434Yes, in a cell. mRNA and tRNA go to the ribosome and make the protein, but self replicating polypeptides exist. The RNA might have hijacked various replicating amino acids which both formed independently. The RNA and ribosome do not need to be formed prior to the peptides. They all could form on their own and eventually join in a membrane structure. All these things are forming and proliferating and eventually the proto cell forms by these things interacting with each other.However abiogenesis isn't known yet there's more work to be done.
>>16278742>lately
>>16279259>>Projection >>Projection+Christian-fantasy-logic>>Pure fantasy of a fake person I made up in my head
>>16279411>all of them are transitionalthats something you really cant prove.>Do you seriously expect a lion to be capable of interbreeding with a house cat?no, and thats not what i said. But it could with some other cat, which could breed with some other cat which could breed with a house cat. There is no such chain linking cats to dogs.> humans and chimps are different kindsgot any humans breeding with chimps etc?>>16279431>There is nothing stopping chihuahuas from eventually turning into a mouse like thing,its just never been observed in any way. What has been observed indicates that animals are limited in how much they can change.> It's a direct proof of something between birds and reptiles.https://www.icr.org/article/archaeopteryx-bird-againi wonder if you'll be able to read that.> rich in amino acids and how does what was said in the article i showed you interact with that?i will look up the other stuff you mentioned
>>16279431>self replicating peptideshttps://creation.com/self-replicating-enzymeshttps://creation.com/nucleobases-rna-chemical-evolution
>>16278864>Climate change is real and measurable, and the covid virus is real and measurable.nice straw man, anon. you are quit the sophist.
>>16279484>thats something you really cant prove.Wrong. You just deny it because it completely refutes your position >What has been observed indicates that animals are limited in how much they can change.Wrong>links to Brian Thomas on a creationist websiteI already said, creationists simply denying reality because it refutes their position isn't an argument. Archeopteryx is NOT "just a bird" it has objective anatomical features which are between bird and lizard because it's a "transitional form". Creationists simply pretend this isn't true because it directly shows you a transitional form which you guys staked your position on not existing.The same is true for the over 6000 fossils of the 22 species which are transitional between humans and out ancestors with the other great apes.>>16279491>creation.com again I don't know why you're not getting this so I will tell you clearly:Anything you get from a creationist apologetic website or source is NOT VALID and it does not matter whatsoever for this conversation. It can be thrown our immediately. Stop getting your info from second hand creationist shit and actually read the literature.
>>16280267>things are not valid if i say so>i dont even have to read or respond to them if i say sook>archaeoteryxPublishing in the Royal Society's Biology Letters, the researchers wrote that Archaeopteryx's assignment to a dinosaur group earlier this year "was acknowledged to be weakly supported."https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2011.0884
>>16280304>Publishing in the Royal Society's Biology Letters, the researchers wrote that Archaeopteryx's assignment to a dinosaur group earlier this year "was acknowledged to be weakly supported."That's a taxonomical argument. Regardless of how you classify it, it had features of birds and of dinosaurs/reptiles.
>>16280304>doesn't understand the paper That paper does not argue that archaeopteryx isn't transitional
>>16280306It doesn't matter because it doesn't say what its ancestors or progeny are. Endless hypothetical arguments are not facts.
>>16281389NTA, but if you'd actually look at the evidence with an open mind you'd realize you are wrong.
>>16275045Earth formed around 4.54 billion years ago. Earliest known life forms on Earth are 4.1 billion years old. Life only had 0.44 billion years to evolve. ATANE - abiogenesis tards are never educated.
>>16278853Indeed.
>>16275040I can do it. Just give me a very large lab and 6 billion years.
>>16278900Why do they always look so retarded?
>>16281436NTA, but "only" 440 million years seems plenty time, given that the entire primordial ocean system can be thought of as trillions upon trillions of interacting instances of organic molecules combining in parallel.Look up Nick Lane's research into alkaline hydrothermal vents. His labs have succeeded in recreating the basic metabolic pathways of the Krebs Cycle by replicating the chemistry of alkaline vents.
>>16278742Trump awakened Christians to pretend to be conservative and take their mission to the American people again, because they don’t want to be left out of a movement.So we’re back to 2002 again with midwit conspiracy theories and pseudoscience alienating everyone and creating a new generation of daily show audience members.
>>16275040because you need a huge ass lab and the experiment would need to be ran for hundreds of millions of years. and even if you did that, any result from such experiment wouldn't prove anything, because it's a perchance thing.so in reality, to run such an experiement that you can get meaningful info out of, you'd need to start a few thousand Earths at a minimum, in parallel, each with similar conditions as ours had.observe all these Earths for hundreds of millions of years, note down the results, and start debating them. anything else is just bullshit.again because low iq retards like you need it dumbed down: you cannot recreate the experiment in the lab, because there's too many water molecules that need to interact with other chemicals for hundreds of millions of years to get close to the conditions that allowed for life to form. anything else short of that is a bad experiment. if you use less water molecules then you need to extend the time it runs for. but having a smaller Earth or a larger Earth means you change the conditions so you need to make "identical" Earths for running such experiment. if 1000 Earths don't spawn life in a few hundreds of millions of years you might have an argument for "we're so fucking special", you retard. start life in a lab is not a legitimate argument for fucks sake, it's primitive retarded thinking. it doesn't make scientific and mathematical sense. it's flawed logic.
>>16282287Why are you talking about the time it takes for life to form, when they haven't made life in a lab?
>>16275040Making something happen in a lab is deliberate, not spontaneous.
It will never be recreated in a lab because it's impossible.The entire thing requires no lab.Back then on earth there weren't any humans (observers) so the entire environment was quantum in nature, only in that environment can it happen. In lab there are too many observers.
>>16275040> we’ve made polymers and vesicles spontaneously ez> we’ve observed rna enzymes catalyzing making polymers ez> we’ve observed rna being hereditary> we’ve observed lipids forming micelles, cell-like ball shaped membrane structures> we’ve filled le micelles with polymers and whatnot ez> now we need to put rna in micelle and study it systematically to see if it can provide heredity and be an enzyme> if we observe this, and if we observe the micelle growing bigger as it absorbs lipids and more rna is made from chemicals already in water, we have a growing micelle> if the growing micelle tears apart and forms two smaller rna-filled micelles, with the rna being distributed more or less equally between the two, bingo> that’s the most primitive kind of reproduction, that’s the simplest “protocell”> the rest is ez: rna make dna making enzyme, dna making enzyme make dna from rna, dna replace rna, dna use rna as enzyme until protein becomes enzyme, and now we have dna+enzyme protocell> then there’s no doubt about the evolution of LUCA from this protocell
>>16275238Dude, you keep bringing up creating life, have you ever like been with a woman? You know you can, create life with a woman, right? Like... fucking her in a lab?
>>16275238*you're
>>16279356>its just a bird.Can you name any birds with teeth and no beak?Can you name any birds with a long, bony tail?Can you name any birds with unfused forelimbs and 3 clawed fingers?
>>16279396The most common layman explanation I think one can give is: "sexually selects other members of the same species always or most commonly, is interfertile with members of the same species that it selects, and produces offspring which abide the two previous rules."This means that when something stops seeing another species as a viable mate, it's now a new species, which is common in biology. See Darwin's finches. Maybe interfertile, but they never sexually select eachother.
>>16278848you sound hot as fuck saying smart shit, so is there proof god isn't real? what about like math? is math real? whats our purpose in life?tell me more anon pls
>>16282589>when they haven't made life in a lab?because it's not possible in human life terms. it's not a legitimate ask. you can't realistically run a lab experiment to make life, if the requirments for experiment imply the number of water molecules that Earth had at that time, interacting for few hundreds of millions of years in certain conditions. you cannot replicate that as a human, not sure what you're not following. lay off the retard juice.
>>16283338What is the relevance of time here? Just because something (allegedly) took x amount of time to happen does not mean that it required that time.
>>16280267>is NOT VALID and it does not matter whatsoever for this conversation.even when those authors are publishing scientists fully qualified to comment in the area? Every time you say this it just sounds like 'i wont read anything by someone i disagree with', because thats exactly what you're saying.
>>16282244more incredible intellectual dishonesty>>16282287what if the chemistry simply doesn't work that way, like this guy says?>>16278687>>16278900
>>16283420He is saying the experiments are fake and gay for using water at very high temperatures and pressure.But very high temperatures and pressure occur naturally around hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor.
>>16281403No, the argument is literally an endless syllogism, chain of implications, hypotheticals. This on itself would be no problems because you can just walk the chain and find where their materialism steered them into stupidity, but it also has gaping holes in it larger and more rotten than tranny crotch. Evolution of the gaps.
>>16283265could be just another evolutionary dead end. been plenty of those. theres no way to prove its 'transitioning' from dinos to birdies.
>>16283386>What is the relevance of time here?>what is statisticsyou must be on the wrong board anon
>>16282287so the hypothesis is non-falsifiable?
>>16283489you can technically run the experiment, you just can't afford it. you need a fuckload of energy and technological might to assemble these extra Earths, and develop tech to reassemble your brain few hundred million years later so you can judge the results. it's doable, just not the way you're thinking about it.
>>16283511If you are fat, you're fat. That's it. You're a fatty.This is how stupid this thread was. Kys.
>>16283513>brain bsods tf out
>>16283511we could create a super computer to run the experiment for us. What do you think to calling it "Deep Thought"? It might have the answer to life, the universe and everything ready for us in just a few millions years.
>>16283468Statistics of...?
>>16283649you are not the sharpest tool in the shed are you
>>16283668Answer the question.
>>16283683anon you are completely clueless, scientifically speaking. so go on, spew out your religious bullshit and let's get this over with. we both know where this is going. if you don't understand how chance fits into recreating life "in the lab" then you're hopeless.you arguments are old and you're fully unprepared so you will inevitably just brush away any scientific argument and will vomit stupid shit.
>>16283689You have not answered my question.
>>16283690it's not legitimate
>>16283697>preemptively foldingSad.
>>16283466So you're willing to admit it's NOT a bird, then. Thus it's evidence of transition even if it itself isn't the main transition. That is what we call transitionary.
>>16283468>PAJTwhat did God mean by that?
>>16283725a bird with some changes. still a bird, just a bit screwed up. no evidence of a 'transition'.
>>16283973What makes it a bird?
>>16275040put a somali in a lab with women unsupervised and we'll see about spontanious baby making
