I believe in the theory of evolution by natural selection but I do not believe in abiogenesis. No matter how many organic compounds into a "soup" you will never get life. Shock it, boil it, blast it with radiation, it's not going to suddenly self-organize. The simplest possible living, self-replicating cell has more divine machinery than any scientific busybody can even observe let alone hypothesize its origin. The idea that only these insanely complex organisms remain while every single intermediary step vanished without a trace and fails to reemerge is absurd.
Self-organization into a complex state is improbable, not impossible, and in principle it only needs to happen the once.
>>16864551clearly life was created by the jewish god. who is a black woman btw
>>16864551You only perceive it as incredibly complex because you compare it to what you currently view as simple.Molecules can self-organize by polarity alone. This is how soap works. Give it millions of years and receive millions of mechanisms, selected by evolutionary pressure.
>>16864551Yeah maybe. It's getting harder than ever to deny that it's most likely a natural process though considering how many natural processes have been figured out so far. The creation of the universe, if there is such a thing, is going to be way harder to prove/replicate
>>16864618>It's getting harder than ever to deny that it's most likely a natural process thoughCringe loaded language.
>>16864552>and in principle it only needs to happen the once.It'd probably need to happen a lot, for those organism to survive and thrive it'd take ideal conditions
>>16864634we're not even talking full organisms, just the most basic elements needed for facilitating some kind of self-replication. the moment that happens the game changes - the probability for spontaneous self-organization into complex molecular structures are very low, *near* zero, but for a structure that facilitates its own replication, the odds of finding that structure recurring at a later time improve by many orders of magnitude - and if mutations can occur without impeding replication, it opens the door for selection to start occurring which, statistically, will favor modifications which impede replications less than modifications which do nothing or improve replication.
>>16864551>The simplest possible living, self-replicating cell has more divine machinery than any scientific busybody can even observe let alone hypothesize its origin.The simplest possible replicator is far simpler than a cell. If you are making the assumption that abiogenesis involves cells anywhere, you are severely misunderstanding it.
>>16864585>just give me another gorillion years>>16864676>replication = life>>16864660>molecules evolve broThe pseud will never get it.
>>16864699>molecules evolveIf it can replicate, yes, it has the potential to do so. So long as a mutation or replication error doesn't break the ability of the resulting molecule to continue to replicate.
>>16864712But unlike a cell a molecule is neutral if it replicates or not, so you'd need a type of molecule that replicates often
>>16864714>a molecule is neutral if it replicates or notas opposed to?
>>16864725Living organisms?
>>16864727okay, and what is it you think makes living organisms stop being 'neutral' about replication?
>>16864734I don't know, but they aren't neutral
>>16864551I understand your reaction to the rampant speculation about RNA World etc masquerading as "science" so that proles can feel like they have an answer to every question.The truth is we have no idea, but obviously it happened somehow.
>>16864735What is your definition of neutral in this context?
>>16864699>replication = lifeReplication is what supports evolution. Whether the first replicator was something that we would count as full-fledged life is irrelevant; the thesis of abiogenesis is that the first replicating system came into being as a random occurrence, and that replication and evolution got us from there to life as we know it. The first such replicating systems were certainly much simpler than anything we would call life today -- it definitely predated cells for a long time, for example.
>>16864630then why the fuck don’t they eat prawns?
>>16864632It may be cringe but it's not really loaded language. You left out the last half of the sentence that explained exactly what it meant
>>16864551>No matter how many organic compounds into a "soup" you will never get life. Shock it, boil it, blast it with radiation, it's not going to suddenly self-organize.Prove it. Also this: >>16864552
We're alive because we come from a living planet. Not living in the sense of agency or anything like that. Living in term of chemical reactions, electricity and thermodynamics.Another way to say is evolution pre-dates life.Yet another way to say it is every complex system you see around you is part of the same network of active processes with energy sourced either from the sun or the core.Take away the energy and this is all gone. Just like if you take away the energy from your cells you're dead, you're back to equilibrium.
>>16864634weird shit happens in non-ideal conditions all the fucking time
>>16866290Can't prove a negative. Burden is on you to prove it can happen. The obvious conclusion is that it can't, because it's absurd.>but it COULD happen cause it only needs to happen ONCE!! chekumeto QED!According to quantum field theory, it is *possible* for a 1969 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray cherry red convertible with 8-ball shifter and a blonde babe reclining on the hood to spontaneously emerge into existence from apparent nothingness. Any sane interpretation understands that that definition of "possible" is effectively meaningless. Life is not a simple short hop and skip from molecule to a complete assemblage of interdependent machinery. "It only has to happen once" doesn't make it any less functionally impossible in the span of time the known physical universe has been in existence. Especially when it cannot be demonstrated how a single one of these interdependent parts can arise or evolve on their own.Ironically, this argument may seem similar to the old "an eye can't evolve because it's too complex", which of course is ridiculous, because it is in fact perfectly viable for an eye to evolve over time, as we have more than adequate evidence of every stage along the way from mere photoreceptive cell. The key is that those base components already existed in simple forms. In absolutely no way can anyone reproduce the "simple forms" necessary to eventually evolve into a cell, even over "gorillions of years".
>>16868591Proof? Can you demonstrate the point a "process" e.g. minerals melting from planetary friction becomes "life"? There's a bit of a gap.
>>16864551https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
>>16864551that's funny that's just what my discord rabb- uh pastor, my discord pastor told me
>>16864564This
>>16864551Just read the Miller-Urey experiment.READ YOUR BIOLOGY
>>16869716>>16869821this isn't abiogenesis, not even close to it.
>>16868591>Another way to say is evolution pre-dates life.Why are you people so desperate to make evolution into a theory of everything lmfao.
>>16869860It lends itself naturally to being a theory of almost everything because the principles are so general that potential instances of omnipresent at every level.
>>16869873Nice metaphysics.
>>16869856it laid the groundwork that it is indeed possible for organic compounds to arise out of inorganic ones albeit on a much much more abbreviated timescale. you're the equivalent of a midwit putting a pot of water on the stove to boil and then after 5 seconds concluding "WOW NOTHING HAS HAPPENED GUESS WATER DOESN'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO BOIL AFTER ALL"
>>16869875>observable natural principles are "metaphysics"Why do low IQs insist on using words they don't understand?
>>16869876>primitive earth conditions consisted entirely of sparkling water
>>16869878If you try to extend evolution beyond a mechanism for gene replication, you are doing metaphysics.
>>16869879who are you quoting? see this is why discussing anything with you "people" is impossible. you are constantly goalpost moving every time you get BTFO. you can never approach anything in good faith.
>>16869883See >>16869878
>>16869856It literally is abiogenesis. Organic compounds from inorganic compounds. Later experiments show how organic compounds follow chemical evolution.
>>16869923Amino acids are life?
>>16869933>look i can make concrete>"yeah but you didn't make a building">yeah...but it's the stuff that a building is made out of>"but you didn't make a building"
>>16869935>buildings build themselves>>how did you determine this?>uhh because i can create concrete in a lab
>>16869935>>16869938That is why I think all statements about the origin of life are non-scientific and rely heavily on speculation. The only thing we know is that there is one external origin of life, and the rest is beyond the scope of science.At least for now.
>>16864551>I do not believe in abiogenesis.Panspermia is the only reliable model of abiogenesis. The material that formed life must be non-terrestrial, which is why there is only one pinpointed origin of life.Otherwise, life must have originated from an electrical phenomenon that cannot be replicated.
>>16869893So the chaos of the primordial soup is exactly the same as a controlled test performed with sterile glasses inside of a laboratory? >>16869923>It literally is abiogenesis. Organic compounds from inorganic compounds.What a duplicitous bitch, you know that's not what people mean when they talk about abiogenesis. We're talking about the EVENT that transpired through (apparently) strictly natural forces without any sort of intelligent agent.
>>16869956Abiogenesis is the formation of life from inorganic matter. He is straight up gaslighting the other anon. Organic compounds are not life. Abiogenesis is almost purely speculative.
>>16869960>dude evolution is all physics and chemistry as well, bro>it's not just a convenient short-hand to explain the development of life via adaptation and natural selectionPretentious faggot.
>>16869965Meant for >>16869895
>>16869965See >>16869873 and then see >>16869878
>>16869976Keep posturing, midwit.
>>16869988See >>16869878Low IQs (like you) inherently can't judge other peoples' intelligence.
>>16869993What "laws" are there to evolution that you can apply it holistically to nature as a whole? Take your fucking meds, schizo.
>>16870010Mutation and selection are very general concepts.>apply it holistically>holisticallyWeren't you already told to stick to words you can actually grasp?
>>16870020>Mutation and selection are very general concepts.Yes, in the realm of biology you fucking queer. "Evolution pre-dates life" is incoherent, unless you were referring to evolution as a metaphysical concept.>Weren't you already told to stick to words you can actually grasp?There's nothing confusing about that statement, illiterate. I'm convinced you're just a bot at this point.
>>16870027>Yes, in the realm of biologyCompletely nonsensical response. I can see that you're not just stupid but actually mentally ill. Get well soon and be sure to write another post that no one's gonna read.
>>16870031lolThis is just retarded. I'm literally talking to a braindead LLM right now.
>>16870020>Mutation and selection are very general concepts.Evolutionary algorithms demonstrate this nicely.>>16870032>This is just retarded. I'm literally talking to a braindead LLM right now.>t. pic related
>>16870034Why are you replying to yourself?
>>16870037Meds.
>>16870049Reboot
>>16870054I wasn't talking to you, animal.
>>16869956>So the chaos of the primordial soup is exactly the same as a controlled test performed with sterile glasses inside of a laboratory?never said it was. why do you people come here? you intentionally misrepresent everything that people way smarter than you are telling you. it took 1 BILLION years for the first single-celled organisms to appear and you're having a tantrum because scientists can't replicate that 100%.imagine if miller acted like you>HMMM WELL I DIDN'T GET A FULL BLOWN AMOEBA CREATED IN A WEEK'S TIME GUESS THAT MEANS THE ENTIRE HYPOTHESIS IS BULLSHIT LMAO
>>16870066>scientists can't replicate that 100%.They can't replicate it 1%. Or 0.1%. Or 0.000001%. No one has any idea how it even happened, you public-educated American inbred with an Israeli double citizenship.
>>16870069>No one has any idea how it even happenedno, but we have a good hunch on how it may have happened. but none of that matters to you. you just want to parrot graham hancock and go "yeah but what if [commonly accepted explanation with evidence to back it up] was...LE WRONG??" and smile smugly as you own the libtards.
>>16864551Why doesn't any mainstream religion account for the life we've found outside of earth?
>>16870099>we have a good hunch>weYou and the rest of the psychotically ill cretins in the pop-sci reddit sub you crawled here from, presumably. Meanwhile in reality no one's got a clue.
Macro evolution is gay and retarded. Kent Hovind was right.
OP is rightThe enzymes used in a single pathway, like Glycolysis, are interlinked from steps 1-10 and each are regulated by different intermediariesThe 'rate limiting molecules' can be by-products, or notIt is Dunning-Kruger to insist these processes (chemical pathways mediated by fold proteins aka enzymes) arose 'from scratch'The Miller-Urey experiment required precise conditions, and only generated a RACEMIC mixture of amino acidsOur DNA is made of L type only - no R I will wait for an explanation of the Chiral Preference found
>>16870123Hi, Grok.
>>16870103>more ad hominems i accept your concession
>>16864714Molecules that don't replicate don't keep making more of themselves.It is a very basic blind type of natural selection. Where dumb and blind self replicating molecules are affected by a blind and dumb environment and the random molecules that are better at replicating themselves through whatever means perpetuate themselves while other types of molecules don't. And there is a selection for that which does it better.
