abiogenesis paired with the concept of evolution really makes no sense at all if you think about it critically for more than a few minutes>cant have evolution without mostly accurate self replication>cant have accurate self replication without complex machinery>cant have complex machinery without evolutionIm not a christcuck by any means but it seems like theres a HUGE part of the picture we are missing here. our current theories and models of life are not enough to explain away this paradox. am I wrong?
>>16913303>cant have accurate self replication without complex machineryThis implies that a simple self-replicating thing is impossible. How do you know this is true?
>>16913303RNA chains replicate by themselves in nature under simple mechanical stress, no need for machinery.
>>16913315RNA is quite complex and is assumed to have evolved, so that doesn't address OP in any way.
>>16913321RNA self assembles from naturally occurring nucleic acids. Only the information encoded in it is evolved. So yes it does blow OP out entirely.
>DNA needs proteins to replicate>proteins need DNA to existCheckmate atheists with this one simple trick.
>>16913327>RNA self assembles from naturally occurring nucleic acidsOk. And what's the likelihood of such randomly self-assembled RNA to self-replicate?
>>16913340That's irrelevant for the question at hand. The mechanism exists and is clearly likely enough to produce complex life at least once in the universe. Strictly speaking 100% of RNA chains encounter some kind of self replication when they break apart due to mechanical stress which is more than enough to drive evolution for this purpose anyways
>>16913364>That's irrelevant for the question at hand.Mentally ill retard found.
>>16913340approaches 1 given half a billion years and a whole ass planet covered in primordial soup
>>16913394>approaches 1Ok. Explain how you calculated this.
>>16913396it's an empirical observation, obviously :^)
>>16913404Another mentally ill retard. Maybe someone sane has got an explanation?
>>16913303In principle, abiogenesis violates probability. Were such an event to occur completely dismantles many basic premises of evolution. Any argument for simplicity is irrelevant, any argument for likelihood is irrelevant. The universe has some kind of system solver at its core. It could be said that protein folding isn't the least likely thing to occur, for example randomly typing out shakespeare or the Iliad is also very unlikely, but even those outcomes would be the direct result of the same system solver. A most unlikely outcome. Some small corner of the universe hardly more than 10^80 atoms converged on events that have a likeliness far lower than 10^200000 repeatedly. Once unlikeliness is removed from the deck, there is no reason to even think of evolution in their terms whatsoever. An animal could be anywhere by any reason. A particular line could be of nearly any imaginable construction. Genetics could change over night and change back for seemingly no reason.
>>16913396>>16913410I asked Claude. I guess it's not a very satisfying answer.
>>16913303The only explanation that makes sense is that life originated when most of the universe was hot enough to support life, and not only extremely small locations in goldilocks zones. That is the only way to overcome such absurdly small probabilities: with massively overwhelming volume. On top of that solves the problem of genetic complexity going from nothing to complex enough for simple life forms in an absurdly small time span.
>abiogenesis>fine tuning issue>measurement problem in quantumthere's simply no chance this isnt a "simulation" of some sort. whether that's god, 5d jannies, celestial AI we'll never know, but our reality is constructed and designed the same way software is.
