On The Impossibility Of Abiogenesis.

I rate Nessie a significantly more probable than gods, Nessie's right up there with Bigfoot.

 

So a creation is more probable than a creator?

 

Nessie and bigfoot are anthropologically and biologically feasible if exceedingly unlikely. It is plausible that some form of plesiosaur survived extinction and that a form of unknown hominid exists that evolved to be extremely adapt at hiding. An all powerful, invisible super entity however, has no basis to draw upon for possibility and the versions of it found in our literature show absolute impossibility as their primary trait.

 

Not remotely true.

The cytochrome c of a single-cell bacterium differs from that of a single-cell yeast by 69%.
The cytochrome c of a single-cell bacterium differs from that of a horse by only 64%.

At a molecular level, there is not at trace of the traditional evolutionary series.

The abject ignorance of Charles Darwin has been passed on to his millions of acolytes.

“I believe that I was considered by all my teachers and by my father to be a very ordinary boy, rather below the common standard in intellect.” - Charles Darwin

“It seems therefore that a taste for collecting beetles is one indication of a future success I life!” - Charles Darwin

 

Why do people enforce linearity to prove evolution true? I understand that linear relationships are the easiest to understand, but nowhere in ToE does it state there must be a linear relationship. Many arguments against evolution stem from this assumption. It seems quite myopic that once something changes it is going to continually change to become more different than its original state. Changes due to natural selection have extremely complex relationships. The taxonomy of organisms has many clustered regions. Clustering is a higher order relationship than linear. These higher order relations means that linear measurements of relatedness will innaccurately represent the degree of similarity. Furthermore, cytochrome c is just a part of an organism. Why does that part have to continually become different as new species evolve?

An easy example of why linear relationships are insufficient, take two variables with a quadratic relationship, specifically a parabolic arc, their correlation will be pretty much 0. That means there is no linear relationship, but they are obviously related. As one variable increases, the other will increase for a bit then decrease. This does not explain clustering, but demonstrates that linear relationships are only one of many types of relationships.

 

But does life exist???

JK

 

What are you saying was created?

And what proof or even evidence to you have?

AA

 

Quantum Mechanics as well as the Multiversal Model I worked on as well as M-Theory dictates that NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE....even the existence of a GOD or GODS.

But is it PROBABLE?

No....highly unlikely.

AA

 

But what is life???

back at ya

 

Life....self animate matter or energy with the ability to reproduce.

AA

 

Or if we're looking at it on a different scale its a phenomenon that distorts the natural progression of entropy. Mostly due to certain specific ideal cosmological conditions.

Mostly though I was just answering a nonsense question with another nonsense question.

(btw though, your answer would include self replicating robots you know)

 

Please stop playing word games. Countless impossibilities can be cited which clearly need no proof. According to your nonsensical statement, you could then raise all of the dead back to the living here on earth, and fly to Jupiter by yourself. These things, you say, are not impossible and you can't prove them to be impossible.

Life started but you don't know what life is. More inane word games, which say nothing.

TBryant, to the Ignore List.

~ciao

 

There is simply one proof natural biogenesis is possible if there is proof of any alternate biogenesis on Earth or on any other world or moon in our system or elsewhere its perfectly practical to assume no deity is needed or we manage to duplicate the process in a laboratory and they are getting closer every year to that.

 

Chemical evolution means abiogenesis is a "production possibility frontier" given enough time.

 

Its complex genetic makeup.

 

That is just ONE of the many modern discoveries utterly refuting the archaic idea of common descent (Darwinism).

A far better, and more honest assessment of the origins of plant and animal life would be:
"Science has no valid naturalistic explanation."

Instead, evolutionary biologists simply repeat the same thing they have been indoctrinated with for decades, the same thing they indoctrinate all their students with: "Selection!" "Darwin!"

"Modern" evolutionary biology says nothing at all, except that some have more offspring, and are "selected" thereby. They're "selected" because more survive. More survive because they're "selected." This is supposed to be deep and scholarly, for those who reject it are invariably called names, almost always challenging their intelligence.

 

You make a claim "not true" and then fail to substantiate that claim with anything relevant.

 

Well life is not confined to just the Organic.

AA

- - - Updated - - -

Complexity is not proof of a Creator.

AA

 

Clearly you do not understand biochemistry, which has refuted common descent even more forcefully than paleontology.
Read up on the Wistar symposium, and stop trying to defend an archaic idea 150 years old, which far predated our current biochemical, statistical, and information theory knowledge, all of which turn Darwinism on its antiquated head.

 

There are no modern discoveries that "utterly refute" evolution or common descent.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

What has been "utterly refuted" is the Biblical nonsense about a Great Flood covering the whole earth roughly 4000 years ago and that some God created this earth roughly 6000 years ago.

 

Says the dude who has never taken a biochemistry class and has the bare minimum of chemistry classes. Do not attribute your flaws to me.

You have said nothing on the information I provided in relation to abiogenesis because you have no clue. If the Wistar symposium had something relevant to say then post what you think is relevant and reference your claim with a link.

Did you even attend university or is your nick made up "wishful thinking".

 

You have got to be kidding me!

Biochemistry absolutely backs and mirrors Darwinism as this is survival of the fittest based upon environment and condition.

Thus those life forms that survive pass down their genetic traits that were necessary for a life forms survival to the next generation.

The stronger Elephant with the larger tusks will be able to not only battle of competing male rivals to breed but as well his larger tusks attract the females thus he will breed and thus pass down his superior genetic traits to his progeny.

When environment is a factor such as those elephants that are perhaps in a changing climate where water is scarce those elephants with the longer trunks that can not only reach higher tree branches to eat moisture laden leaves but as well those elephants with longer trunks that can dig in the ground deeper to find water will survive to breed and pass down their genetic traits,

When toxicity is involved as say perhaps a heavy metal poisons the water supply....those elephants that survive the toxicity also breed and pass down their DNA.

The toxicity might cause Mutation and thus a branch species may develop as chemical reaction brought on by toxicity or UV-Radiation will cause mutation thus new species are generated.

AA

 

But it is evidence. A Lamborghini is evidence of a designer. I'm pretty sure that given enough chances and time you can create one naturally but the more likely explanation is that someone designed it.

 

And the vomeronasal organ is evidence that we inherited body parts from non-human entities instead of being designed out of the box as human beings. Even AnswersInGenesis cannot explain it (although they tried really hard to dance around it):
https://answersingenesis.org/human-...ting-the-record-straight-on-vestigial-organs/
The vomeronasal organ (VNO) is a pair of pit-like structures in the upper part of the inside of the nose. In many mammals, this is a sensory organ that is used to detect pheromones (chemical signals that trigger behavioral responses such as reproductive responses). While the chemosensory role of this organ is fairly well established in mammals such as mice, the exact function for humans has been more elusive.


The term "more elusive" means they cannot think of a way to explain why we would have been designed with a sensory organ that would be totally useless to Adam and Even (and their offspring who were already farming and domesticating animals). Plus they have to dance around the issue that it has been useless for so long that we no longer have nerves connecting this sensory organ to the brain. Not good evidence for intelligent design.

 

No matter WHAT anyone posts, links and references or none, you and your Darwinian Fairy Tale Friends will refute it, and hurl ad hominem attacks as if you were all Nobel laureates. Do your own research on the Wistar symposium.

You have absolutely NOTHING to say about the impossibility of overcoming chirality, exclusive peptide bonding, and amino acid sequencing in the first living cell. NOTHING. AND YOU CAN NEVER SHOW ANYTHING. All you can do is mouth off in typical Leftist fashion, often invoking the Bible instead of addressing the science. "Giftedone" - riiiiiight.

~ciao

Silence is the best reply to a fool.

AboveAlpha Cosmo DarkDaimon Egalitarianjay02 FreshAir Fugazi Giftedone HonestJoe JDliberal Jonsa Moriah RandomObserver RiaRaeb Selivan Shiva_TD TBryant tecoyah trevorw2539 WillReadmore _Inquisitor_