Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

[stu]

Quote from jem:

because the issue for any thinking person would be whether abiogenesis is good proven science... not whether there is good science going into the research.

The construction of your sentence manifests your typical troll intent. You could substitute the word abiogensis with cold fusion, search for aliens. search for Creator, eternal machine, time travel... etc.. you create virtually meaningless sentences to cover up your previous frauds.


You are the anti science athiest... I cite academics and nobel prize winners... and you fraudulently state there is good science showing that life evolved from non life... then try to imply you meant something else... which is still bullshit.

"You could substitute the word abiogensis with cold fusion..."

Bollocks you could.

Abiogenesis contains both a common sense understanding that there are no real alternatives, and factual proven scientific knowledge and advanced research, making the whole thing highly probable to prove.

All you desperately try to do is attach personal beliefs to academics or Nobel prize winners you say you quote, but which rather you have been shown time after time to misrepresent.

Of course there is good science to show how life can come from non life. Obviously all you can do is put yourself in utter denial of that fact.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

"You could substitute the word abiogensis with cold fusion..."

Bollocks you could.

Abiogenesis contains both a common sense understanding that there are no real alternatives, and factual proven scientific knowledge and advanced research, making the whole thing highly probable to prove.

All you desperately try to do is attach personal beliefs to academics or Nobel prize winners you say you quote, but which rather you have been shown time after time to misrepresent.

Of course there is good science to show how life can come from non life. Obviously all you can do is put yourself in utter denial of that fact.

don't you get tried of being so full of crap.

Common sense? That is your philosophy. That is not science.
think about your bullshit for a moment.

you observe life, a very complex thing, especially to those who study DNA.

You state it must have evolved by random chance from inorganic matter. You pretend that is a superior view... When you are rally anti science.

Some noble prize winners and scores of researchers in the field say there no fricken way that life evolved on earth by random chance. Their research says there was not enough chance.... there was not way the components could have assembled the way they did by chance.

I shall post my survey of the top scientific minds in the field again.

 

[jem]

Quote from jem:

This is a summary of the science in a paper from MIT... you can see Stu's conclusions are the delusional rants of an et atheist who can not accept science conflicts with his desire for evolution by random chance.


http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

We now know that the probability of life arising by chance is far too low to
be plausible, hence there must be some deeper explanation that we are yet to
discover, given which the origin of life is atleastreasonably likely. Perhaps we
have little idea yet what form this explanation will take—although of course it
will not appeal to the work of a rational agent; this is would be a desperate
last resort, if an option at all—but we have every reason to look for such an
explanation, for we have every reason to think there is one.
In a detailed survey of the field, Iris Fry (1995, 2000) argues that although
the disagreements among origin of life theorists run very deep, relating to the
most basic features of the models they propose, the view sketched above is a
fundamental unifying assumption (one which Fry strongly endorses). Some
researchers in the field are even more optimistic of course. They believe that
they have already found the explanation, or at least have a good head start
on it. But their commitment to the thesis above is epistemically more basic,
in the sense that it motivated their research in the first place and even if their
theories were shown to be false, they would retain this basic assumption.
3
There is a very small group of detractors, whom Fry (1995) calls the “Almosta Miracle Camp” including Francis Crick (1981), ErnstMayr (1982),
and Jaques Monod (1974), who appear to be content with the idea that life
arose by chance even if the probability of this happening is extremely low.
4
According to Crick “the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a
miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to been satisfied
to get it going” (1981: 88); the emergence of life was nevertheless a “happy
accident” (p. 14).
5
According to Mayr, “a full realization of the near impossibility of an origin of life brings home the point of how improbable this
event was.” (1982: 45). Monod famously claimed that although the probability of life arising by chance was “virtually zero. . .our number came up in the
Monte Carlo game” (1974: 137). Life, as Monod puts it, is “chance caught
on a wing” (p. 78). That is, although natural selection took over early to produce the diversity of life, its origin was nothing but an incredibly improbable
fluke.Does Origins of Life Research Rest on a Mistake? 459
However, the vast majority of experts in the field clearly define their work
in opposition to this view. The more common attitude is summed up neatly
by J. D. Bernal.
[T]he question, could life have originated by a chance occurrence of atoms,
clearly leads to a negative answer. This answer, combined with the knowledge
that life is actually here, leads to the conclusion that some sequences other than
chance occurrences must have led to the appearances of life. (quoted in Fry 2000:
153)
Having calculated the staggering improbability of life’s emergence by chance,
Manfred Eigen (1992) concludes,
The genes found today cannot have arisen randomly, as it were by the throw of
a dice. There must exist a process of optimization that works toward functional
efficiency. Even if there are several routes to optimal efficiency, mere trial and
error cannotbe one of them. (p. 11)
It is from this conclusion that Eigen motivates his search for a physical principle that does not leave the emergence of life up to blind chance, hence
making itreproducible in principle:
The physical principle that we are looking for should be in a position to explain
the complexity typical of the phenomena of life at the level of molecular structures and syntheses. It should show how such complex molecular arrangements
are able to form reproducibly in Nature. (p. 11)
According to Christian de Duve (1991),
. . .unless one adopts a creationist view,. . .life arose through the succession of an
enormous number of small steps, almost each of which, given the condition at
the time had a very high probability of happening. . .the alternative amounts to
a miracle. . .were [the emergence of life] not an obligatory manifestation of the
combinatorial properties of matter, it could not possibly have arisen naturally.
(p. 217)
Not all theorists follow De Duve so far as suggesting that life’s emergence
mustbe inevitable. While nota specialistin the area, Richard Dawkins (1987)
captures the attitude that appears to dominate scientific research into life’s
origin. According to Dawkins,
All who have given thought to the matter agree that an apparatus as complex as
the human eye could not possibly come into existence through [a single chance
event]. Unfortunately the same seems to be true of at least parts of the apparatus
of cellular machinery whereby DNA replicates itself (p. 140)460 NOUS ˆ
In considering how the first self-replicating machinery arose, Dawkins asks
“Whatis the largestsingle eventof sheer naked coincidence, sheer unadulterated miraculous luck, that we are allowed to get away with in our theories,
and still say that we have a satisfactory explanation of life?” (p. 141) And
he answers that there are strict limits on the “ration of luck” that we are
allowed to postulate in our theories.
6
According to Dawkins, an examination
of the immense complexity of the most basic mechanisms required for DNA
replication is sufficient to see that any theory which makes its existence a
highly improbable fluke is unbelievable, quite apart from what alternative
explanations are on the table


http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

 

[Trader666]

You "think" the temperature of the universe (-454F) is irrelevant? Then tell me, STUpid, out of all space in the universe, what % of it (give a number) could known extremophiles live in?

Quote from STUpid:

Obviously -454F is just as irrelevant as when you started your nonsense, being that there are vastly differing temperatures throughout the universe depending where or what is measured. Taking just one of them in isolation is, well, gaumless.

Wrong again troll. I wrote AVERAGE and the average temperature of a galaxy is only a tiny fraction of a degree warmer than the temp of the universe. Obviously you can't grasp the significance of that either.

Quote from STUpid:

No surprise that you are also of course completely wrong about the temperatures of galaxies too. Again it depends entirely upon which part of which galaxy temperature is being measured.
They range into millions of degrees hotter than what you are calling the "-454F starting point", which in any case is no such thing as a starting point.

Your starting point is so STUpendously ridiculous I almost spilled my coffee when I read it. This is about your claim that "extremeophiles [sic] live in environments that are present on other planets and in outer space" which makes the temperature of the universe NOW relevant, NOT the temp 13+ billion years ago, you moron. And don't lie that I'm ignoring the range of temps... you're just trying to bullshit your way out of having made a total fool of yourself. But what else is new?

Quote from STUpid:

A starting point, if anything, would be the temperature calculated at the beginning of the universe, as almost immeasurably hot.
Taking one value, whilst ignoring the enormously vast range of other temperatures through both extremes with everything in between being present also, just to try and base your ignorant argument upon it, really isn't very clever.

No, you have no clue as your continued STUpidity, trolling, lies and obfuscations show. Again, what % of space could known extremophiles live in?

Quote from STUpid:

You have no clue as to where and what habitable zones intersect in outer space or how much they would need to, to allow known extremophiles or even microbes trapped within meteorites or comets to live and survive a journey. Let alone any that may not yet be known of.