Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 07:33:15 UTC No. 16294435

>>16294413
>The odds of chemical evolution happening are so low
I know, it's as if it'd take several billions of years to happen
kek
>Why are atheist scientists so disingenuous?
Fuck off, troll.

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 08:45:34 UTC No. 16294481

Lee Cronin is the Regius Chair of Chemistry in the School of Chemistry at the University of Glasgow, and he's admitted that abiogenesis is a scam, and I'm pretty sure he's an atheist so...

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 14:41:20 UTC No. 16294750

>>16294413
>The odds of life happening are 1 in 10^40,000th
And yet it happened

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 14:44:06 UTC No. 16294754

>>16294750
Hence God

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 14:58:46 UTC No. 16294771

>>16294413
>Eigen's paradox.
Chatgpt explains this is an open problem in biology regarding origin of life. There's no dedicated Wikipedia article for this. Wtf gives

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:43:24 UTC No. 16294826

>>16294413
Evolution and the start of life are two different things.
>>16294750
There is no factual timeline on the beginning of the universe, nor the start of life. For similar reasons if accurate enough simulations are possible, then simulation theory is the most likely explanation; life coming from different planets is the most plausible material explanation for life. Since life actually exists, unlike such simulations, this means that this is the single most valued explanation that science should be studying. Whatever conditions that were necessary for life become multiplicative if it is applied across all of space.
The non-material explanation is merely that life is laden in all things and the complexity, agency, constraint, etc have been misidentified have been categorized incorrectly.

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:49:45 UTC No. 16294831

>>16294435
>odds are 1 in 10^40,000
>muh magical billion years can do it
dumb gorilla a billion is only 10^9

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:53:55 UTC No. 16294833

Which God? Where is this God? What do you mean by God?

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 16:20:44 UTC No. 16294866

>>16294833
An intelligent designer obviously: aliens, theism, deism

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 16:31:31 UTC No. 16294874

>>16294750
Those are the odds of life starting on Earth. The only theory that makes sense is a process starting when practically all the universe was hot enough to keep liquid water, not only the surface of planets in goldilocks zones. That is more than nine billion years before Earth even existed, and enough time for evolution to turn dead matter into primitive cells.

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 19:02:19 UTC No. 16295037

>>16294874
Evolution does not apply to dead matter. There is nothing in chemistry that explains it will happen, that it is expected to happen. Everything points in the other direction. The pathetic attempt of evolutionists to extend their evolution of the gaps to chemistry is laughable as they reinvent basic encoding algorithms to try to generate signal from noise.
Now, a sensible reconstruction of your argument might be a situation where some planet somewhere has a wildtype chemistry which generates life. And in this wildtype chemistry, life naturally arises. Certainly nothing like that chemistry is known on Earth at this present time. Once life had come in such a place, then it spread to Earth through whatever mechanism and so now we have life here.

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 19:09:18 UTC No. 16295051

>>16294831
The odds per.... What?
Any one amino acid? There were lots of them for a long time, and they arise naturally.
I think, personally, it was unlikely, and earth is rare. But once it happens once you're prime, it just keeps going.

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 19:14:24 UTC No. 16295067

>>16294413
You believe that a man created two humans and told them not to eat from a particular tree and then tortured all of humanity since then as their punishment but that his chosen people who cut their foreskin off will be saved.

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 19:16:23 UTC No. 16295069

>>16295067
You failed to mention talking snakes, magical spells, zombies, and witches.

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 19:25:57 UTC No. 16295081

>>16295067
OP didn't actually say that he believes that. I mean, yeah, he probably does believe that. But it might also be the case that he believes in God as some sort of simulation master who tweaked a few simulation parameters on Earth 4 billion years ago.

In any case, it still seems more far-fetched than some explanation involving chemistry that we just don't understand yet.

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 19:54:20 UTC No. 16295123

>>16295051
>lots of them for a long time
Notice how the evolutionist steadfastly refuses to define anything and instead relies on people being mesmerized by that big BILLION number, which is so gosh darn big we can safely regard it as an eternity during which every possible arrangement of matter will occur.

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 19:55:29 UTC No. 16295127

>>16295123
>strawman
>no refutation
>didn't answer the question I asked
Confirmed unfounded. I'll continue believing where the empirical evidence lies.

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 20:15:10 UTC No. 16295169

>>16294435
>several billions of years
It took a few hundred million to get started in earnest. Still that's a very very long time.

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 20:17:20 UTC No. 16295172

>>16295169
*I fart in your face*

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 20:22:23 UTC No. 16295181

>>16294874
>>16295037
>Evolution does not apply to dead matter.
"Dead" matter doesn't change slowly? Natural selection can apply to anything that replicates. So some chemical cycle taking place in some lake somewhere can evolve and become more complicated to where new copies of certain molecules are made as long as there is a source of reactants. Over time there may be a "mutation" in one of the chemical pathways of this cycle. It's a little different but the cycle keeps chugging. It changes again from time to time, but it keeps going. It evolved.

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 20:23:22 UTC No. 16295185

>>16295169
>that's a very very long time
a long time compared to what? is it a long time compared to the amount of time it would take amino acids to spontaneously link up to form proteins? at what rate does that reaction occur?

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 20:23:27 UTC No. 16295186

>>16295181
NTA but it's different from biological evolution. Unless you specify chemical evolution, people assume biological, and biological evolution only works on already living things.

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 20:25:06 UTC No. 16295188

Divine hyperintelligence Eve is my wife.

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 20:26:18 UTC No. 16295189

>>16295123
A billion years is indeed a really long time. I mean like stupid fucking long. It's an almost absurd amount of time. The number of molecules and chemical reactions occurring on Earth is also a ridiculously large number.

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 20:26:32 UTC No. 16295190

>>16295181
Evolution of the gaps non-sense. The most likely material explanation for life is that it came from somewhere else. That they are researching an earthly abiogenic route is hilarious. It gets completely asinine once you factor in that they are unable to create life without using an already living substance.

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 20:29:30 UTC No. 16295194

>>16295186
>already living things
Life is a process. It's a large complicated chemical reaction that keeps going and is kept far from equilibrium by a constant input of energy. It's not magic. Biological evolution is chemical evolution.

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 20:32:38 UTC No. 16295202

>>16295190
>Evolution of the gaps
Any proposed mechanism for the beginnings of life on Earth are all speculation. There still isn't a solid theory, so people have to keep working at it. This is a hell of a lot better than just declaring that your favorite magical being snapped its fingers and poof, because where do you go from there? It's not like you're going to start designing experiments to detect your holy ghosts or anything.

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 20:39:51 UTC No. 16295213

>>16295194
You're simply misusing terms. Don't be such a dunning-kruger retard.
You're not going to convince Christcucks, they don't listen to reason.
You're only annoying to people who know better than you.

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 20:41:11 UTC No. 16295217

>>16295213
Tell me why life isn't a chemical process, genius.

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 20:48:03 UTC No. 16295227

>>16295217
>stawman
You're just as bad as the creationists.

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 20:50:48 UTC No. 16295231

>>16295227
>troll
At least you didn't waste too much of our time here.

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 22:30:55 UTC No. 16295336

>>16295194
Everything we know about chemical reactions is that equilibriums are the norm. Opposing sets of chiral forms always develop together and only ever exhibit a small amount of chiral bias, so you have to incorporate some way to separate the chiral forms or destroy the wrong ones. It is functionally impossible to avoid the wrong chiral forms from bonding with the superstructure, and the only energy input that could have prevented chiral equilibrium is light from neutron stars.

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 22:51:39 UTC No. 16295354

>>16295336
Or certain processes occurred on some sort of chiral surface structure.

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 23:33:52 UTC No. 16295393

>>16294413
The probability of life coming into existence given that life came into existence is 100%.

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 23:39:42 UTC No. 16295399

>>16295354
Or there was chiral enrichment by selective crystallization of enantiomers similar to what Pasteur did with tartrate crystals.

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 00:27:18 UTC No. 16295429

>>16295189
>a billion years of fizzing chemicals will just naturally produce living things bro

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 00:38:45 UTC No. 16295436

>>16295429
Not every time, but at least once.

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 00:42:24 UTC No. 16295438

>>16294413
The odds of the unfalsifiable X deity creating life theory are: zero.

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 02:26:03 UTC No. 16295542

>>16295202
It isn't speculation, but specious reasoning that many have applied in their endless syllogisms related to evolution. They only want to extend it into abiogenesis because nobody has called them out on their BS.
As for their attempts at determining the origin of life, it is obvious based on current data that the most likely case is coming from an external origin. A place where chemical processes are not like anything we have ever seen.
As for their particular approach, they can't make life. Now they want to see if they fair any better if they will have better luck trying to do it after proverbially tying their hands behind their back - creating it from prebiotic conditions. It is complete nonsense that only snookers the most idiotic that fell for their evolution of the gaps scam.

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 03:13:04 UTC No. 16295566

>>16294754
>God
That's not scince anon. Claiming magic powers every time something you don't understand or know the answer to is what kept humanity stuck in the middle ages forever, and it's also ingoringall the progress in knowledge and understanding we have attained so far.
There is a place to talk about such things, magic, powers, deities, etc, but it's not within science, do you understand?

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 03:13:38 UTC No. 16295567

>>16295336
Enzymes are great at forcing one enantiomer, by only lowering the energy threshold for the desired chirality.

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 03:15:17 UTC No. 16295570

>>16294831
>dumb gorilla
Yeg here you are, dumb gorilla. Follow the laws of physics back into time, see where they lead you.

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 03:17:40 UTC No. 16295571

>>16295037
>There is nothing in chemistry
Ignorant.
>Everything points in the other direction.
Troll or stupid.

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 03:25:19 UTC No. 16295576

>>16294413
What are the odds of you being a gigantic fag?

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 03:30:02 UTC No. 16295578

>>16295571
>strawman
>no evidence

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 07:56:50 UTC No. 16295780

>>16294831
Year is not the smallest unit of time, silly monkey, also there is not just one place on earth.

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 07:58:33 UTC No. 16295783

>>16294826
>Durr I have to use simulations to make my projections about reality, so reality must be a simulated projection.