/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15784500
Yeah so what? It’s the prime mover proved by Aristotle and Aquinas.

>>15784500
>assembled itself out of nowhere and then evolved
how or why would the two be different things?

>>15784500
>t. Atheistic fiction

>assembled itself out of nowhere
chad as fuck

>>15784500
>assembled itself out of a zillion random mutations and then evolved through a zillion random mutations

>>15784500
To add. If things get more disorganised over time, why does something like biology get more organised?

>it's too complex for me to understand therefore G_d

>randomly assemble themselves out of constituent elements

>randomly fold and assemble themselves out of randomly assembled amino acids

>>15785382
>>15785389
Spontaneous generation was debunked in the 19th century, chud.

>>15785391
How did life arise if not abiogenesis?

https://youtu.be/lQrCsPrh11M

https://youtu.be/PqPGOhXoprU
https://youtu.be/CJ5jh33OiOA
https://youtu.be/jfq5-i8xoIU

https://youtu.be/K1xnYFCZ9Yg?t=3m30s

>>15784500
>Is absolutely flabbergasted when life is a complex process of trial and error that lasts longer than any single species is able to percieve on it's own.

>>15785396
YHWH
H
W
H

>>15785396
I'm not the one claiming to know the answers. It'll be one of life's greatest mysteries. But the fact that humankind, right now, with all the technology we have can't create even the simplest, most humblest of microscopic carbon-based organisms doesn't lend too much credence to the fact that life spontaneously arose from non-life. Sometimes it's okay to admit you don't know. You don't have to have all the answers, especially when you're working with limited perspective and information.

>>15784500
>assembled itself
no, symbiotic cells
>out of nowhere
no, amino acids
>then evolved
yes
>through a zillion random mutations
no, through natural selection

Boil a pot for 1.5 billion years filled with precursor chemicals in a reducing environment and you might kick off a self replicating reaction, there is enough energy being dumped in.

That’s probably what happened at hydrothermal vents

>>15785382
>>15785389
AND self assembled into single celled organisms
AND self assembled into RNA
Just from a chemistry standpoint, life is far less likely than most people assume. No wonder we haven't found anyone.

>>15784500
Yes, and?

>>15784500
Boltzmann brains says you are fucking idiot.

>>15784500
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4sLAQvEH-M

corn, sausage, green beans
looks delicious, OP!

>refuses to elaborate
>develops intelligence
>exterminates itself

>>15784500
>i have a problem
>i don't exist
>i try random shit
>now i exist

>i have a problem
>i need energy and materials
>i try random shit
>i develope basic movement and sensory systems
>i keep trying random shit to get more sophisticated and extract energy from raw stuff i found that is not edible but i'll make it soon

>i have a problem
>i need more random shit solutions
>i try random shit
>i can now breed more and control mutations better as well as exhanging random shit info with other cells just by toching them with some strange needle i got

>i have a problem
>no food, fuck
>i try random shit
>i can now absorb light and turn inorganic stuff into food, some neighbor decided to eat me or eat other cells as well (those fucking lazy bastards)

>i have a problem
>no IQ at all besides very simple shit behavior
>i try random shit
>i have developed a complex logical networks with connection, circuits and memories so i can fuck around with algorithms and try random shit faster and more efficiently so i solve my problems faster

>i have a problem...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KEVaCyaA

>>15784500
Yes

>>15784500
Conway's game of life exhibits emergent properties such as gliders even from a completely randomized soup of on and off pixels

I'll take "retards who don't understand the mechanism of natural selection even a tiny bit" for 800, Alex.

>>15785293
Why do crystals form?

>>15785634
>DUUUUDE JUST ADD TIME BRO!!!
>JUST NEED A LIL BIT MORE TIME!!!!

>>15784500
YES! each and every microbe is mutating, simultaneously! And there have been on the order of 10^42 cells to have ever existed, in history!

That's a lot of chances to mutate!

>>15786831

>>15784500
I left my cringe atheism phase after studying biology.

>>15785369
Scientists can even create a cell in a lab. It takes more than just intelligence or knowledge.

>>15785514
>>15785634
Just say you don't know. It's more honest.

>>15786831
Nonliving chemicals don't go through natural selection.

allat just to produce a random ass chemical that does like two things then dies

>>15784500
there are trillions of starsystems and there are billions of years, so a lot random combinations took place for a self replicating thing to come into existence. i dont really see why such a thing should be impossible, the thing i dont get is how this thing which is simply just a complex combination of atoms turned into beings which have a consciousness and and an experience.

>>15786958
The existence of a Creator has better odds though.

>50/50

>>15786862
Duh, scientists can't observe an experiment for billions of years while pumping energy

people will say "oh yeah you just need lots of time" but the truth is there was only a very small finite amount of time on earth for such an insane diceroll to happen. you either accept it as a miracle or you need to give me something better than "it just happened bro"

>>15787380
Yes but even when the chances are 0.000001% of life appearing in the universe it just happened.

Otherwise nobody would be here sperging day and night about how much their existence is impossible "therefore evolution is wrong".
It needs a lot of time and a lot of luck, still you can experience it and get mad about it only when it happens.

>>15787408
it's much, much more rare than .000001% and please don't frog me

>>15787436
Too late, you are now frogged.

>>15785391
That is weird, since abiogenesis is still the prevailing theory of the origin of life on our planet. Strange, how that could be, if it was already debunked 120 years ago.

>>15787380
>people will say "oh yeah you just need lots of time" but the truth is there was only a very small finite amount of time on earth for such an insane diceroll to happen
Might be insane, but it happened.
As long as you cannot prove that it was a magical sky dude, there is no sane reason to believe such an idiotic construct.

>>15787380
the universe is immense and that's only taking into account the visible universe.
there could be just ample opportunity for this very unlikely event to occur relatively quickly.

>>15787462
>magical sky dude
Both hyptheses are unprovable, retard.

>>15787458
>since abiogenesis is still the prevailing theory of the origin of life on our planet
Can't tell if sarcasm or bona fide retard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation#Experimental_approach

>>15787710
if you really can't figure out the nuance between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis then there isn't much hope for you.

>>15784500
N

>>15787717
>Life coming from non-life is different from life coming from non-life...because..well, it just is OK?
Pseudoscientific quackery. Go back to >>>/x/ sweet pea

>>15787717
explain the difference

>>15784500
> too complex therefore God
Yeah, that argument has never worked out, but okay.

>>15787862
a matter of frequency of occurrence and time involved.
the spontaneous generation theories of old said life was constantly generating everywhere.
abiogenesis simply posits that there exists at least some condition life can arise in over sufficient time.

>>15787895
No, they're the exact same except in one moment that requires greater faith than believing in a creator.

>>15785293
i have 2 jpegs on my hdd
i want to move them to my usb but there is only room for 1 jpeg file
i really need the information of both files so i combine them into one file in photoshop and use compression to compress it to a jpeg the size of 1 file
now it fits on the usb, and while most of the information is there, the single copied file now has half as many bytes for the same amount of pixel data, so the quality must be lower

checkmate evolutionists

>>15786836
he messed up by saying "everything"; he meant biology in general i think

>>15787895
A complexity score equivalent to the chemical self-replication occurring on earth would make any life anywhere unlikely, and life more advanced than humans while simultaneously close to us extraordinarily improbable.

>>15785494
I'd argue since it clearly happened at some point in the past, but it's very hard to get done, we just have a very good reason to believe in rare earth theory.
There are trillions upon trillions of stars and planets after all, if you flip 10^10^10 coins in parallel for long enough eventually you'll get a very log run of heads, so to speak.

>>15787976
The problem is that there really aren't enough. Having 10^30 extra planets or 10^25 does not actually improve your chances when you need 10^50 events to happen in close proximity and time to get star trek aliens.

>>15784500
I don't consider that such a mystery. We already detected about 250 organic molecules in space, which means that - given the incredible amount of matter out there - such systems are bound to form even under the worst circumstances. As for Earth: while it is nothing compared to the size of space, it does have a virtually endless amount of atoms and molecules to play with. The more numerous and closer to one another these molecules were, the more obvious it is that they had ample opportunity to assemble into more complex molecules and structures, and eventually into the first organism. Just because we can't replicate the entirety of Earth's chemical and biological history in a lab it doesn't mean that these events are impossible.

>>15787927
you didn't dispute what I said

>>15787953
even that being true doesn't dispute what I said

>>15788019
That's my point. I think we're probably the only ones "here." At least in the galaxy, I wouldn't be surprised.
Once you get any form of life, evolution will happen and you'll end up with diversity, the trick part is starting. Clearly it started up for us, thus we are here.

>>15788036
>250 organic molecules
kek most of those are things like methane, propane, butane,m et cetera

>>15788042
>most of those are
You named 3 out of the 250+ molecules they found. Surely not all of them are that simple. Besides, my point was that if these molecules could form even in space, then they have a much higher probability and complexity on Earth-like planets (i.e. planets that are very much similar in composition to our own). And we're only talking about familiar biology here. If we include other possibilities e.g. opposite chirality biology and more exotic biology then the chance to find life is even higher. Some would even venture farther by including "lifeforms" that aren't even chemical in the first place e.g. monopole particles threaded on cosmic strings inside stars. Yet we can only peer inside into the observable universe, what's beyond that is anyone's guess.

>>15788076
You think you can reach required chemical scoring from alkanes? Is this a joke?

>>15787976
>since it clearly happened at some point in the past
Except we don't know how it happened. Unless we have a time machine and are able to go back in time we will never know.

The probability argument is a huge leap of faith and just doesn't hold up because at that point literally anything could happen. With the right combination of matter floating around, a brain may also spontaneously come together with the right connections that this world could be a dream of that brain. After all, anything is possible given enough time. Heck, we should expect to find robotic lifeforms formed through abiogenesis. When you concede life can form from non-life then anything goes--an infinite number of bizarre yet far more likely events would occur way before life spontaneously forming. It could be that there is an event that causes the collapse of the universe into a lower energy state, spreading through space-time eliminating the possibility of this process because the universe is always reset before the chances can roll.

>>15788158
Life developed at some point, as other anons have pointed out organic chemicals have been found to be totally naturally occurring. Given enough time and chemistry you end up with something that can make more of itself.
It doesn't have a "desire" to reproduce, it's just what it does given it's environment and makeup.
For something as complex as a brain to just "come together" is disingenuous, and we have no reason to think it would happen.
The probability argument is one that only works *because* of the improbability of it, at least from a rare earth perspective. The only reason we're around to observe that we're around is because something happened to cause life, and from what I know and understand the most likely explanation is that we're cosmically lucky compared to all our celestial neighbors.

I propose that at some point there was some chemical process that took an object and, with the right environment, the object made more of itself. This is, again, very tricky and rare, but the moment it happens the chain is started and it will keep going: evolution and shit from there.
How do you propose we go from non-life to life?

>>15788185
Existence is eternal. And consciousness is fundamental to existence. Without consciousness, there is no existence. There are so many nonsensical non-answers to this realm because "reality" is fake.

Just how matter doesn't matter until it needs to matter, so does information and answers in general. That is, things don't get rendered until they need to be as a result of observation. We don't know what exists on the other side of this universe. It doesn't exist, until observed, until it needs to exist. Same thing with all these questions. There don't have to be rational answers because it doesn't matter since what is being experienced is the here and now. Like how your personal, subjective conscious experience isn't the only conscious experience on Earth. All of the conscious experiences on Earth aren't the only experiences that exist in the entirety of existence. It would be silly to assume so.

>>15788202
I like the idea of solipsism but at the same time, assuming it is true, I still have feelings about the fake world I inhabit, as it's all there is outside of myself.
Even if life is a game, why not explore the limits and function of the game?
But if you want to believe the Last Tuesday theory, you're more than free to. I can't disprove it in any way, but I just don't find it compelling.

>>15788158
1. observer bias, you are the extreme minority of matter that is observing itself
2. rolling the dice 10^god knows times, the numbers are (literally) astronomical

>>15788211

I believe that solipsism is not only false, but is the first evil. Solipsism is a spectrum, in that case, where you slowly begin to discard the value that other life has around you, starting at germs, then plants, then animals, then other people, and eventually, yourself.

Solipsism is the opposite of truth, and is a path towards oblivion of everything and the self.

It is far better to embrace the truth of love and life. To acknowledge that all life has its own perspective and vantage point, and that yours is special to you, but everyone else has their own.

(This should not preclude food eating. We must kill to survive, and so I do not tolerate philosophical or religious diets.)

>>15788158
>With the right combination of matter floating around, a brain may also spontaneously come together with the right connections that this world could be a dream of that brain.
well as an observer, you would be observing from the most probable outcome that produces observers. So if living molecules come together 1 in 10^50, and brains spontaneously come together 1 in 10^100, well you're a lot more likely to exist as an evolved molecule than a spontaneous brain.

>>15788219
Are you this guy >>15788202 or someone else
Because the concept of "the only thing that exists is your consciousness" is solipsism, and that's what 202 said.
If you're someone else, fair enough, but you can't prove it true or false. It's another unfalsifiable claim, but it can be handy to think about if you're exploring what conciseness is. It's not a thing to live by, even Descartes said it would change how he came to accept things as true, but not how he would act.
That is to say, our interpretation of the outside world is subject to flaws and deceptions, but you still are a part of the world in some way or another so don't reject it totally.

>>15788219
Nope.

Solipsism is one of the demi-evils like cannibalism, darkism and terrorism(there are several others). It has a specific technique to it. Such as, being under someone's skin so they feel what you feel, sweating your sweat. It's also got good techniques such as simulation surge, deluding oneself quickly to avoid sensing something more soluble. It's not only the view that one's mind exists, that is the start point of solipsism where it's aspect is much more.

>>15788232
Put it this way. Cause the concept of solipsism is there I can do some severe solipsistic damage to your over the bridge of both our minds.

Further, one's mind existing is just solips, there's no ism or ist in this context(just the brief).

>>15788211
>I like the idea of solipsism
Wasn't talking about that.

It's just quantum mechanics extended to information and time. Local realism was debunked
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/
>Instead the evidence shows that objects are not influenced solely by their surroundings, and they may also lack definite properties prior to measurement.
There you go, like I said. This is one of the greatest revelations in decades and you don't hear about outside of the Nobel Prize awards and specific fields.
>Under quantum mechanics, nature is not locally real: particles may lack properties such as spin up or spin down prior to measurement, and they seem to talk to one another no matter the distance. (Because the outcomes of measurements are random, these correlations cannot be used for faster-than-light communication.)
It's fascinating stuff.

>>15788228
>that's what 202 said.
Where did you pull that out from that post

>>15788215
>1. observer bias, you are the extreme minority of matter that is observing itself
This goes into consciousness which is a whole other question
>2. rolling the dice 10^god knows times, the numbers are (literally) astronomical
There are infinite more likely events that would happen before matter assembles itself into a self-sustaining Terran ecosystem.

>>15788241
>Where did you pull that out from that post
I got it from here
>>Without consciousness, there is no existence
Which the idea of solipsism being that the "outside" is illusory and the only thing you can know for sure is your own mind.

>It's just quantum mechanics extended to information and time. Local realism was debunked
I know about quantum mechanical weirdness, and I don't disagree with it. But if you look at brains from a quantum-weirdness point of view, you see that conciousness is no more "locally real" than the position of a photon.
Even the wave formula includes an imaginary term (shitty name but you know). The universe is inherently weird, but we have no reason to think that our thinking is exempt from the weirdness.

>There are infinite more likely events that would happen before matter assembles itself into a self-sustaining Terran ecosystem.
Which is why I said that it's probably why we're the only ones here. Again: once you get 1 thing that reproduces itself, it'll make more of itself and more and more, etc.
But most places never get that "lucky" enough to have that one thing start.

>>15788202
>>15788202

None of this is true.

If you're deceived by this sophistry, then I pity you.

No, the world does exist. Reality IS real.
Other people are real. Consciousness is not necessary for life. Plants prove this. We do not need a mind to make decisions We need only the will-to-live, and the only thing without this is death and non-existence.

But even dead-rock can still be utilized by life. Because it exists. This reality is real, and we must learn to LOVE it. For if not love, then we will grow to hate it, to reject it, to deny it.

And then you begin to enter into the world of mindless fantasy. Religion. Spirituality. Magick. God.

None of which are real.

>>15788241
I'm not 202, and in fact, I'm very displeased by him, as I say above in the post where I say, "None of this is true."

>>15788264
Makes sense, I was a bit confused about the full 180 between posts there.
My other arguments still hold, I think. Just wanted to clarify the position you were arguing for.

>>15788261
>None of which are real.
You say reality is real. God is just the entirety of consciousness. But then say in effect that the collective experience isn't real. So which is it?

>>15788240

To be quite contrary to my previous condemnation of solipsism, I do know what you mean, and I agree completely. But I do not consider it "good."

I consider solipsism a weapon, in that case, when honed to a point. To control solipsism is wise, if you wish to block a certain person from your reality.

But if they ever come at you to physically attack you, then you will quickly need to respond to the reality of their attack. In the end, solipsism as a weapon is not necessarily a bad idea to grasp, but solipsism as a true philosophy is a danger to your sanity.

>>15788251
Solipsism is the idea only one's own experience can be known to be real. I didn't imply that. I only said existence exists only insofar it is experienced. That is what existence means.

>>15788268

The word "God" does not belong here or anywhere. It is an evil word because it can mean Thor, it can be Jesus, it can mean Allah, it can mean "the entirety of consciousness."

I prefer to just say the full meaning of what I mean when I want to refer to higher concepts, and you should too.

God is a loaded word, and goes off like a BANG when the wrong person hears it. So I prefer to just not use it except in its most common definition.

>>15788276

No, that is only what experience, perception, and perspective mean.

Existence exists outside of measurement.
I will not take the side that "local reality is fake."

I will disagree with that current model and continue to play as if reality is fully real, no matter what, where, when, or who I am, and even if I am dead.

A Nobel prize does not convince me. Logic is stronger than the human mind, and the logic should hold that reality is real, and exists outside of measurement or observation.

>>15788261
>Other people are real
Quote where it was said otherwise
>Consciousness is not necessary for life
I didn't imply this
>Plants prove this
It's not me to say whether plants have some sort of consciousness or not. They have been known to communicate with other trees through the network of roots and are aware of their surroundings
>>15788280
So you meant "deity"

>>15788276

Solipsism in its true, absolute form is the denial of life outside yourself. It is to look upon other moving entities, and simply conclude that they are p-zombies of some sort. It's to assume that everything around you is dead-rock, matter given motion through chemical reaction. It's to not acknowledge other minds or their will-to-live.

The absolute true form of solipsism, taken to its maximum, would not be as mild as merely saying, "Only I can be SURE I exist."

So I would continue to express that solipsism is a spectrum. But that it is a spectrum towards evil, where 100 is more evil than 50 and 50 is more evil than 1.

But only 0 is pure of heart, and filled with true love for the lives of others

>>15788276
I don't agree with that.
I believe experience is solipsistic, that is to say your experience is totally unique to you and can't be shared. In a sense, your experience is your whole world.
I also believe, because I've not seen any evidence to the contrary, that the outside world will continue to exist after I'm dead and gone, and after every living thing is dead and gone.

If a tree falls in a forest, with no life around to experience the sound, there is no "sound" that we can comprehend, but there is a wave of pressure that changes the air and shakes the ground.
When you listen to music, you don't think about each change of pressure rising and falling, you think of the experience you get from that pressure tickling your brain just so.

But we are off topic, where did life come from?
I think life came from chance, a very rare chance, but a chance so that once life starts it will keep going because that is the nature of life.

>>15788295

I think life is determined to exist, either through actual non-random determinism, or because something about the universe is determined to be alive.

This "will-to-life" is the mysterious concept that religions are after, so indeed we should approach it with respect.

It might be mere chance, (although I do agree with super-ultra-determinism,) but even if it was chance, it must be that someone rolled the dice. (not a god, but chemical-physical reality itself.)

Something wanted to be alive, and so here we are. I certainly don't want to describe this as supernatural or magic or deity/god related, so I won't, but I would still say that the fact that matter and motion exist at all, the fact that a star colliding before life exists makes a pressure wave, is something significant to ponder.

What you say is thus true, at least at its core. Only the specific details are up for debate.

>>15788241
>There are infinite more likely events that would happen before matter assembles itself into a self-sustaining Terran ecosystem.
All the infinitely more likely events are not conscious ones. In the subset of events that matter can consciously reflect on, our reality is likely one of the most common!

>>15785634
2 more (zillion) weeks

>>15786486
Evolution presupposes an organism doesn't develop traits as a response to the environment; you are Lamarkian, nor darwinian in yiur explanation.

>>15786831
Usual cope, blame.the other person of not understanding.

>>15786958
>doesn't believe in frog transforming into a prince, because fairy taie
>add time, frog will.eventually become a prince, science duh

>>15787869
>everything, therefore God
This guy thinks there is anything more than God's will at play

>>15787976
Who is flipping coins, and why should it happen? Was there also coin flips to generate the laws of physics? Gambling fools.

>>15788036
I like how it took the universe 4.5 billion years to generate people that figured out how cells interpret DNA, but somehow cells knew how to do so without anyone teaching them.

>>15785494
Amino acids probably aren't that uncommon, we were already synthesizing them in labs in the 60s with testing out if some earlier hypothesis were even feasible and apparently they are. More recently signs are showing up that the early chemistry of the universe already had amino acids, billions of years ago. So it takes awhile, and a lot of trial and error, and the right rocks to get to something akin to us. We're still a miracle, just not one caused by a deity and one caused by random chance.

>>15788771
It's an analogy.
It happened because things happen, and that's the nature of having stuff and time in the same room.
Probably.
I've never gambled.

>>15787609
Provability is not a scientific concept, falsifiability is. And Evolution and Abiogenesis have yet to be falsified, while god is inherently unfalsifiable, and is therefore not a concept to be taken serious by anyone with a three digit IQ.

>>15787710
You cited the wrong link, we are talking about Abiogenesis, a fundamentally different concept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

If you fail to understand the distinction, refrain from the conversation and educate yourself first.

>>15787849
>>15787927
If this is you, you are really dumb

>>15788088
I did not claim that. Read my comment again. In the meantime, I rephrase the basics:
>we know that Earth was lifeless and inhospitable to life in its early history
>we also know that life exists, and has been around for a long time now on Earth
>therefore, it is obvious that life arose at some point in time on Earth
>when, from what and how exactly it occurred however, is something we don't know yet, at least not precisely
>but we have loads of scientific evidence, data, observations and extrapolations on the former
>in fact, new findings are being made and papers are being written as we "speak", and some of the newest ones were made just last year (so perhaps read those too)
>e.g. one such theory explains how a possible "bridge" between the inorganic and organic molecules could have been the so called autocatalytic sets, and obviously, there are many other theories around (read those too)
So no, I'm not claiming that "the required chemical scoring can be reached from alkanes (only)".

>>15788943
An abiogenesis hypothesis is not falsifiable just as a Creator hypothesis is not falsifiable. Think about why that is.

somehow this rock just magically learned to balance itself over a billion years? yea rite

>>15788039
What is the probability that we ended up in a universe that has a Creator? More or less than the probability of ending up in the universe with self assembling molecules with goddamn impossible odds?

>>15789084
Probably less likely, because there's no evidence for a creator.

>>15788076
>You named 3 out of 250+
mate including alkanes, alkenes, alkynes, and the purely hydrocarbon cycles alone would easily account for at least 200
even add just oxygen to give only the alcohols and you easily get the super amazing impressive definitive absolute proof of life in the universe with 250 organic molecules...

>lifeforms
>monopole particles threaded on cosmic strings inside stars
THE ABSOLUTE STATE OF COSMOLOGY
just think about what you wrote...
think about what you're including and integrating into your argument...
are you not disturbed by your own absurdities?

>>15789114
>Hurr durr no.presence of God
>Meanwhile ancient man speak in certainties, not probabilities, and proposes the only true existance is God's existance

None of you idiots beat an eye as to the authorship of a 4chan post. You all assume humans wrote those posts without evidence, and you require none oF your smoothbrain skepticism when it comes to those. But something as certain as God's and His creation, you become statisticians of the n order.

>>15789144
You really are bad at arguments which is probably derived from your inability to (intentionally I presume) understand what others are claiming.
>alone would easily account for at least 200
So instead of doing your homework and reading the list of those compounds you just... assume. Then again, the whole topic is still incredibly unimportant since I wasn't claiming or expecting to find complex life in space. I clearly pointed out that such life would most likely be found on planets.
>think about what you're including and integrating into your argument...
>are you not disturbed by your own absurdities?
Not my own, but here's quoting what I did write: "Some would even venture farther by including "lifeforms"..." So you see, it wasn't my argument and it isn't something I actually expect to find.
Why not try arguing with things I actually did claim? Or better yet, why not try and entertain us with your own pow? What's YOUR stance on abiogenesis? How would you bridge the gap between the inorganic and the organic? Or how else do you explain life on Earth? God? Panspermia? Panpsychism?

>>15789165
>it wasn't my argument
so why did you bring it up then?
clearly it was in some way a part of the point your were trying to make;
it was a part of your argument

>panspermia
>panpsychism
what in the fuck?
go back mate

Whales with, get this, legs

>>15787953
The prevailing theory is that early life formed as a result of extremely simple nonliving chemical machines. Life is not mysterious, it's essentially just a self replicating chemical machine and most of the more basic parts of cells are extremely simple. For example the phospholipid bilayer that forms the membrane of the cell is what you get when you have a whole bunch of phospholipids floating around, the hydrophobic tails orient away from water, and so stack with other phospholipid tails, eventually forming spherical membranes. The idea is that just like in Conway's game of life, enough amino acids get together and form chains of RNA, and these chains attract other amino acids and replicate themselves. As soon as you have a self replicating chain of amino acids the rest of life follows as all other cellular machinery is just self replicating amino acids.

>>15789230
oh, oh, and get this right, the zebras kept stretching their necks to reach the leaves at the top, then they changed colors and became a giraffe

>>15789250
Quiet Lamarck

>>15788635
>All the infinitely more likely events are not conscious ones
How do you know that? How do you know those infinite much more likely events don't have any influence on the spontaneous non-intelligent creation of carbon-based life?

>>15784500
evolutionary algorithms work, give it a try.

>>15788789
Amino acids aren't life. There are hundreds of amino acids and each one with a L and R enantiomer.
>not one caused by a deity and one caused by random chance.
The probability of a deity randomly forming in any universe, not bound by the insane prerequisites of carbon-based life, and then creating carbon-based life in this universe, is far more likely than the spontaneous formation of physical carbon-based life from non-life.

>>15788943
Repackaging a debunked theory under a different name doesn't make it less of bunk, sweetie. Science involves itself in falsifiable theories, not faith-based "what if though, bro?" crackpot crack pipe theories. Leave your pseudoscience at the door.

>>15789451
amino acids are not life, but they can bond together to make larger polymers. The real question is how to get polymers to self replicate in the right conditions. It shouldnt be impossible, as mathematically there are many systems that display self organisation, even ones with very simple natural looking rules, but its not immediately clear how this happened in early proto-cells

>>15789147
>durr mars is made of rock
>meanwhile ancient people spoke in certainties, not probabilities, and proposes that the stars and planets are actually made of ether and orbit the Earth.
That's because we have evidence of humans (or bots made by humans) writing 4chan posts, meanwhile for all the natural phenomena we have evidence that things proceed on their own with no helping hand from anyone.
Explain how, if god created everything, his presence is diminished every year. A god of the gaps is always evicted after some new scientific revelation.
So where is the proof for god? Surely there must be something that has no natural process and only miraculous process if a god were to exist

>>15786550
Excellent video, especially for low brows who can't do math and believe in evolution on the basis of "it took a really long time so there was plenty of time for it to all happen".
If you can't run the numbers yourself then your belief is not based in reality, its a leap of faith

>>15784510

>>15789114
The universe came from somewhere, stop being a brainlet

>>15785293
>If things get more disorganised over time, why does something like biology get more organised?
We merely externalize the energy costs. The Tree of Life derives its energy from the concentrated photon packets coming from the Sun.

>>15786864
That's like saying protons don't get wet.

>>15786550
> hurr durr not a single protein can ever form because uhhh multiplication!
Dumbest shit I've ever seen

>>15790844
>The Tree of Life derives its energy from the concentrated photon packets coming from the Sun.
that's quite retarded anon, considering thermal vents. that's Earth's own energy.

>>15790891
Small potatoes in comparison to the raw output of the sun. Granted, once the light goes out, those thermal vents are gonna hold the last sparks of life on the planet

>>15790901
sure but my point is that life whores itself out to the biggest energy source. it's not a coincidence most of it depends on the sun. or that humans are generally whores.

>>15790906
What else are we gonna use? Our atmosphere filters out those juicy gamma and xrays and ain't nobody using gravity to power jack shit, aside from hydrofags. The Sun is a fucking blessing

>>15786550
>>15790536
kek stats is one of lowliest dept of science. the entire videos premise is no less an asspull than the drake equation, another infamous bs. sure, they can crunch a random asspull and say hurr durr its impossible... despite the obvious facts that these proteins do exist.

>>15790908
>What else are we gonna use
that's what a whore always asks itself.

evolution isn't a scientific theory. scientific theories include the essential element of disprovablity, which the theory of evolution lacks.
so its isn't a theory and it isn't scientific.
its just a conjecture, a wild guess, but the soigoys have that wild guess, which is dishonestly called a scientific theory, shoved down their throats starting from elementary school, so they take it as gospel. at higher levels of education if you question darwin's wild guess then you're ostracized and prevented from doing research.
if the scientific community truly was interested in finding out the origins of life, they wouldn't prevent that kind of research and they would've circumvent the scientific method to treat a conjecture as a theory.

>>15789443
>>All the infinitely more likely events are not conscious ones
>How do you know that? How do you know those infinite much more likely events don't have any influence on the spontaneous non-intelligent creation of carbon-based life?
because I wasn't born in those events. my conscious experience is drawn in the direction of the most probable scenarios. the culprit? probability!

How do I know I'm not a billionaire in the making? I just know it.

>>15791116
its just like the covax agenda

>>15791116
>if you question darwin
you can if you have a theory that explains it better and you can present more compelling scientific evidence supporting it.
why are you always attacking it, instead of promoting your alternative/version? that's what's always weird about you freaks. you attack it but have only religious bullshit as alternative. you're always a waste of fucking time. and air.

>>15784500
>I don't understand it therefore it can't be true

>>15791112
Is it so wrong to wanna sun your asshole with the bros?

>>15791116

Debunked here:

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html

>>15788760
>Evolution presupposes an organism doesn't develop traits as a response to the environment
No, in fact a mutation that happens to be advantagious in said environment and makes you survive and thrive it's not a response to environmental conditions.

Now hold still while i drill your retarded brain.

Scientists at the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution announced today that ribonucleic acid (RNA), an analog of DNA that was likely the first genetic material for life, spontaneously forms on basalt lava glass. Such glass was abundant on Earth 4.35 billion years ago. Similar basalts of this antiquity survive on Mars today.

the study shows that long RNA molecules, 100-200 nucleotides in length, form when nucleoside triphosphates do nothing more than percolate through basaltic glass.

"Basaltic glass was everywhere on Earth at the time," remarked Stephen Mojzsis, an Earth scientist who also participated in the study. "For several hundred million years after the Moon formed, frequent impacts coupled with abundant volcanism on the young planet formed molten basaltic lava, the source of the basalt glass. Impacts also evaporated water to give dry land, providing aquifers where RNA could have formed."

The same impacts also delivered nickel, which the team showed gives nucleoside triphosphates from nucleosides and activated phosphate, also found in lava glass. Borate (as in borax), also from the basalt, controls the formation of those triphosphates.

The same impactors that formed the glass also transiently reduced the atmosphere with their metal iron-nickel cores. RNA bases, whose sequences store genetic information, are formed in such atmospheres. The team had previously showed that nucleosides are formed by a simple reaction between ribose phosphate and RNA bases.

"The beauty of this model is its simplicity. It can be tested by highschoolers in chemistry class," said Jan Špaček, who was not involved in this study but who develops instrument to detect alien genetic polymers on Mars. "Mix the ingredients, wait for a few days and detect the RNA."

>>15784500


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levinthal%27s_paradox
Thoughts?

>>15791116
The theory is disprovable, it's the accumulated evidence you'll have trouble disproving.

>>15791116
>>15784500
Don't viruses and bacteria prove that exolution is real?

>>15786864
If you count molecular complexes they do.

>>15786864
molecules which lock up resources will by definition deny those resources to other types of molecules

Why don’t we calculate how unlikely life is to arise and then use that to figure out how much bigger than the observable universe the universe is

>>15784500
No Odin created it from the corpse of the frost giant ymir.

>>15791582
>No, in fact a mutation that happens to be advantagious in said environment and makes you survive and thrive it's not a response to environmental conditions.
seems amazing to me that some people just don't understand this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4sLAQvEH-M

>>15785284
Cell precursors can't mutate because there doesn't exist a functional genetic information carrier upon which mutations can be applied.

>>15791223
>you can if you have a theory that explains it better
no, you'll just be canceled by the peer review process or some other form of academic gatekeeping if you try to debunk darwin.
for example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warwick_Collins

>>15792895
What is RNA

>>15793745
Something that can only be produced by a cell?
Don't confuse RNA building blocks for functioning RNA.

>>15786838
>You mean to tell me a baby eventually becomes some old wrinkled fuck just over "time"? Sounds like magic to me.
Just because TikTok ruined your ability to not be stimulated constantly doesn't mean you aren't retarded.

>>15787380
>you don't need time, you need faith
Sure thing, bozo.

>>15787127
>the Galapagos birds were still birds and the Galapagos tortoises were still tortoises so the application of the data to interspecies evolution is questionable
Who’s gonna tell him that “tortoise” and “bird” are not species? It’s amazing they constantly fail to comprehend that sort of thing

>>15784500

Atheist are literally delusional for believing this. Atheist have hefty amounts of faith in abiogenesis.

>>15785396

See the cosmological argument. Do try to keep up kid.

Yes. And?

>>15785293
>To add. If things get more disorganised over time, why does something like biology get more organised?
Biological evolution does cause the system (living organisms)'s entropy to decrease. So, by the second law of thermodynamics, the entropy of the universe (in this case Earth), must have overall increased. The universe and the earth are not equatable. Earth is not an isolated system.

In other words the sun is throwing excess energy at the earth on a daily basis,

It takes more energy to clean your room vs messing it up. But just because you clean your room does not mean the universe as a whole is not becoming more disorganized

>>15786836
Because isolated systems don't exist even in principle, but it didn't stop them from corrupting the thermodynamics, as they did with cosmology and quantum mechanics (using big bang theory and copenhagen interpretation)

>picrel

>>15789458
Oh no, you called me sweetie. That sure showed me that you suddenly have an argument!
It’s not the same theory, but I gather you are not clever enough to understand the nuances. Your opinion on these matters is literally worthless.

>>15794217
i can't tell, is this meant to be in support of the evolution conjecture or is it making fun of it?

>>15794333
>It’s not the same theory, but I gather you are not clever enough to understand the nuances
Enlighten me then poindexter

>>15794486
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

Read these two. If you cannot understand the differences between these separate entries about separate ideas, I cannot help you.
I will give you a helpful hint, though: It is literally the first line of the second link.

>>15784500
>assembled literally out of nothing zillions of times over and over

>>15794714
Ok so you don't understand it yourself. You just latch on to without question to whatever flavor-of-the-month theory there is and fall back to your wiki links when asked about it because you don't do the thinking, others do. Must not be so different, or different at all if it isn't easily differentiated in a sentence.

>>15794898
No, I just don’t like spoonfeeding retards who can’t even read.
Enjoy your ignorance – and forever being wrong on literally anything

>>15794917
If you can't explain your crack pot theory then why bring it up? Non-living matter doesn't just organize itself into an advanced self-replicating, stimuli responding, environment adapting lifeform. Go create your own living organism in your lab and then publish the results. Oh right you can't because all you can do is parrot links to pseudoscientific theories you believe but don't understand. This is a science board, chud.

>>15794419
Support. Whales with legs should be posted in every garbage evolution debate thread

>>15794977
>Non-living matter doesn't just organize itself into an advanced self-replicating, stimuli responding, environment adapting lifeform.
Apparently it can, because it has.
>Go create your own living organism in your lab and then publish the results.
Will do, just give me a few billion years.

It is in fact you, who is bringing up the crackpot theory of literally any religious idea of how life was made by God. I am merely quoting established scientific theories.

>>15794977
>Go create your own living organism in your lab
you mean wait for life to spontaneously appear or like build life from chemicals?
if you put the atoms in the correct order you get life, or even you, fully 100% you.
first question is if the universe permits for certain arrangements that can be considered life, and indeed it does, because we can see it. then the single issue remains on the chances of it happening, anywhere in the universe. but as long as it is possible, which it is, because again we observe that it is, then you don't really care much about anything else, because you also find yourself in an anthropic principle situation.
any extremele low probability thing that happens and culminates in life, will put that life in the position of thinking "oh shit, what are the odds, must be god". if they are retarded enough they will think that, yes.

>>15795951
>>Apparently it can, because it has.

>Life exists
>Therefore it just did, randomly. Trust me bro
Kek. False dichotomy.
>Will do, just give me a few billion years.
Appeal to time
>any religious idea of how life was made by God.
Strawman. Quote where I said any of the sort.
>I am merely quoting established scientific theories.
Appeal to authority
>>15795960
>you mean wait for life to spontaneously appear or like build life from chemicals?
Anything. You have your pet theory about how life spontaneously formed out of swamp gas. You know how it happened. Now go create your new novel living organism in your lab. Should be easy enough. If a non-intelligent process was able to do it, then you should be able to too. Heck, it doesn't even have to be carbon- and DNA-based. The sky is the limit. You can create a silicon based lifeform. Or an exotic lifeform based on something else. Anything... What's that? You can't?

>if you put the atoms in the correct order you get life, or even you, fully 100% you.
And an infinite number of different structures. Matter could arrange itself to form a silicon-based life form. It could arrange itself to form a sentient computer AI god that creates a simulation with conscious beings inside. Again I'm not suggesting this or that theory is correct. But if you want to spitball hypotheticals then why stop at carbon-based life?

This is science. If you can't follow the process and can't back your hypothesis yet insist upon it being true, then GTFO.

>>15795346
>I cannot come up with a reason to what the function of this structure is
>I am right and cannot be wrong
>Therefore macroevolution
Kek. The absolute state of science in 2023.

>>15796335
>this amount of cope
As I said, stay dumb and ignorant

>>15796346
>No counter-argument
Heh, just as I thought. I accept your unconditional full concession. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

>>15796340
>cant explain why whales have legs

>>15796378
>whales have legs
fish don't have legs retard

>>15796453
Whales are mammals

>>15796340
You are in extreme denial and cope

>>15796453
To >>15796459

>>15796459
Mammals are fish

>>15796340
It’s not that you can’t come up with a specific reason for it, it’s that there is a complete line of cetacean forms from terrestrial to aquatic and you somehow think that isn’t evidence supporting the evolution of cetaceans

>>15788076
>opposite chirality biology
Opposite chirality biology? Holy shit, you have literally no idea what you are even talking about, do you?
Do you suppose the difference in biological chirality makes a singular iota of difference non-biochemically? As in, outside interactions precisely between these biology relevant molecules, where the chirality defines their non-compatibility?
What precise chirality some biology has is not some inherent feature of biology as a general principle. If there is more than one chirality even possible, then which one will be picked at random. The cards of potential biochemistry are not somehow dealt newly between each planet. The cards of *actual*, implemented biochemistry, sure, but the principles do not vary between planet/planet.
Saying chirality makes a difference directly implies that the electromagnetism field somehow varies accross the universe. This is a pretty strong statement.
I am not sure if I can explain this better. It's hard talking down to others about things that seem obvious to me.
As said, you have no idea what you are talking about. Examine what else this applies to besides this "dude, wouldn't that be interesting" thought.

>inb4 someone else butts in "but what about chemical chirality brooooo, are you saying it makes no difference"?
What is it with retards and having to deboonk them that requires 10+ times the amount of words of the retard statement? No, obviously this exists. Again, chemical chirality is not something that varies planet by planet. It can't make life possible in one spot where it wouldn't otherwise be, due to apparently the wrong "polarity" the planet or region of universe is under.

>>15797125
I dare you to eat a piece of candy made of L-Glucose

>>15786958
Le anything can happen, but not God, that can't happen mkay because it just can't

Anti-Science board

>>15786958
>just a complex combination of atoms turned into beings which have a consciousness and and an experience.
boy wait until AGI comes around and starts thinking of the odds of life appearing, evolving particularly into humans which in turn somehow arranged atoms such that AGI itself appeared. what were the chances of THAT?
fast forward few hundred years and no new forms of life are possible as they instantly get completely overwhelmed by the obscure chance they seemingly had of existing. too much to bear. so intelligent and introspective that it just dies soon after introspection starts.

>>15798424
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KEVaCyaA

>>15784500
>>15785284
>>15792895
>>15793745
>>15793793
>>15785514
>>15792794
It's easier to believe when you realize there's a yet undiscovered computer brain in there made of RNA that controls everything going on in the cell. Same thing happens in neurons, RNA computers present with gigabytes of RAM in the neurons to do all the thinking in brains. Brains are a like a billion terabytes large.

Anyone that thinks life happened by random chance and random mutations over time is a fucking moron. Evolution is self-directed via the little RNA computers, it is intelligent.

>>15798825
There's random variation followed by non-random survival and non-random reproduction.

if there is a god, he's hiding in /dev/urandom

>>15798375
>Anti-Science board

>>15787462
>MY crackpot theory is more valid than YOUR crackpot theory because.... because it just is! Okay?!

before the mechanisms for evolution were formed the precursors formed via random elements creating random compounds until they formed the few that would react together to form cells

>>15786958
consciousness was just formed as a mechanism to make us better survivors by giving us the tools to contemplate our surroundings, its pretty logical when you consider everything was formed to just make us better survivors

>>15800321
it's because we can verify the steps, how cells work. we can't test for intelligent design but we can predict that over BILLIONS of years of molecules in a hydrothermal vent can arrive to favorable conditions to form lipid bubbles and ample energy sources to form a proton gradient, the basis for biochem.

>>15800358
thats easy for you to presume because you're ignorant enough of the subject matter to not realize how much luck you're asking for to get the job done.

>>15800369
so how did atoms and molecules form the mechanism of consciousness exactly?

wait, let me guess,
it's another one of those "missing links" right lol

>>15801071
>missing

>>15801071
little by little

>>15801315
>the infinity meme
there was only so much time for it all to happen

>>15801071
Emergence. Things interacting become greater than the sum of their parts. Keep scaling this up and eventually you'll get consciousness.

>>15802013
And that time was enough

>>15784500
>assembled itself out of nowhere
a 2 month undergraduate would already know that it was not out of nowhere
imagine being filtered that early

>>15801071
>consciousness
philocuck detected

>>15788202

>>15802091
they'll think of anything but that. humans don't like boring answers. even scientific theories must be "nice"

>>15802091
>>15803751

>t. fell for the "everything is like everything else at small and large scales" shrooms shit, while the fungus infected your brain and rotted you out while you thought you were learning the truth.
picrel

>>15804092

>>15804092
>everything is like everything else at small and large scales
quite retarded really. you can find similarities which don't serve the same function.

>>15798875
You're partially correct, but I still have to question your second to last sentence.
>Anyone that thinks life happened by random chance and random mutations over time is a fucking moron.
How did life come to be, before the RNA?

>>15784510

BASED

It is extremely obvious that reality is teleological. There is a directed will to life that accounts for the creation of life. God exists and our reality is basically an idea in God's mind. God sustains reality. Christianity is true.

>>15789451
>The probability of a deity randomly forming in any universe, not bound by the insane prerequisites of carbon-based life, and then creating carbon-based life in this universe, is far more likely than the spontaneous formation of physical carbon-based life from non-life.
Higher brobability based on what chud? Show me the equations or fuck off

>>15802496
>I'm an atheist and I can't do math
why does atheism and low IQ always come in the same package?

>>15804911

>inb4 athiests makes an attempt to answer that question
>inb4 athiests don't realize its a rhetorical question

>>15786958
>there are trillions of stars systems and there are billions of years, so a lot random combinations took place for a self replicating thing to come into existence. i dont really see why such a thing should be impossible
You're not seeing it because you ignore that you don't have a baseline for the probability in the first place. You say there's billions x trillions of opportunities, yet the outcome might be quadrillion x quintillion in odds..... which only leads to 1 in a million for the entire universe having life just once. It could be muuuch lower.

Very prominent evolutionary biologists have said there "might" not be enough opportunities for abiogenesis anywhere in our universe for the lifetime of the entire universe depending on certain factors we don't yet know, and therefore it might be a paradox that life exists in the first place.

>>15784500

Life wants to exist. So it will. And will find everyway to do so. It's just that simple.

>>15805048
'sex has morre brainpower than the average athiest

>>15785634
2 more weeks?

>How did live start to exist?
>I don't know. Do you know?
>No. But gotcha!
This thread

>>15800369
>I am going to make something out of thin air and pretend it has relevance as I present it as fact
stfu retard

>>15800369
humans would be better survivors without consciousness idiot. Emotions and miscalculations cause people to do stupid shit to get themselves killed all the time. If life was only about survival everything would just be automatons that never evolved past bacteria

>>15805048
>wants
I am going to assume you are too retarded to know "wanting" something requires a conscious will

>>15784510
>It’s the prime mover proved by Aristotle and Aquinas.
Just outsources the problem.

>>15796340
>macroevolution
You destroyed your argument in a single word. Either evolution exists or it doesn't. It necessarily exists due to natural selection and mutation events.
Given this irrefutable and observable phenomenon, the creationsisters came up with the terms "micro/microevolution." Only there is absolutely no distinction between macro and microevolution any more than me walking one step and walking a thousand steps are distinct actions. They just think there's an invisible barrier that prevents anything more than more morphological changes.

>>15805079
Meanwhile there are a 8.1 billion humans around, every predator we once had is either extinct or tightly controlled and we are about to colonize beyond the deadly vacuum of space.

Consciousness is a success story if I have ever heard of one. Some depressed monkeys (you) are a price nature is willing to pay.

>>15784500
Just by looking at how cluttered, badly organized, and ugly cell life definitely shows it assembled itself.

>>15785634
Why is this answer mocked? Seeing that life is essentially self replication, and physics supports possibilities of chain reactions. It is perfectly reasonable.

>>15805092
way to not address my point at all while saying more retarded shit.

>>15805091
>Either evolution exists or it doesn't
>natural selection for skin or eye color is the same thing an elephant turning into a whale or a human growing 4 arms eventually

you destroyed any hope of convincing anyone you arent retarded right off the bat.

>>15794141
Simply say 'i dont know' instead of vomitting gibberish.
>Mentions entropy of a system also mentions it decrease
You dont understand entropy mate.

>>15794977
Based.

>>15795951
>It can,it has
This is the point of this thread, How?
>Billion years
That is still a theory and what exactly lead you to believe it is true ?

>>15805149
I did address them, humans are better survivors than other apes or comparable animals, based on all objective criteria, all due to their consciousness.

But you should probably become an exception and kill yourself.

>>15795960
>If you put atom in correct order you get life
Exactly what 'order' of atom leads to life?
Will you define how placing lifeless atoms in certain line or pattern causes those atom to experience themselves ?
Arent there billion of forms and shape all made of atoms but dont fit in the definition of life ?
Finally, what exactly is life here?

>>15785293
they really don't get more disorganized, just look outside. everything is organized in repeating patterns

>>15802842
Than you should enlighten us with your wisdom instead of mud slinging.

>>15805152
>same thing an elephant turning into a whale or a human growing 4 arms eventually
Lmao. Mother of all red herrings yes that is what I believe. Some shit about four arms.

What is it with namefags and posting these threads?

>>15786486
>>i don't exist
>>i try random shit
>>now i exist
Take your meds.

>>15805269
that is literally what the logical outcome of your post implies but apparently you are too retarded to realize it. many such cases

>>15797108
top kek, bazinga, pwned that troon

>>15784500
this weekly thread is a humiliation ritual because you retards have no real argument and a lot of conviction

>>15805091
>the creationsisters came up with the terms "micro/microevolution."
Evolutionist (ie someone who believes in both marco and mirco evo) dogma is always so hilarious and misinformed
https://www.digitalatlasofancientlife.org/learn/evolution/macroevolution/
>The term “macroevolution” seems to have been coined by a Russian entomologist named Yuri Filipchenko (1927) in “Variabilität und Variation.”
The term wasn't invented by creationists. That is a silly internet myth.
>Only there is absolutely no distinction between macro and microevolution any more than me walking one step and walking a thousand steps are distinct actions
Macro, defined today, is the alleged evolutionary change at or above the species level. You are completely wrong. A "thousand steps" is not analogous to an evolutionary change allegedly propagating to the entire species or above it. Those are totally different concepts.
There's peer review saying macroevolution, which was used to explain evolutionary orgins myths until very recently, is flawed and evolutionary biologists need to come up with a different explanation to make evolutionary origins of species myths work out (they of course, haven't).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079610722000347
>However, macroevolution (required for all speciation events and the complexifications appearing in the Cambrian explosion) are shown to be probabilistically highly implausible (on the order of 10−50) when based on selection by survival of the fittest. We conclude that macroevolution via survival of the fittest is not salvageable by arguments for random genetic drift and other proposed mechanisms. Evolutionary biology is relevant to cancer mechanisms with significance beyond academics. We challenge evolutionary biology to advance boldly beyond the inadequacies of the modern synthesis . . .
Creationists/ID proponents have been saying this for 30+ years. Dogmatic evolutionists finally admitted we're right.

all these threads are
>juggles zeroes without proof or the simplest thought
>muh irreducible complexity
>muh fine tuning (look how accomodating the grand majority of the universe is for life)
>muh deism cope (why are you even posting that, has zero bearing on the debate)
>look how complex this appears guys isn't this insane (babby's first cell biology illustration)
>misunderstood pop-quantum mechanics
>schizo namefag
for what purpose are you even posting here?

>>15805681
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079610722000347
>the probability of any one of the unique enzymes being created by a single mutation has an average value r.
Creating a unique enzyme out of nowhere by a single mutation? Yeah. Nobody argues that
>the probability of creating a genome [my emphasis] with 12 enzymes which includes the 4 cytochromes allowing only 12 mutations, is only 1 chance in 10^51.
Hahaha this is the stupidest application of probabilistic calculation I have ever read and and these men have no clue about molecular biology

>>15805883
Probably has nothing better going for him. Pretty sad desu. I can't imagine my life being so meaningless and empty that I give myself a name on an anonymous imageboard.

>>15805883
why are you so easily triggered?

>>15806750
stupid people tend to get triggered pretty fast

>>15784500
Amazing piece of machinery but indeed it took billions of years to reach this complexity.

>>15788771
How can nature generate the laws of physics. Which laws excisted before the current laws of physics?

>>15789084
Who summoned the creator. Can you calculate the probability of that????

People that believe are so fucking brainwashed that their mind just stops working. They question everything but when they asked the question: who created the creator, their mind becomes blank.

>>15789084
The problem with that argument is that a creator requires orders of magnitude more spontaneous organization than a chaotic universe itself merely having emergent phenomena.

>>15806980

The concept of God exists outside the boundaries of our known reality. Probability has nothing to do with it. God is the uncaused cause.

>>15805164
mad niggerish

>>15806922
lmao @ mouth breathers who think this is "deep." If you ever read any of the proofs you wouldnt ask such a stupid question. You talk about people's brains "not working" yet are too stupid to realize your question in fact proves a creator. Do you have the brain power to figure out why? I doubt it, start here >>15784510

>>15784500
not so fast, kid, first gotta solve (read: cope with) this
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ast.2019.2149

>>15806108
>Creating a unique enzyme out of nowhere by a single mutation? Yeah. Nobody argues that
Define "out of nowhere" since that is clearly just an ad hoc placeholder you adjust as needed to make you feel the study is flawed
>Hahaha this is the stupidest application of probabilistic calculation I have ever read and and these men have no clue about molecular biology
-[casually ignores that the example is now 12 mutations, not 1]
Peer review does not care about some internet warrior's irrelevant lack of comprehension that leads him to blissfully feel he understands the topic better than they do.
The study stands. Macro evolution via natural selection is a failed hypothesis and modern synthesis depends on it.

>>15789239
>Life is not mysterious
I think life is very mysterious

>>15806919
God's law

>>15784831
hello rabbi

>>15798375
don't get why christcucks come here and act like they know anything

>>15796357
It's hilarious how you can tell this retarded creationist walked away thinking he won. Is he just that dumb or is it his way of coping? We'll never know

>>15807083
An all seeing, all knowing entity outside our realm (for example if we're a simulation, from their perspective, that they can play around with whatever parameters they set) is a possibility, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's an uncaused cause. It just sets the chain of causality into their own plane of existence, so we dunno what caused them. Maybe they have their own family and stuff in their own plane and their own religion and something they believe originated them. Sometimes I worry if we're all just a bunch of dwarfs in some extra-dimensional being's game of Dwarf Fortress. We don't even know if God has even taken the time to observe our existence, considering the scale of all that's out there

>>15788759
kek

>>15791223
>YOU HAVE TO PROMOTE AN ALTERNATIVE TO ATTACK THE HOAX OF EVOLUTION
Not really man. That's not how any of it works

>>15805075
>>How did live start to exist?
>live
Kys pajeet

>>15808218
It is for the mentally ill know-it-alls who have emotional problems that drive them to vastly overestimate their own intelligence

>>15786864
Fucking retard

>>15807804
Ad hominem
No argument
Chuddie mad

>>15806922
>who created the creator
well you first need to prove universes can only exist if they were created, which is not trivial.

>>15807083
>The concept of God exists outside the boundaries of our known reality.
the concept of God exists only in your heads you moron.

>>15807849
>so we dunno what caused them
Who is we? I have posted this here countless times in the last decade but only a handful of people on this board have been smart enough to understand it

>>15785453
Yup.

>>15809709
Stop spamming your schizo shit on every thread and seek medical help. You are ill and in need of a professional.

>>15787007
So complex life could not come from nothing. I know, lets have an even more complex super intelligent being come from nothing.

>>15801071
>assuming atoms aren't conscious
as above so below.

>>15809850
>as above so below.
as below so above, that's the direction that formed. of-course your gods are corrupt. they are modeled in your shit image

>>15809743
stfu shit eating schizo fuck

>>15809850
as within so without

>>15809767
In what sense is a god complex if it has no parts or spatial or temporal extension? You're thinking aliens

>>15809863
>>15809850
how about you go back to /pol/ and kys you schizoid fucks

>>15809868
If your idea of god is the singularity that caused the big bang or something similar then sure. But typically when people talk about god they are referring to a super intelligent all powerful man in the sky, now such a being would be complex.

>>15809870
>refreeze
I love it when the shit eating psychotic narcissist has a meltdown. my entire day brightens and I feel complete

>>15809905
refreeze lmao fucking phone

>>15809870
btw you are doing the mirroring thing again shit eating schizo. try and have an original thought before posting

>>15809909
>as within so without
well I truly feel sorry for you bro because you seem to lack inner peace
>try and have an original thought before posting
some of my ideas are quite original, and I do share them with you all.

>>15809911

>>15809926
but you notice the lack in congruency between what you're telling us on face value and how miserable you actually are?
how to spot religious /pol/fags:
every view they hold is in some way tied to god. you can be sure any position that can be had implies god. they did not arrive at those conclusions scientifically, they just defile science by trying to twist it in nefarious and insidious ways (intelligent design retards) to support their schizotic idiocies.
they'll never hold mixed views, like ok that's clearly how science explains it but that other one is god. nope, each and every position where they can invoke god will be taken. they decided god must fit everywhere so they try their hardest to build (pseudo-scientific) narratives in which their fantasies would make some sense. they are not stumbling upon god in their research, they just try to build anything that concludes it was god who made it so.
that means that no scientific idea of anyone's is going to be considered, ever, if it does not include god. hence it's always a waste of time of arguing. they should be instantly discarded as they have nothing to offer.
more so, it's not even god, it's actually their satan they worship. because if you probe them, you will quickly notice the beast hiding behind their avatar. it is that which drives them, and finds excuses for all they're doing. they have no issue with eugenics, as long as it's used to kill nonbelievers. they have no issue with stealing, or murdering anyone, because it only means their god wants it so. they have no issue breaking any laws, or fucking up any scientific experiment which says "the wrong thing".

>>15809953
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>15810641
I stopped reading at "congruency", it was then that I realized I was looking at the foaming at the mouth ravings of a pompous blowhard, but just for fun (and taking care to make sure I didn't read another word of it) I put the wall of text into the old AI IQ analyzer to see how dumb it was.

>>15807849
this is another dumb post I didn't read

>>15811677
>>15811680
I'm not an anon involved in whatever convo you're talking about but whenever I've put in my past posts into that IQ estimator I get anywhere between 155 exceptional genius and 88 IQ midwit
I'm pretty certain it has nothing to do with content or whatever someone is saying. It's more about the eloquence in which you're trying to make a point.

>>15811835
>It's more about the eloquence
No.

>>15811680
Anon, I'm speaking to my common man, not writing a fuckin' thesis

>>15809626

Deeeeeerp

>>15785293
Just asking questions, if you don't have a flawless reponse explaining every single little thing in the universe that must mean the fairy tails my mom spoonfed me when i was a toddler must be true.

>>15811921
>130
>genius
not even in the top 1%
and the top 1% is not geniuses.
imagine thinking you live on a planet with 80,000,000 geniuses
theres probably less than 1000 geniuses

>>15805480
but, how do meds form; where do meds come from?

>>15798875
I also think this. Some very intelligent life sent us to earth and we evolved to the humans we are now. The super RNA computer evolved taking the environment in account. It is possible that our creators look totaly different or are already dead. Maybe they also sent the little RNA computers to Mars but they couldnt evolve there

>>15813504
That's unnecessarily kicking the can down the road. Where did the extraterrestrial seeders of Earth life acquire their own organic RNA computers from in the first place?

>omnipotent
>just
>thousands of innocent children still die
why doesn't flying in the skies man stops that?

>>15791603
Funny. This guy is an organic chemistry with an h-index of 170, and I remember him tearing this article to shreds by digging into the paper.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYiguQYCSio

Argument by article copy paste, meet youtube link.

>>15786864
Ever heard of prions? More specifically prion disease. That’s essentially natural selection acting on proteins

>>15813508
Good question. In my mind they are "humans" but not based on RNA.

They created us with this special RNA computer.

Now that im saying this. It sounds really dumb. Hold on anon i'm going to jump of a bridge now ;)

>>15786277
I love Vertasium! Best scientist on youtube!

>>15811921
>proves the IQ estimator is garbage but also uses it to gloat that a post is heckin stoopid
Your life is clearly meaningless

>>15811921

>>15813643
Cells are necessary in the initial creation of self-replicating prions, so it's still a form of molecular proliferation integrally based on the existence of cellular structures.

>>15784510
Aristotle was a brainlet. Alexander the Great figured that out pretty fast. And you, in 2023, didn't.

>>15788039
>trick part is starting
so is keeping>>15788042
the life alive.
5 mega extinctions events say so.

>>15815032
There's always been life that's survived a mass extinction, but as far as we've seen there's not been a lot of life that starts.

>>15811921
Very based, psudes seething.

>>15814831
Alexander didn't even exist lmeow

>>15814818
You’re certainly correct. However does it not still display the ability for natural selection to act on non living molecules? If any self-replicating molecules were to exist, natural selection would act upon them.

>>15809878
Retard

>>15798352
They have no response for this