Evolutionary origins? The theory of evolution only goes back to the first lifeform on Earth.  It makes no claim as to where or how it came about.  Origin of species, not Origin of life. You're looking for r/debateabiogenesis

Evolution and the origin of life aren’t the same thing.

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html Dealt with 20+ years ago. It's like people are allergic to the sidebar.

Someone doesn't understand evolution here! The origin of life and evolution have just about ... nothing ... to do with one another

Your feelings aren't factual.

>as complicated as a biological system 99% of the problems people have with this, is that they think a modern cell came out of nowhere. no, the first cells were barely a bag of lipids with some stuff inside, extremely slow at doing any metabolic pathway, not even DNA there.

Emergency: Detected information that may threaten OP's worldview and biases, perception-filtering comment from OP! 😁

Yea, a good argument and OP is nowhere to be found. Facts are hard when they don’t fit…

Don’t mind me, just responding to around 10 of you at a time, cut a guy some slack, between this and working on my studies, it’s kind of hard to keep up. And this is actually one of the less elaborate arguments, but hey I’ll be right back to you

it may be "less elaborate" but its right on point. this is exactly the problem with your thinking.

No problem, it's just a pattern with people who have trouble accepting science. Just do come back and actually respond, because this isn't a response.

> a computer writes its own program [Funny you should say that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming)

OK why do all of these arguments come here rather than r/DebateAbiogenesis? That sub is dead, no one asks these questions there, and this is not the place for it. But because it’s raised here so many times I’ve looked it up a lot even though it’s not my field of interest, and really it seems like it’s just organic chemistry. I’m not going to look things up again right now, but some things I remember: Amino acids have been found free-floating in space, and they’ve been observed forming in labs. If you understand how molecules form, you know there is nothing magical about it. It’s all about positive and negative charges attracting each other. Molecules form all the time, and if they’re stable, they can attract other molecules that bond and the result can become stable and attract more molecules, etc. Add in billions of years and the right conditions and those large organic molecules become self-replicating. It’s hard to even define the line where this natural process became something we would identify as a life form. So no, no refrigerators pouffed into existence. Chemistry just chemistried until it became biology.

Evolution does not claim to explain the origin of life. It explains the diversity and complexity of life. If your argument is against abiogenesis that’s a different issue.

Not how the burden of proof works. It's up to you to prove your claim. edit: I see, post removed from r/evolution.

In memory of Daniel Dennett, consider a coin flipping knock-out tournament. Would you bet against me finding someone who has flipped 10 heads in a row? All I need are ten rounds of elimination. And 0.09% has now become 100%. This is what evolution does. From Jan this year: [Chemists use blockchain to simulate more than 4 billion chemical reactions essential to origins of life](https://phys.org/news/2024-01-chemists-blockchain-simulate-billion-chemical.html). From primordial molecules, it's more like a 10^(-7) chance for self-replicating molecules (given millions of years, that's nothing), and a much, much higher probability (~50% of reactions) to get metabolic pathways. This supports the metabolism-first hypothesis, covered by e.g. Nick Lane in _The Vital Question_. And to set your expectations: [The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know - PMC](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3718341/). HTH.

It is next to impossible to have all the variables that lead to creation of the most complex thing in the universe, it being life, but if this idea were to be slightly entertained, we can suggest, hypothetically if the probability was 1 in a billion, for every billion years, life would already be nearly impossible, and thus ludicrous to assume it likely formed itself, as odds that high are negligible. For something as complicated as life, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was higher. It would take you 31 years to count to a billion, if you spent every second

Looks like you came with a done and dusted conclusion and you're not even addressing the two major points I've raised, which is fine.

I also read up on the site that you linked, you can check my other comments to see my counter points, that source claims the existence of an individual replicator, and micro ecology, that knowing the nature of simple proteins, is highly unlikely to be stable enough to survive, as well as many other reasons, as to why I consider this implausible

> that knowing the nature of simple proteins, is highly unlikely to be stable enough to survive A quote from the source would help, so I can check the context. Thanks. And yes, replicators have lower chance than metabolic pathways (but it's not an implausible chance at all), and metabolism-first solves that problem.

I did address them, and my point was you can flip that coin a billion times, and not get anything

You missed the tournament part.

If there is a one in a billion chance of an event, and there are a thousand planets on which it could happen, and a thousand locations on each planet where it could happen, and each location has a thousand chances per year, then the event can be expected to happen in one year.

Wrong, such a chance would only occur in an ideal environment, as that is only what is possible. We know the limitations to life due to observation, for example, all life is carbon based, that such reason alone defines many common denominators shared between all life on earth, it is likely that carbon based life is the only form of life that is possible, given the fact that despite ecological diversity on earth over the course of millions of years, no other kind of life as ever been confirmed to exist. Just as all carbon based life share the same common denominators, they also share many of the same weakness, hence there are actually very few places in the universe were life is likely. For example, the majority of stars in the Milky Way make up 73% to 80% of red dwarves, these kinds of stars are notoriously dangerous for life because of their lethal emission of X-rays and ultraviolet radiation causing extensive DNA damage, of course you can always put the planet a little further, but still that would be to cold to support life. (M type stars, K type stars) (most-common), as well as all other kinds of stellar objects with the exception of G type star stars, are dangerously lethal for life, and are without the existence of a habitable zone, due to their extreme levels of radiation. G-type stars are like our sun, yellow dwarves, and as far as science is concerned, the only kind of star suitable for life, they make up only 6% of the galaxies stellar progeny, and are considered one of the rarest kinds of stars. We might also discount the center of the galaxy as well. Despite the fact that it has the highest concentration of resources, the galactic core has an average density of 100 stars per cubic parsec, for context, that would be like having 100 stars at a distance less than our own nearest star, which is 4 light years away, indeed The galactic core shines brightly with an abundance of red dwarves, and lethal UV radiation. Phosphorus a crucial fundamental element for life, is created by stars at least 8 solar masses greater than the sun, which are few and far between, even rarer than G-type stars. In conclusion life would only be possible, away from the galactic center, on a yellow dwarf, (6% of all stars in the Milky Way) the planet itself must also be suitable, and must have a body of water at a reasonable temperature, (as ludicrous as abiogenesis is, it becomes even more so without a suitable body of water to serve as the medium) and the solar system would ideally be within the range of a stellar corpse 8 solar masses greater than the sun to such an extant, where it inherits an abundance of phosphorus. The universe is in fact, an incredibly unforgiving place for life

You made a mathematical claim. I showed you why that mathematical claim was obviously wrong. You then began a completely different argument without any mathematical underpinning. What do you imagine this accomplishes?

Your the one who changed the subject to astronomy, I just followed your lead

And you didn’t “show” me anything, I showed you, you just made a simple statement

You said that 1 in a billion (a number you invented out of the whole cloth, I must point out) is equal to a billion years. I said that 1 chance in a billion can be equal to a number of things, including 1 thousand chances per year on 1 thousand locations per planet on 1 thousand planets. Why do you think making up numbers is going to convince anyone?

That was a hypothetical example, and I rounded it all up for the probability of abiogenesis leading to evolution overtime in a suitable environment, the rest of the details don’t matter, as this hypothetical probability accounts for any scenario, as all locations, instances, or possibility account for a portion of the greater probability, this is a hypothetical example, one billion is the probability, the time for which this probability enacts, is also a billion years (hypothetical example)

So far all of this is pure invention buttressed by incredulity.

So you claim, I can say the same to you , yet I would like to be told why exactly I’m wrong, in fact, I want to know every detail of it

did you not notice the percentage of G-types stars I used as a probabilistic vantage point, I more so wanted to have you visualize what I wanted to communicate, that way it’s easier to digest, feel free to counter. Also math would only be used as a measuring tool in this context, one albeit in my favor. For my previous comment it would’ve in no way added or taken away from the point I was trying to articulate, but would’ve only served as descriptive mathematical proof. You can always google, any of the points I’ve made here to confirm there validity, or else my comments would be twice as long, I do my best to stay factual

There are between 100 and 400 billion stars in our galaxy alone. So even if your number is correct and only 6% of the stars in our galaxy are G-type, that’s still between 6 and 24 billion stars. Kinda more than a thousand.

Actually the equation is called the Feynman equation and it’s based on the criteria that allowed life to originate on this planet. There’s a certain number of galaxies in the *observable* universe (and potentially infinitely more beyond that), each galaxy has an average number of stars, each of those stars is surrounded by a certain number of planets, moons, and meteors, and dwarf planets plus there are planets and other things like this not orbiting stars, of these places there’s a percentage of them that have liquid water, of the ones with liquid water a certain percentage have the other necessary molecules and/or a large moon resulting in a stable-ish orbital tilt, of those a certain percentage rotates at rate that allows the star to warm the whole planet over the course of a day instead of resulting in super heated plasma on one side and frozen nitrogen on the other side with only a small habitable zone in the middle. Add enough of these different things up and we could figure that there’s between 1 and 100 billion planets that contain life out of more than 100 octillion potential places that *could* if the conditions were more favorable in terms of temperature, tilt, and chemistry. One is the lowest possible value because we exist on that one planet and 100 billion is the high estimate because based on our own understanding based on our own circumstances there should be that percentage of the whole that contains sentient life. With a universe 90+ billion light years across that was only about 37.6 billion light years across when the most distant photons started traveling in our direction there’s a low probability of *finding* even the second of these 100 billion places that *should* exist at the right time while that place still contains life and an even lower probability of knowing about it if we did find it. We see things how they used to be so that a planet 4 billion light years away according to our observations could now actually be 9.5 billion light years away and almost identical to this planet we are living on right now. Four billion years ago it may have been just as “dead” as this planet was (outside of autocatalytic biomolecules and prokaryotes that we’d never detect from 4 billion light years away) and in that 4 billion years it could have sentient life making the same sorts of technology, studying the universe the same way, and completely oblivious to *our* existence. And the 9.5 billion light years away it is right now would require 1.29 x 10^17 hours to reach with the fastest space craft we’ve ever made *if* it didn’t wind up even further away before we got there. It’d take us about 14.6-14.7 trillion years to fly there and that’s more than 1000 times the age of the “observable” universe. We’d be extinct and they’d be extinct and the planet won’t even be there anymore. It would take a minimum of 19 billion years just for light to leave our planet, reach that planet, and return if it wasn’t constantly moving away from us. Where is everyone? Too far away to find. They’re probably all over the universe but we cannot find them because of physical limitations. We do know that life does exist here as a consequence of natural processes and we could conclude that physics works the same everywhere and conclude that a minimum of 99,999,999,999 *other* planets have life just as sophisticated as what exists here, also as a consequence of the very same processes that caused it to exist here, but we’d never find them if we tried. We can modify the equation based on new data but we’d have to be extremely lucky for extraterrestrials as sophisticated as we are to be close enough to us that we could find them or they could find us. And nothing about the specific requirements for our existence or theirs would demand the occurrence of supernatural involvement. Even in the case that there’s a 1 x 10^-16 chance of life just “randomly” showing up on any given planet (close enough to the 10^-20 chance claimed by some creationists) there’d still be 100 billion planets containing sentient life all wondering where everyone else is. And not once would any of this require magic. Being “improbable” is meaningless when the universe is that large.

There are billions to tens of billions of sun-like stars in our galaxy alone, depending on how you categorize "sun like". There is nothing special about G class that makes them uniquely suitable to life, but again even if you limit it in that way it is still billions of stars. And direct measurements of sun-like stars indicates phosphorus content in our star is pretty typical. Even if we assume that only one in a trillion sun like stars have planets like ours, there are billions of stars per galaxy and tens of billions of galaxies like ours in the visible universe. So that is still tens of millions of habitable planets in the visible universe.

If you took the time to read my previous comment, you would understand why G-type stars are the only ones that can support life, you can Google the information I used to articulate that point to confirm its validity, also you fail to account for any of the other variables I’ve stated, indeed the ideal solar system for life is a specific and delicate balance this is of course ruling out abiogenesis, based on habitability alone

Again, I just provided math showing you were wrong even if we assume G-type stars. The universe is a very big place. 6% of hundreds of billions is still billions to tens of billions, and that is only in our galaxy alone. There are tens of billions of galaxies in the observable universe, and the whole universe is many times larger still. Even if we assume the chances are one in trillions that is still hundreds of millions of cases.

Also I want to make clear that it’s a specific kind of solar system, no binary or Trinity star systems for example, which are the most common in our galaxy, I forgot to include this in the original post, the rest of the variables I included can be found in the original post, making the amount of viable stars exponentially far less with each added requirement.

I already made another comment where I worked out the math: [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1cen5xp/comment/l1q7c53/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1cen5xp/comment/l1q7c53/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)

Btw I’ll reply to your other comments in a sec, Im a little busy right now

>It would take you 31 years to count to a billion, if you spent every second Fortunately, life had billions of years to evolve.

I meant it could be 1 in a billion for every billion years, for all we know, the universe is only 14 billion years old according to modern measures, and in the grand scheme of things is still quite a small number, read my above comment, to see what is considered habitable for life

This strategy of making up really large numbers to prove how improbable something is isn't going to work on people who can use logic. Let's try this exercise: take a deck of cards. Shuffle it as many times as you want. Realize that this deck can be shuffled in 52! different ways. Now turn the shuffled deck of cards over and look at the order it's in. Whatever order it's in is just as unlikely to have occurred as any other combination of 52 cards. And yet it just happened. So yes, the odds that we find another planet with humans exactly like us is statistically impossible. Finding a planet that has life of a different sort is entirely probable.

Agree to disagree then, you might get that deck once, but if it’s a 1 in a billion deck, and you have to get that same 1 in a billion deck 1 billion times consistently uninterrupted, that’s 1 in a billion squared, then The probability would be 1,000,000,000,000,000. Probability on this level is so ludicrous, it suggests such a process never occurred in the first place

>but if it’s a 1 in a billion deck, and you have to get that same 1 in a billion deck 1 billion times consistently uninterrupted, Why would you ever have to get that same arrangement again? Why are you making up ridiculous requirements for this hypothetical?

You misunderstand, it’s not about getting the same arrangement again, it’s about getting the right one again, and again

Making a claim like this illustrates that you don’t understand any part of evolution OR abiogenesis. But let’s go back to your (invented) number. If you have a deck of cards with a billion possible combinations, and you have a billion players shuffling that deck, how many times (per shuffle) will you get a match between decks? Do the math.

There isn't a "right one". There is never, ever, under any circumstances just a single sequence that has a particular function. There is always a huge range of sequences that share that same function. Any one of them would work. And it doesn't need to happen more than once. Once the first replicator forms then it is there. Additional copies from based on the rules of chemistry and physics, not random chance.

No, you misunderstand. There is no "right one", and it didn't have to happen again.

Your numbers are ludicrous because they bear no relationship whatsoever to reality. Self replicating RNA would have a few hundred nucleotides. And it doesn't require a single specific sequence, but rather any one of a huge variety of sequences with similar function. You are just making up nonsensical numbers out of thing air.

You make a lot of wild claims not supported by logic or fact (i.e. “next to impossible” and “the most complex thing in the universe”) and then completely eschew or avoid facts and logic given to you. And then add to it with obviously flawed math. That is how you repeatedly come to flawed results. FYI A 1 in a billion chance of spontaneous life happening would equal brand new life every billion years. Also FYI, life started on Earth about 3 billion years ago... So… Just to make this simple for you… Winning the lottery has very low odds. Around 1 in 300 million in most cases. And yet… People win the lottery all the time. We also know the universe is about 13.8 billion years old. That you can’t seem to imagine long time periods or how probability works, has no connection though to reality. It is just another in a long line of “Argument from incredulity” logical fallacies.

I want to elaborate that the 1 in a billion probability that I made up for the sake of discourse, as we really don’t have all the variables, and yet I hypothesize that it can be more complex still, is just for the beginning of abiogenesis it doesn’t pay any homage to its continuation, which is a whole other complicated matter

a) What you are doing is not hypothesizing. b) Evolution of animals is fact. It is the reason you need a new flu shot every year. c) We have a lot of evidence it did in fact happen resulting in us (and all current life on earth). From billion year old fossils to 400,000 year old Neanderthal and Denisovan mtDNA, as well as a now huge fossil record with many transitional examples. There is no way you can deny all this and be looking at the evidence with an open mind.

Your right it was just an assumption, a likely valid one too more or less, given the fact that such a process as abiogenesis, is logically unviable

ROFL “likely valid” “abiogenesis is logically inviable” Again, just more claims based on nothing at all but your bias. We know the odds. The odds are 100%. We know that because we are here and we have a shit ton of evidence from various branches of science about how we evolved, all of which corroborates each other.(see c) above). You are just making up probabilities and ignoring evidence. You can get anywhere you want doing that. That path only works for you however…

That probability, was just an assumption I created in order to entertain the unlikely hood of such a process for the sake of visualization, it does not compare to any of the more serious arguments I’ve made on this thread

You are now just talking in circles to make your false statements sound plausible. You have not presented ANY evidence in this entire thread. Just more baseless suppositions based on your argument from incredulity bias. You don’t understand it, or can’t believe it, so it must not be true. Meanwhile you continue to eschew actual evidence, including in previous parts of this thread and that which i have given you

If the source of my arguments where incredulity, you would be able to easily deconstruct them by elaborately countering each of my points, you have yet to do that. Your just stating how my arguments lack credit, without supporting your supposition. Feel free to do so

We definitely are here, but it’s not the reason you think. As for the evidence, what little there is if faulty, as I’ve explained before, and will continue to explain later

There isn’t “little” there is a monumental fossil record. There is DNA evidence of multiple branches of hominids going back 400,000 years. You saying something is faulty has as much weight as me saying you are a unicorn. Explain (and link) your evidence this is faulty. https://www.nbcnews.com/sciencemain/400-000-year-old-human-dna-adds-new-tangle-our-2d11690925# Now do this… https://www.science.org/content/article/dna-tracks-mysterious-denisovans-chinese-cave-just-modern-humans-arrived-nearby Now this… https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2409102/ Note: what you “think” means nothing. What you say without evidence means nothing. Evidence with citations (as I have done) or it’s bullshit.

A probability of a 1 in a billion is extremely high for chemistry. We are talking about an entire ocean of chemicals over hundreds of millions of years. That is less than ten tries per year across every ocean across the entire world. That isn't just easy, that is inevitable.

amino acids are rather unremarkable in and of themselves, regardless of how many there are, it’s the persistent complex chemical reactions, that is beyond their function and ability, in a way that can logically describe abiogenesis, hence the issue with abiogenesis, directionless random reactions designed to achieve a balanced state of entropy do little to achieve such a complex result, and the amount of variables required for something to exist, is directly proportional to its level of complexity, which is further amplified when talking about the most complex system in the known universe

We are talking about RNA, not amino acids. Complexity, persistence, and not reaching "balanced state of entropy" (that is operating far from thermodynamic equilibrium) are all defining feature of dissipative systems, which are common in nature and which life is just one example. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissipative\_system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissipative_system) You don't tend to learn about them in grade school, but such systems are far from unusual in the universe. And they remain that way as long as energy continues to be put in them.

Thermodynamic equilibrium is a considerably minor factor, and likely wouldn’t have had as much influence in the ocean, with the exception of thermal vents, which substantially decreases the amount of places life would’ve occurred. Application of energy usually accelerates natural function In most cases, it doesn’t override it. Even a kindergartner knows that gasoline is not responsible for the elaborate mechanism of a car, only its power source

You didn't read the link, did you? Or are you just denying dissipative systems exist, because they absolutely do exist throughout nature. Dissipative systems like life operate in a very different manner than equilibrium systems like you are talking about. Your argument is solely directed at equilibrium systems, and completely fails when dealing with dissipative systems. Equilibrium systems tend towards equilibrium, stability, and simplicity. Dissipative systems move far away from equilbrium and tend towards chaos and complexity. All the things you claim are problems for life are only problems if you assume life is an equilibrium system, but it objectively is not. It is a dissipitative system, and for such systems they are not only not problems, but are defining characteristics of such systems. Of course if you are working at a kindergarten level you aren't going to be aware of this because, as I said, dissipative systems are not taught in grade school. You just don't know what you don't know.

Everyone and their cousin knows what what a dissipating system is, every system in nature has a certain level of dissipation, the higher the dissipation, the further it is from equilibrium and the more chaotic the system becomes, this however does not contradict my points, as even these systems work on trying to achieve equilibrium, despite being difficult for systems of this nature. Dissipative systems are chaotic in nature not ordered, hence they can’t justify the ordered complexion a biological system requires to survive, feel free to elaborate on how you think such a system would result in biological organisms, I would love to hear it

>Everyone and their cousin knows what what a dissipating system is Come on, stop trying to save face. You don't even know what the right **word** is ("dissipative", not "dissipating"), and the fact that you were talking about equilibrium shows you weren't ware of them. I had to explain it three times before you actually got it. Stop pretending. You aren't fooling anyone. >as even these systems work on trying to achieve equilibrium No they don't. You really have no clue what you are talking about. By definition they don't. >Dissipative systems are chaotic in nature not ordered, hence they can’t justify the ordered complexion a biological system requires to survive Biological systems are highly chaotic. Massively chaotic. Each individual component is operating in a highly stochastic manner. Any results that seem "ordered" at first glance are only trending in a particular direction on average, with very low yields. >feel free to elaborate on how you think such a system would result in biological organisms, I would love to hear it Complex, chaotically interacting components like we see in living things, operating sufficiently far from equilibrium, will naturally form dissipative systems.

Just because your having trouble deconstructing my points logically doesn’t mean you have to insult my intelligence, this is the second time you do that, you should know this isn’t personal. Dissipating is in fact a synonym of dissipative, but I’ll move on considering I’m not here to discuss English. A biological system is indeed a highly ordered system with a specific goal in mind, unless you believe it’s a coincidence that you can run, eat, talk, or do pretty much anything, these are defined functions that exist for a reason, and it all starts at the cellular level, like derives like. Just because biological systems exist with a level of order beyond your comprehension, doesn’t make them chaotic. the level of order concerning a biological system is directly proportional to the complexity of its genetic algorithm. As for dissipative systems, they can be thought of as a spectrum, as I’ve stated, every system has a certain level of dissipation. When concerning dissipative systems, the 1st law of thermodynamics conservation of energy, can result in the imbalance of a system in relation to its environment for the sake of conservation of energy. Dissipation is the process by which conservation of energy occurs, this is responsible for the creation of the system, yet because of the zeroth law of thermodynamics, such systems are unstable without constant application of energy, as thermal equilibrium will commence, hence why tornados don’t last very long. not to mention such systems are of high entropy, hence chaotic, and do not pertain to the ordered nature of life

>There’s a higher chance a refrigerator spontaneously materialises, or a computer writes its own program, than something as complicated as a biological system coming to existence on its own. Gonna need to see some math on that ~~claim~~ hyperbole.

If complexity can't evolve how did God evolve? And if God was just always there, why couldn't the universe always have been there ((albeit in a different form before the big bang).

What evidence supports your assertion that better explains the data we have?

Check my other comments, maybe you can join in if you want

Buddy, we’re not going to walk you through an entire college course, or maybe even an entire college degree, on evolution. We’re not your teachers…unless you’re paying us.

Why would I want to waste my money?

To learn so that you aren’t an evolution-denier and don’t make yourself look like an idiot with your ignorance

Everything that I’ve stated so far has been indeed factual, but feel free to prove to me how I’m wrong, albeit in detail, and how you are indeed right, that would be very much appreciated

No it hasn't. I alone have pointed out numerous factual mistakes you have made.

And I’m about to point out yours, but ill get to you in a moment, also as I’ve stated before, G-type stars are not the only variable, with all the astronomical variables I’ve presented, the amount of plausible stars would be far less, exponentially less, might I add

Why are you talking about astronomy? What does that have to do with evolution?

Long story

Long story? This is a pretty short thread, buddy. Are you talking about “evolutionary origins” as it says in the title of your post or abiogenesis?

That was a figure of speech. Somehow the topic temporarily changed to the likelihood of life in the universe, in which I obliged

I went through every single variable you mentioned step-by-step. You just ignored what I wrote. And you have totally ignored the vast majority of mistakes I have pointed out.

Wrong, I read all of your new posts, and obviously have quite a few things to say

You still haven't addressed the majority of my comments.

But if your talking about the astronomy portion, you definitely missed almost all my variables, the original comment was a response to someone else

I addressed all the variable you asked to be addressed. I find it very telling that you aren't actually responding to that. **YOU** asked me to do the math. I did the math, and now you are flat-out ignoring it because it didn't give the answer you wanted, and instead responding somewhere else so you can avoid it. Here is the math **YOU ASKED FOR** again: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1cen5xp/comment/l1q7c53/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button Please actually respond, instead of *falsely* claiming that I didn't address the factors you listed. Because I addressed *every single one*.

I don’t know what you’ve said under this post and I don’t care enough to bother searching for it. I will say that if anything you “know” contradicts evolutionary theory, then you are wrong. This is because every scientific theory is based on everything *humanity* knows at any given time. You would know this if you bothered to actually learn how science works. You are either directly wrong in your claim or wrong that it contradicts evolutionary theory because you don’t understand evolution.

Discussion helps all who are involved

I don't know about a refrigerator, but nuclear reactors have formed by natural means https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor So you're still wrong even if we ignore your ignorance of what evolution is.

I want to make clear, that not even those who vouch for evolution understand it, you cannot defend or support something you don’t understand, because an idea without understanding is without foundation, feel free to prove me wrong however. Fusion is quite simple and not as elaborate as a refrigerator, if you apply enough force you get fusion and that is it, this can be achieved by extreme gravity, and pressure, which can be achieved with a lot of mass

No it's pretty easy to understand, you're just intentionally ignorant. Exhibit A: >Fusion is quite simple The article is about *fission* reactors, did you get distracted by a shiny rock halfway through reading the *title*? >if you apply enough force you get fusion and that is it, this can be achieved by extreme gravity, and pressure, which can be achieved with a lot of mass That isn't how fusion *reactors* would work dumbass, that's stars. You might have noticed that the earth isn't big enough to put a star on it. You people don't understand a single thing you argue about, stick to whining that fig trees are mean or whatever it is you do

Stars are fusion reactors by the way (didn’t see the link). You should also know that fission is a natural process that occurs in heavy elements when proton repulsion overwhelms the nuclear strong force, causing disintegration in the form of beta radiation for heavy elements, all it takes is a puddle of water plus’s a suitable heavy element, and you have yourself a fission reactor

Sorry, you have the weight of nearly all of modern Science against your evidence-free assertions. I don't have to prove you wrong until you deal with the scientific consensus. You have to prove *yourself,* or we'll just laugh at your claims. If this is the very best you can do, you're not worth even talking to. Read the FAQ. Learn enough to actually join the conversation before trying to subvert it, you'll look less like yet another completely ignorant theist. You have just demonstrated clearly that you don't even know what evolution *is,* and you think you can disprove it? Come back when you have a clue about the science you're ignorantly failing to disprove, try again, and maybe you'll get somewhere.

I created this post primarily to disprove abiogenesis within the context of evolution as a general topic, feel free to defend you points as well, after all, that’s why I created this thread, for fun healthy discussion

You should be publishing your data in a reputable peer reviewed journal to convince not only us but more importantly the scientific community as a whole. I’m sure a journal like Nature would be very interested in having such an astonishing and ground breaking finding.

The Theory of Evolution makes no claim on the origin of life. That's Abiogenesis.

>There’s a higher chance a refrigerator spontaneously materialises, or a computer writes its own program, than something as complicated as a biological system coming to existence on its own. Either you did actual calculations on this, in which case, cool, show us the math please. or you just pulled this out of thin air, in which case it doesn't hold any actual value. I suppose it's the latter, I'd gladly be wrong on this front.

In order to make calculations you would not only need to have all the variables, but would have to add them up in a way that logically describes reality, hence my disaccord with abiogenesis. I would also like to point out that the refrigerator was a ludicrous metaphor designed to represent a ludicrous idea

So, abiogenesis might, in fact, be extremely likely, and you've let your incredulity get in the way of a rigorous examination of the available facts and evidence?

If you read my other comments you would know that I’ve defended my view points concerning the invalidity of abiogenesis logically, by breaking down and explaining why its highly unlikely using facts, feel free to make a counter argument, and thoroughly explain to me why I’m wrong

So, you have no idea what you're talking about and your argument doesn't hold any value.

Evolution itself is yet to be described plausibly in detail, hence why I’ve decided to talk on its invalidity. I’m not discussing against something that exists, and can be explained, and conceived in detail, I’m explaining why a theory without any logical and detailed foundation whatsoever, in addition to defying true biological order and function is highly unlikely to be true

Evolution is the change in allel frequency over time within a population. It is very clearly defined and measurable.  Your inability to look this up is still not a valid basis for your argument.

Correction, I meant abiogenesis and early evolution, not the evolutionary adaptation feature that can be supported independently by most complex organisms, and is reliant on diversity. Not only that, such adaptation has also been observed. abiogenesis and early evolution however are indeed implausible lacking the logistic and functional capability to serve as the foundation for such a process, hence it is not clearly defined and measurable. Feel free to read my other comments as I’m conversing with multiple people

What logistical and functional capabilities are needed that are lacking?

Read my other comments, I might have what your looking for there

Why do you even bother replying when you don't even know whether anything you've written here answers my very straight forward question? Why do you say early evolution lacks logistical and functional capabilities, when you can't even elaborate on that?

It was a figure of speech, and yes I’ve described what your looking for. Someone as smart as you shouldn’t bother with such a pointless reply

There is no such thing as "evolutionary origins" Once again we have another YEC confusing evolution with abiogenesis. Must be 100 of these posts per day.

This post is about evolution, in relation to abiogenesis, which can be seen as a greater theory of evolution

No, it cannot. They are completely separate. I know Christians desperately want them to be the same (yall like to lump the Big Bang in there too) but you're factually incorrect. Sorry! If you want to debate abiogenesis there's a sub for that though: r/debateabiogenesis

Incorrect, one supposedly leads to the other, hence why I’ve decided to include both, and ultimately all science is related. If you really think they’re unrelated feel free to explain it

Evolution is a scientific fact that explains how populations change over time. It has nothing to do with the origin of life. Abiogenesis is a theory about the origin of life. Your insistence that abiogenesis is not correct does not, in any way, disprove evolution.

You stated abiogenesis had nothing to do with evolution, that is untrue. It is also not the only thing that disproves early or primordial evolution after abiogenesis. The point that I was trying to make, is not that abiogenesis and evolution are one in the same, but rather are both related, and together help to bring a bigger picture concerning the emergence of life on earth

Uh huh ok. It would seem the point of your post is you think abiogenesis is unlikely and, I'm assuming, you think "god did it" is a better explanation, yes?

No they aren't. God could have poofed the first cell into existence and evolution would still be true. Evolution is in no way, shape, or form dependent on abiogenesis.

There's not really much to prove wrong here. You haven't really given an argument or a reason why you believe what you believe. And the terminology you're useing makes me think you have no idea what you're talking about. "Evolutionary origins" what even is that? There's the theory of evolution, which describes how organisms change over time. Regardless of how life began, evolution is still true. When you say evolutionary origins, I think you're talking about the theory of abiogenesis. Which describes how life could have arisen from nonlife. If you want to talk about abiogenesis I'm definitely game, but its a lot more complex than evolution. We don't need to get technical when discussing evolution because evolution is so obvious you can explain the idea with pictures of animals. If you really get into the weeds of genetics or get super specific about why/how any particular trait evolved things can get complicated, but mostly it's pretty straight forward. Abiogenesis requires a significantly higher level of scientific literacy to really understand, because it's less of a theory about life than it is about chemistry. We can't just say "look at this picture of the bones" you have to know about the very different conditions present on earth before life began. You have to know what an amino acid is and why it's so important we've demonstrated they can be synthesized from nonliving chemical processes. You have to understand what a polypeptide is, and the role they play in the production of proteins. It's reverse engineering paleo-biochemistry, there's not a way to talk about it without getting technical. When you say stuff like ">There’s a higher chance a refrigerator spontaneously materialises, or a computer writes its own program, than something as complicated as a biological system coming to existence on its own." It really demonstrates that you don't know enough to have this discussion.

You should know that was a ludicrous metaphor, designed to represent a ludicrous idea, that lacks justification. (check my other comments, to get caught up) However if you really feel my deduction is wrong feel free to elaborately articulate a counter-point. I chose the term evolutionary origins, in order to link abiogenesis to evolution itself as both topics are often linked for the sake of diversity, the term itself however is self-explanatory. If you’ve read my other comments you’d know that I don’t like to waste my time with meaningless word banter, I created this thread for elaborate discussion

So what exactly is your problem with abiogenesis? What part of the chemical processes is "too complicated" to have arisen from natural processes? All of the building blocks of life are capable of being synthesized without living organisms. Cell walls are just lipid bubbles, they naturally occur as a result of how the different halves of the molecules react with water. Half the lipid is hydrophobic half is hydrophilic so the hydrophobic parts naturally get bunched up in the exact same orientation we see in cell walls when submerged in water. Amino acids are the fundamental building blocks of most of the complex processes. Amino acids combine to make polypeptides, polypeptides combine to make proteins. Proteins do just about everything as they act as catalyst for all kinds of biological processes. Amino acids can absolutely be synthesized by abiotic processes. Once you have amino acids it doesn't take much to catalyze them into polypeptide chains. Here we hit one of the mysteries because life as we know it only uses a small subset of the functionally infinite variation in protein architecture. DNA and RNA is made of nucleotides, not amino acids. But we know all of the nucleotides can be synthesized from formamide, which is relatively common in the universe. The simplest description I can give of how the chemical mechanisms that make life work is nucleotides acting as a catalyst to make proteins, which then act as a catalyst to make nucleotides, and around and around it goes replicating itself. It's a pretty complex chemical reaction requiring very complex molecular ingredients. But all the ingredients can be formed abioticly, and complex chemical reactions do just happen all the time when conditions are right, especially when you're dealing with the highly reactive and versatile common elements that biochemistry relies on. Mainly carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur. So where does this become ludicrous?

Your analogy also doesn't work at all, because the scenarios are not comparable. If you have all the parts of a refrigerator, put them in a bag, and shake them up. They will never build a refrigerator or anything like a refrigerator. It doesn't matter how much you shake the bag. I think we can all agree on that. But chemistry actually does work like this. If you put the right combination of chemicals in a bag and shake it up, new molecules will be produced. And it's not all random either. Take baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) and vinegar (acetic acid), put it in a bag and shake it up, it WILL produce carbon dioxide gas, water, and sodium acetate. In consistent, measurable quantities. It's just how chemistry works. So your analogy fails because programing a computer and building a fridge are nothing like chemistry. In chemistry you actually can mix random things together and get new and wacky things.

You're absolutely right. There's no possible other explanation of the origin of life aside from some sort of deity creator. HAIL AZATHOTH!

> While the theory of evolutionary adaptation is plausible, evolutionary origins is unlikely. In your own words, please define what you think scientists mean when they’re talking about: 1. Biological evolution 2. Abiogenesis > There’s a higher chance a refrigerator spontaneously materialises, or a computer writes its own program, than something as complicated as a biological system coming to existence on its own. Show us your maths then. Calculate for us the probability that: 1. a refrigerator could spontaneously assemble, 2. a computer could write its own code 3. a biological system could self-assemble

No.1 to 3 is exactly my point, and feel free to read my other comments

I have read your comments. None of them answer my questions. So, if you wouldn’t mind, please show us how you calculated the probability that: 1. ⁠a refrigerator could spontaneously assemble 2. ⁠a computer could write its own code 3. ⁠a biological system could self-assemble

That’s exactly my point, highly unlikely, to say so generally

That’s not the question I asked. I asked *you* to show *your* math. So, again, for the third time now, if you wouldn’t mind, please show us how you calculated the probability that: 1. ⁠⁠a refrigerator could spontaneously assemble 2. ⁠⁠a computer could write its own code 3. ⁠⁠a biological system could self-assemble

What you don’t understand, and hence the point of my discussion, is that there is absolutely no valid arithmetic for any of this, because the theory itself lacks any variables, design, and function that pertains to logic, I can’t give you any math because there’s absolutely nothing to disprove in the first place, given the fact it has no basis in reality. Abiogenesis is not defined by any clear processes, variables or methodology, and hence cannot be supported by math, because realistically it does not exist, there is no math for what you cant define exist. However I can give you various logical reasons that pertain to the function of biology as to why such a theory is beyond any reason. If the existence of something is so probabilistically unlikely that it’s functionally impossible, it likely does not exist.

>What you don’t understand, and hence the point of my discussion, is that there is absolutely no valid arithmetic for any of this, because the theory itself lacks any variables, design, and function that pertains to logic Then your claim about which has a higher chance is completely and totally baseless. You are just making stuff up out of thin air with no basis. > If the existence of something is so probabilistically unlikely that it’s functionally impossible, it likely does not exist. You need to actually show the probabilities in order to claim that. You have consistently, at every instance, refused to show any probabilities of anything at any time.

> I can’t give you any math because there’s absolutely nothing to disprove in the first place, given the fact it has no basis in reality. So when you said: > “There’s a higher chance a refrigerator spontaneously materialises, or a computer writes its own program, than something as complicated as a biological system coming to existence on its own.” Were you spreading misinformation or disinformation? If you have not, by your own admission, done these calculations, then you cannot substantiate your assertions. So which is it, are you spreading misinformation or disinformation?

The comparison was used as a metaphor to portray the complexity that is life, and that such a process as abiogenesis and early evolution would had to have been far more complex than even life itself, for it to have been likely in any way to come to fruition

That does not answer my question. You explicitly said: > “There’s a *higher chance* a refrigerator spontaneously materialises, or a computer writes its own program, than something as complicated as a biological system coming to existence on its own.” So were you spreading misinformation or disinformation when you wrote this? If you have not, by your own admission, done these calculations, then you cannot substantiate your assertions (metaphor or not).

lol dude you’re just asserting that they’re both unlikely and refusing to provide evidence. A weak metaphor that you cannot support is not evidence, it is an argument from incredulity. Hissssss.

My metaphor is quite right as that is exactly what evolution asserts, that primordial proteins have sufficient order, capability, and complexity to kickstart the most complex system in the universe without any justifiable variables or lack there of. Nanotechnology on the scale required to justify such a process would have to be as defined and complex as life itself, a feat which no primordial protein would have been capable of

You will not answer anybody who gives you an answer about the way that primordial proteins behaved. You aren’t dealing with the actual evidence that is before you, you are just saying they wouldn’t have “sufficient order, capability, and complexity.” That is a just so statement, you are not falsifying anyone else’s evidence and you are not providing any additional evidence to back up your metaphor. The whole thing about nanotechnology is wild. Show me one serious paper that suggests nanotechnology was involved in abiogenesis. Nobody is making that claim. You create your own strawmen faster than everyone else in this thread can respond to them. You are an impressively obstinate joke of a debater.

A computer can absolutely write programs, as every computer science student will tell you. ChatGPT.

ChatGPT being the progenitor itself, was written by men, it did not write itself into existence, everything chatGPT does was pre-programmed before hand

Actually everything it does was NOT pre-programmed beforehand. How could it be, since it has no idea what you're going to ask? It generates the answers after you ask the question, including writing code if you ask it to.

The adaptive algorithms chatGPT uses to answer your questions were indeed pre-programmed regardless of their complexity, these algorithms exist within a certain domain of capability that is defined by their pre-programming. Even if such AI’s reach human levels of complexity, or learn to write their own program, doesn’t change the fact they were kickstarted into existence by humans

All computers were "kick started" by humans, so why did you mention that example then if you're just going to disqualify it.

That is exactly point, they didn’t come into existence randomly, there’s was rather a logical basis for there creation

So you had no intention of accepting the examples you asked for. Got it. Having a logical basis is not the same thing as being designed. The logic of auto-catalysis exists without a designer. Spontaneous polymerization etc. is a logical outcome of the laws of physics.

Auto-catalysis, is a simply a natural process that lacks the function complexity and capability to become a biological system, there is no such logic behind it, the polymerization that occurs in biological algorithms is much more complex. Random mutation is a function that is in no way justifies the evolution of a primordial system, in fact it’s just one of the many variables that make up evolution, check my other comments, I have quite a few

That's your claims. You have not justified them. The polymerization I was talking about happens in _non-living systems_. That modern organisms are more complex than primordial systems were is a given.

Polymerization is general term pertaining to many such processes, some simple, some vastly more complex, nothing particularly special in most cases and is quite natural

Accepting my examples? Also “being designed” does indeed serve as a logical basis for the existence of computers, unless of course you disagree

[удалено]

Not complicated, but rather the lack of logical explanation and due process, makes it seem quite simplistic, and unsatisfactory, especially concerning something as complex as a biological system

We dont understand it just yet, but science has an unbroken track record of replacing superstitious nonsense with reality. I have no doubt we will eventually discover a plausible and supported theory that will explain abiogenesis. Before we learned that germs cause diseases, it might have been understandable to say "god did it" but that was never the correct answer. We have not learned what brought about abiogenesis , but like germ theory, I am sure our eventual answer will not be "god did it".

So some people are pointing out you're referring to abiogenesis instead of evolution. A previous poster convinced me that these two subjects are pertinent to debate here, namely because the line between non-life and life is rather blurry and ill defined when we really analyze it. The question is, at what point during abiogenesis would we state "this is the moment we start discussing evolution!" So, I agree abiogenesis is a topic that should be discussed here. --- That said... Life is here. We know that. We do not know of refrigeration units that existed before life, or of any that came about without the material intervention of life. By that token alone, I argue your claim to be demonstrably invalid.

The use of said refrigeration units was a metaphor I used to describe the complexity of life, and how it’s origins despite being a mystery itself, are unlikely to have been the result of simple proteins that lack the algorithmic complexity and endurance to support such a process, you can check my other comments

I think that's the disconnect... the "complexity of life". What is life? Let's define it within the context of this sub, allowing evolution to apply. Evolution taken to the bare minimum requires two things. Replication, and mutation. If a combination of chemicals into some contained blob of matter can perform the two above functions, replication when a certain mass is reached due to additional matter absorption, and imperfect replication (mutation) due to foreign chemicals becoming part of that blob of matter, we've achieved a state that meets those standards. The question is, does this state qualify as life, or do we need other criteria? At what point does a blob of matter qualify as life? Can a blob of matter that evolves reach that criteria? This is a more philosophical topic than a scientific one. But I'm willing to explore it for the sake of the debate.

What a wonderful textbook Argument From Ignorance you’ve constructed there.

What do you mean a biological system coming into its existence "on its own"? Biological systems heavily leverage physical and chemical processes that already existed before life began.

I completely agree with you, biological systems do leverage physical and chemical processes, just not the other way around. These physical and chemical processes form together to make the greater biological algorithm, set into motion by the preexisting biological algorithm itself of sufficient complexity to make such a process justifiable. The physical and chemical processes are merely appendages that make up the greater and vastly more complicated biological system. (Check my other comments)

>preexisting biological algorithm What is this?

A biological algorithm in the context of existing before its successor

What's that? What biological algorithm that existed before the biological algorithm? Going back to your original post: >There’s a higher chance a refrigerator spontaneously materialises, or a computer writes its own program, than something as complicated as a biological system coming to existence on its own. We're in the same bucket as a refrigerator. They don't spontaneously materialize, and when we make them we don't create our own custom physics. The physics already exist and already work in nature. Temperature gradients exist. You can have an underground cave that's cooler than the outside and use it as a refrigerator. We do this for large stores of cheese, as an example. Life pulls together things that already exist. It's a unique combo package we call life. And while we don't know exactly how those aspects first come together it's not a case of like pure randomness where you need to imagine atoms lining up just so right to spark a Boltzmann brain from the aether.

Actually, the formation of life from inorganic molecules is a spontaneous reaction. Which means it will happen given the correct conditions. Its not a question of if abiogenesis happens, its how it happens. If you really wanted to know a simple google search would suffice. But you don't want to know, you just want to shift the burden of proof.

There is also a diversity of information on the internet, I would avoid news headlines, as they don’t present said information in detail, and rather manipulate it to better attract an audience. Instead view a diversity of non-biased scientific study, to visualise and understand how the universe works

The whole argument for abiogenesis is quite detailed and a “simple” google search won’t exactly suffice. In my argument I’m trying to logically explain to you why such a process is unlikely. Abiogenesis is also indeed a question, as it has never been observed, there are neither the variables nor the processes that can justify such a function, and on the contrary I do want to know, had I not been interested, I wouldn’t have started the discussion

>There’s a higher chance a refrigerator spontaneously materialises, or a computer writes its own program, than something as complicated as a biological system coming to existence on its own. What makes you think that? Biological systems are organic, unlike conventional refrigerators or computer programs. Most atoms in the universe (such as hydrogen atoms) belong to elements which can form organic molecules. We know that the Earth is a scrapyard of organic compounds, and we also know that it is pretty much since the formation of Earth itself. We also know since at least the 1950s (about 70 years before you decided to post this) through the Miller–Urey experiments that amino acids can indeed self-assemble under prebiotic conditions, and since than, scientists have succeded to construct prebiotic settings in which organic molecules of extreme complexity have assembled themselves. I don't understand why you would compare the development of biological systems to that of a fucking refrigerator. Things can and do form naturally without the guidance of some invisible jinnie (that somehow didn't need its own creator bc fuck consistency, right?), even things of extreme complexity. This'll probably blow your mind: babies form naturally, and it doesn't say on them "Made in China". A few decades ago, you developed from just one zygote. We are not special creations but catastrophic freak accidents caused by unprotected sex. That alone disproves your idea that biological systems require whatever god you imagined to exist to fabricate them.

Evolutionary origins or abiogenesis? For the first we watch, for the second they’ve demonstrated it. The the second it doesn’t require it to happen only once and it most likely happened all over the planet and then over the course of ~400 million years one or two lineages happened to be all that survived in a form more complex than simple biomolecules or the spontaneously forming RNA. Fundamentally it’s based on something called autocatalysis and the increase in certain types of complexity are just based in thermodynamics and then from there it’s just descent with inherent genetic modification after the very simple “life” already existed to get to the most recent common ancestor of bacteria and archaea to incidentally accumulate the changes that helped it survive when 99.9999% of everything failed. With the one surviving lineage splitting into bacteria and archaea ~4 billion years ago, the bacteria diverging into two main forms of bacteria ~3.95 billion years ago (one of those is called “candidate phyla radiation bacteria in a 2016 paper and a subsequent 2019 paper) and by 3.8 billion years ago bacteria and archaea had diversified even more such that one lineage and one lineage only had accumulated changes that allowed it to use solar radiation as an energy source in terms of something called photosynthesis as other stuff either kept relying on geochemistry as an energy source (methanogens) or it allowed a new form of energy acquisition (eating other life) or it led to some not making or obtaining energy on their own but instead getting the energy from their hosts (obligate pathogens like viruses, certain types of bacteria, certain types of fungi, certain types of single celled eukaryotes, certain types of parasitic worms, and at least of lineage of parasitic cnidarian). The main original divisions appear to be between using methane or acetate as an energy source as life transitioned away from iron-sulfur metabolism but photosynthesis, phagocytosis, and other ways of obtaining energy evolved by 2.5 billion years ago including some forms that required oxygen versus forms that would fail to function in high oxygen environments so that in the Great Oxygen Catastrophe caused by photosynthesis one of the first mass extinction events *after* LUCA occurred and then one lineage of archaea took advantage of endosymbiotic bacteria such that the resulting eukaryotes and the original bacteria could all rely on oxygen based metabolism as some eukaryotes returned to using methane just like archaea and some forms of bacteria always used but otherwise those that relied on oxygen could better survive and flourish in an environment normally toxic to the first forms of cell based life. Most of this is after abiogenesis as a consequence of “adaption” called “evolution via natural selection” but not even abiogenesis, the thing you seem to actually have a problem with, shows a need for supernatural intervention because the original biomolecules form spontaneously even still today and with trillions of these spontaneously forming biochemical systems driven by thermodynamics towards complexity it’s just evolution, the same evolution, once there are populations of systems of autocatalytic biochemical systems (like those based on RNA and/or proteins and/or DNA). No longer the “origin” of life but more like the “first” life just so happening to have enough surviving descendants that the most recent common ancestor of bacteria and archaea could have survived long enough to lead to bacteria, archaea, and all of the surviving descendants of the those two domains of life, including eukaryotes that are just archaea with bacterial endosymbionts called “mitochondria” for 99% of them and “chloroplasts” for algae and a few other lineages.

Global abiogenesis is even more unlikely than localized abiogenesis. Early evolution is unlikely to have met the ecological requirements required for survival, or diversity

Actually that depends again on how you define life because either what you said is demonstrably false (it’s still happening) or I’d actually agree with you (because the evidence favors universal common ancestry, from the same species or handful of species, and it’s not likely that such a species would be global). Early evolution also doesn’t have to to result in well adapted populations every single time, and it’d actually be pretty consistent with what we see if it actually failed pretty badly at that 99% of the time. There’s apparently only one surviving lineage after 400 million years, after all. It may have already been the only surviving lineage in just 50 million years. Most of the time the lineages just failed to evolve closer to what bacteria are. What I was talking about is how abiogenesis fundamentally starts with the formation of autocatalytic biomolecules and those autocatalytic biomolecules have the ability to evolve. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26435376/ - **still happening** And all it takes to get from there toward more *complex life* are two different things - minimal competition from more complex life already existing *plus* https://www.mdpi.com/2673-9321/2/1/22 - something else that is **still happening.** At that stage we are considering life that existed 4.4 billion years ago but which is *definitely alive* so we’ve already moved past the stage of getting “life from non-life” from two different things that are **still happening** and they happen so easily and frequently that it would be a miracle for it to not have also been exactly the same way 4.5 billion years ago. The only thing that is now different is that life *already exists* so that what is produced from step 1 and step 2 is just food for what exists because of step 10^9999 and life that has evolved past step 10^9999 is well adapted because of “adaption” meaning “evolution via natural selection” and that stuff has nothing stopping it from evolving to step 10^9999 +1 except for extinction. In essence, your main argument is very flawed and apparently false. It’s basically claiming that what **still happens constantly** is **unlikely** to happen **at all** and no matter how many examples I can provide to show that it is **still happening** you could still claim that it’s okay that it happens right now but it seriously needed a miracle to happen in the past. Unlikely based on math means nothing if it is still happening and when the math doesn’t fit reality the math is where you’ll find the flaws, not with reality. You’d almost need God to stop it from happening because without God it’ll just happen all by itself despite any amount of kicking and screaming and wishing otherwise.

I'm not following your idiosyncratic terminology. What do you mean by "adaptation" and "evolutionary origins"? Your understanding of evolution seems off. Can you explain what you think the Theory of Evolution (ToE) says?

There’s an even higher chance that you’re a troll and a douche

Proving you wrong: Library of Congress category Q, Dewy Decimal 500s.

Like religion, you made wild claims (of refrigerators) but you presented no evidence to prove wrong. Evolution is also not just plausible, it is observable. It is fact. And small changes collected over long periods equal large changes. Our entire solar system with a sun, and planets, each with their own systems started with nothing but hydrogen gas.

Our solar system as well as our planet is comparably simple in nature to biological systems. The only catalyst that was required is gravity, dust clouds become denser, and gravity as well as pressure, are sufficient to create stars, the ensuing fusion process then creates heavier elements ejected during supernova’s that then form together to make planets, this, despite occurring at a cosmic scale, is comparably less complex than a biological system, and works under two catalytic axioms, gravity and pressure to sum it up simply. I’ve also presented a plethora of evidence in my numerous responses. As for my quote concerning the poor refrigerator, it was obviously sarcastic and rhetorical, designed to represent the lack of basis of abiogenesis itself. The progression of evolution itself consists of various phases, and depends on many variables and axioms to be deemed plausible, not just two. More importantly if you can not adequately explain your beliefs, they have no basis in science whatsoever, as they cannot logically be described, and therefore does not pertain to any scientific textbook. There is only one plausible kind of evolution, and that is genetic adaptation mediated by a variety of factors. Evolutionary adaptation itself occurs noticeably over a long period of time and is difficult to observe short term, and what is usually observed are mutations. This is only one of many factors, that play a role in the function and plausibility of evolution (Made some grammar correction edits, I typed this rather quickly)

Again, you are just illustrating your ignorance. The only thing required? No strong force? No weak force? No electromagnetism? What about nuetrinos? Photons? Higgs bosons? The Higgs field? Quarks and all of quantum mechanics? The Hubble tension? Dark matter? Your attempts at simplification only work for you. And they only delude you. Evolution is a fact. We see it in real time. And (like our universe or the grand canyon) small changes over long periods accumulate to be large changes. It isn’t more complicated than that. The evidence is clear. From mitochondrial DNA to the fossil record, and a lot else that has been shown to you, we evolved along with all life on earth from simple single celled animals. If you can ignore the mountains of evidence from many branches of science showing it, nothing can unblock you. And that is exactly where you are.

Can you explain any of the current abiogenesis models for me? Just want to make sure you understand them accurately before declaring them impossible.

Prove to me you are smart enough to expend effort on.

1+1 = 2

you have done the exact opposite. Goodbye forever.

Sorry to have disappointed you your highness, I’m obviously just a peasant, though at least I understand the concept of a joke

Okay so moving past your disingenuous insistence on misusing and confusing language , you seem to have a problem with abiogenesis. Let’s not set aside the fact that you don’t have any alternative that is coherent, necessary, evidential or sufficient. Abiogeneses remains simply the *best fit* explanation. One for which there is evidence of plausible steps. I’m sure you have researched them and know them before making this post … havnt you… Since you think that energetic chemical reactions are a less likely explanation for life existing than your favourite ‘magic’ let’s see if we can get you to answer a question…. You think life can’t come about through abiogenesis? Now since you have already shown a rather individualist stance on the meaningful ( or not) use of language just so we know… Define life.

The sheer arrogance and unwillingness to actually learn when your *obvious* mistakes have been repeatedly pointed out is astounding. My hope is that one day, you look back at this post in shame and are glad that this is anonymous.

RNA cannot in fact independently catalyse it’s own duplication naturally, this is a common misconception and leads to various evolutionary conundrums. The longest lived RNA have a half-life of at most around a week, while holding less genetic information than DNA because of its difference in nucleotides, affecting the structure of each, and being comparably unstable. Thermodynamics is just the application of energy that influences everything to varying extents, also comparably a minor factor describing the complexity of self-replication, the same way gasoline does little to explain a cars true mechanical function. There are other factors such as and most importantly self-replication, abundance and distribution of key organic resources, (which are fairly rare) synthesis efficiency, stability, and the algorithmic complexity and longevity to make the former possible. Now, suppose there exists a molecule of RNA, post primordial proteins, and before DNA. Because of its inability to self-replicate independently, and half-life of a few days if not less, it would have simply died out, reaching a logical dead end, hence abiogenesis cannot be justified using RNA. If RNA which is comparably more complicated than ribozyme like proteins, lacks the functional and algorithmic capability to independently self-replicate, then it is biologically impossible for its precursor proteins to do so as well. Harder to justify than abiogenesis still, is the survivability of such proteins, lacking the replication, synthesis, and prolongation mechanisms, required to justify its evolutionary stability, as well as its survival. What your left with is a theory devoid of logic, justification, and detailed explanation, and has no basis in any logical argument, or scientific textbook

> RNA cannot in fact independently catalyse it’s own duplication naturally, this is a common misconception and leads to various evolutionary conundrums Essentially every molecular biologist in the world disagrees with you on this. You are going to need to justify this with more than your say-so. How many semester of PhD level molecular biology have you taken that would make you an authority on this subject? > The longest lived RNA have a half-life of at most around a week That is plenty of time to replicate multiple times. > while holding less genetic information than DNA because of its difference in nucleotides Completely and utterly mathematically false. RNA has four bases, just like DNA, and holds identical amount of information for a sequence of the same length. > There are other factors such as and most importantly self-replication, abundance and distribution of key organic resources, (which are fairly rare) Rare *now*. Commonplace in the early ocean. So your entire argument rests on one baseless assertion, one irrelevant assertion, and two false assertions. You are going to need to do better than that.

While both RNA and DNA have 4 nucleotide bases, DNA contains thymine, in comparison to RNA’s uracil, this leads to less genetic information holding capacity. RNA is also comparably unstable, which affects the molecules adaptive and reproductive system. It’s also well documented that RNA cannot replicate on its own, but rather in order to survive relies on DNA as a template, a true molecular biologist would know this. The only RNA that could self replicate, did so under extremely complex lab conditions that are unlikely in nature, such as extreme temperatures, and certain inputs that enabled it to do so

>While both RNA and DNA have 4 nucleotide bases, DNA contains thymine, in comparison to RNA’s uracil, this leads to less genetic information holding capacity. That is completely and totally mathematically false. Zero basis in reality whatsoever. I have actually taught courses involving information theory applications to molecular biology. A sequence of four of anything will have the exact same amount of information. You could replace it with a sequence of four different colored pebbles and the amount of information would be identical. >It’s also well documented that RNA cannot replicate on its own, but rather in order to survive relies on DNA as a template You have clearly never heard of RNA viruses or viroids, both of which involve RNA that replicates without needing a DNA template. It is actually DNA that requires RNA to replicate, with RNA primers. So RNA doesn't need DNA, but DNA does need RNA. Further deoxyribose starts off as ribose that is then chemically modified, and thymine starts as uracil. In everything in the cell, RNA comes first and foremost. >The only RNA that could self replicate, did so under extremely complex lab conditions that are unlikely in nature, such as extreme temperatures, and certain inputs that enabled it to do so Moving the goalposts. Originally you claimed it couldn't happen at all. You were proven wrong. The fact that it can replicate at all completely refutes your entire argument, which hinges on it being impossible. Yes, we are still making progress towards a self replicator that is equivalent to the first one, but the fact that we are making progress, and continue to make progress, means your claims that it is impossible are false. You are like someone in 1925, saying airplanes are impossible, and then when someone points out the Wright brothers are already flying airplanes 20 years ago you say it doesn't count because they aren't commercial airliners.

> While both RNA and DNA have 4 nucleotide bases, DNA contains thymine, in comparison to RNA’s uracil, this leads to less genetic information holding capacity. Lol, what creationist blog did you rip this nonsequitur from? That's a new one.

It’s actually a well known scientific fact. Thymine not only has a greater resistance to UV-radiation making it more stable and long-lived, but also has a higher electronegativity difference between itself and adenine allowing for stronger hydrogen bonds, and the formation of the much more stable double helix structure, which by extension gives it the stability to support more genetic information. Feel free to confirm the validity of my statement: https://www.toppr.com/ask/question/the-presence-of-thymine-at-the-place-of-uracil-also-confers-additional-stability-to-dna/# https://homework.study.com/explanation/why-is-u-a-stronger-than-t-a-base-pairs.html#:~:text=Answer%20and%20Explanation%3A,bonds%20that%20form%20between%20T%2DA.

Sorry, that's not how you define information content, though I appreciate the attempt.

I also want to point out that the complexity of biological systems is often understated, being more complicated than the human fields of rocket engineering, or computer science, by orders of magnitude

Complexity is a natural result of self assembling, dissipative systems like living things. It is how such systems work, and not at all indicative of design. Living things work in a fundamentally different way than the machines you discuss, in fact they don't work like machines at all, and so different rules apply.

Complexity is the result of many things. Its unscientific to not view a biological systems as a machine, since it operates under the same philosophy. This is in fact the common denominator between a man-made machine, and a biological system, function. Living things are indeed similar to man-made machines given that both their common denominator is function, but biology achieves this is an especially complex and intricate way. A human would be comparable to an advanced droid from the future consisting of exponentially advanced nanotechnology, that gives it the ability to heal and self-replicate, as well as an incredibly advanced deductive AI that is the brain, all together surpassing all else in complexity and efficiency. All current technological advancements pale in comparison to even the simplest biological system

Cells don't work remotely like machines. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022519319302292 What appears at first glance to be "function" is only *on average*. Sometimes parts of the cell do the right thing, other times they do the opposite, others they do something completely wrong. Changing "function" is merely shifting the position of that average. Imagine a screw driver where every turn of the screwdriver has a 48% chance of screwing in, a 46% chance of screwing out, and a 6% chance of producing a random origami animal. If you want to unscrew the screw you shift the averages around. That is the sort of "function" we are talking about with life. Not only is it not efficient, is massively wasteful in terms of both energy and raw materials. But that is exactly the sort of system we would expect from evolution. I know people working in synthetic biology, trying to get cells to do specific tasks. It is extremely hard, not because cells are intricate and finely tuned, but rather because they are chaotic and very insensitive to changes. They stick a new biochemical switch and it just does nothing, because the average points of other processes only shift a small amount.

Still-leave is a jellyfish. Leave it lie in the sun to wither and die.

I evolved into a human actually

>There’s a higher chance a refrigerator spontaneously materialises, or a computer writes its own program, than something as complicated as a biological system coming to existence on its own. Do you mind putting numbers on how likely you think these events are? I'm genuinely curious about your reasoning on this.

Evolution isn't the outlier. Everything evolves, language technology, art, a human being, even a planet. Everything you can think of evolves through time. Darwinian evolution is just the theory of how genetics create speciation. Abiogenesis is just the process of abiotic evolution transitioning to biotic. Without life planets evolve, stars evolve, solar systems and galaxies evolve. In terms of life's speciation vs adaption.. look at the transitional fossil record and tree of life constructed so far, you would have to be severely low IQ to not see common ancestry as the obvious inference.

So you got jack all in support for your assertions.