So throw out logic, sensibility, and science, and install gullibility, myth and conspiracy.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Good work q-reeus! You really think any of your stupid childish revenge tactics get to me q-reeus?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You've been walloped...accept it like a man!! You've raised point after point after point, that supposedly validates the bible thumping fanatic Tour, and each has been shown to be invalid, nonsense and just plain ignorance on your part. Starting of course with your copying Tour babble on time not being applicable. Wake up!
The following paper proposes five hypotheses that can lead to Abiogenesis.... https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...-abiogenesis/DAE5465EC3DC2FFF1612B31C0F5B6E94 A review on the spontaneous formation of the building blocks of life and the generation of a set of hypotheses governing universal abiogenesis: Abstract: There have been a number of hypotheses regarding abiogenesis, the ‘Metabolism First’ model and the ‘RNA World Hypothesis’ are two such examples. All theories on abiogenesis make a set of unstated assumptions with regard to the elemental make up of life or only apply the theory to a primitive earth model. This paper reviews current knowledge from the myriad of observations from a variety of scientific disciplines and applies generally understood thermodynamic reasoning to explain the formation of molecules known to be used by life. These arguments are used in this paper to construct a set of new hypotheses which govern universal abiogenesis. The intention of this paper is to show by the application of our known laws of science that life is the end sequence of events of the fundamental forces which affect the entire universe. From these events a new hypotheses on abiogenesis can be formulated. The hypotheses proposed by this paper are incorporated in many of the current theories of abiogenesis, either assumed or accepted but very rarely stated or explained. The proposed set of five hypotheses are: (1) any celestial mass that has a body of liquid water and therefore has access to energy will form at least the building blocks of life, if not life itself. (2) The major component of any life form anywhere in the universe will be H2O. (3) Any organism, anywhere in the universe, will be carbon-based. (4) All life in the universe will be composed of nucleic acid based molecules as its code for life. (5) The cell is the universal unit of life. Throughout this paper the background to the formulation of these hypotheses is discussed, as is the explanation of why these hypotheses are universal and not limited to an application of a primitive earth model. This set of hypotheses is also testable as any investigation of a celestial body which contains liquid water (e.g. Europa) will quickly provide evidence to prove or refute the proposed theory. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Perhaps a future advanced society on Earth, that has thrown off the cloak of gullible ID, and that has achieved and conquered space travel within our solar system on a regular basis, may hopefully find some form of life in the Oceans of Europa, or the geysers of Enceladus, or possibly elsewhere, where the above methodology of Abiogenesis is validated.
In summing and dismissing the bible thumping and the hero like adoration of the bible thumper, my own thoughts are that life in the current universe is inevitable...The universe is big...the universe is filled with stars and planets...the stuff of life is everywhere. And the following article [presented elsewhere] also adds validity to that inevitability of life arising through an Abiogenesis process....... https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/11/201116112856.htm Building blocks of life can form long before stars: An international team of scientists have shown that glycine, the simplest amino acid and an important building block of life, can form under the harsh conditions that govern chemistry in space. The results, published in Nature Astronomy, suggest that glycine, and very likely other amino acids, form in dense interstellar clouds well before they transform into new stars and planets. Comets are the most pristine material in our Solar System and reflect the molecular composition present at the time our Sun and planets were just about to form. The detection of glycine in the coma of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko and in samples returned to Earth from the Stardust mission suggests that amino acids, such as glycine, form long before stars. However until recently, it was thought that glycine formation required energy, setting clear constraints to the environment in which it can be formed. In the new study the international team of astrophysicists and astrochemical modelers, mostly based at the Laboratory for Astrophysics at Leiden Observatory, the Netherlands, have shown that it is possible for glycine to form on the surface of icy dust grains, in the absence of energy, through 'dark chemistry'. The findings contradict previous studies that have suggested UV radiation was required to produce this molecule. Dr Sergio Ioppolo, from Queen Mary University of London and lead author of the article, said: "Dark chemistry refers to chemistry without the need of energetic radiation. In the laboratory we were able to simulate the conditions in dark interstellar clouds where cold dust particles are covered by thin layers of ice and subsequently processed by impacting atoms causing precursor species to fragment and reactive intermediates to recombine." The scientists first showed methylamine, the precursor species of glycine that was detected in the coma of the comet 67P, could form. Then, using a unique ultra-high vacuum setup, equipped with a series of atomic beam lines and accurate diagnostic tools, they were able to confirm glycine could also be formed, and that the presence of water ice was essential in this process. more at link.... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Here is another very interesting paper [the more interesting parts highlighted] ....................... https://read.qxmd.com/read/33216655...transitions-suggests-intelligent-life-is-rare The Timing of Evolutionary Transitions Suggests Intelligent Life Is Rare: It is unknown how abundant extraterrestrial life is, or whether such life might be complex or intelligent. On Earth, the emergence of complex intelligent life required a preceding series of evolutionary transitions such as abiogenesis, eukaryogenesis, and the evolution of sexual reproduction, multicellularity, and intelligence itself. Some of these transitions could have been extraordinarily improbable, even in conducive environments. The emergence of intelligent life late in Earth's lifetime is thought to be evidence for a handful of rare evolutionary transitions, but the timing of other evolutionary transitions in the fossil record is yet to be analyzed in a similar framework. Using a simplified Bayesian model that combines uninformative priors and the timing of evolutionary transitions, we demonstrate that expected evolutionary transition times likely exceed the lifetime of Earth, perhaps by many orders of magnitude. Our results corroborate the original argument suggested by Brandon Carter that intelligent life in the Universe is exceptionally rare, assuming that intelligent life elsewhere requires analogous evolutionary transitions. Arriving at the opposite conclusion would require exceptionally conservative priors, evidence for much earlier transitions, multiple instances of transitions, or an alternative model that can explain why evolutionary transitions took hundreds of millions of years without appealing to rare chance events. Although the model is simple, it provides an initial basis for evaluating how varying biological assumptions and fossil record data impact the probability of evolving intelligent life, and also provides a number of testable predictions, such as that some biological paradoxes will remain unresolved and that planets orbiting M dwarf stars are uninhabitable. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: And of course even if extra terrestrial life did developed intelligence comparable with humans, we then have the two formidable barriers of time and distance. So much for Alien contact...but that's another matter argued elsewhere.
And along the same line as previous post, from the Smithsonian Institute................ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...rth-life-may-have-been-inevitable-1-31020593/ However It Began on Earth, Life May Have Been Inevitable: In a universe filled with prebiotic compounds,it may be only a small step for some of them to hook up in ways that lead directly to life. Only a few years ago, a well-known scientist said that the odds of life arising anywhere in the Universe are about the same as those that a Boeing 747 will be assembled when a tornado rips through a junkyard. But if ideas circulating in the scientific community turn out to be right, we may find that the occurrence of life isn't as random as we had thought. The picture of the origin of life that is emerging these days involves a certain inevitability. Life didn't happen by chance but according to the same kinds of laws that govern ordinary chemical reactions. Scientists say that given the right mix of molecules something will surely happen, and probably pretty quickly at that. As the late Cyril Ponnamperuma, director of the Laboratory of Chemical Evolution at the University of Maryland, said: "The business of the Universe is creating life."
Bloody hell!! Reputable scientific articles everywhere!!!! https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/a-chemical-account-of-evolution/5133.article A chemical account of evolution
But, but, but, none of them agree with Behe and Tour and therefore how can all these reputable scientific articles be right? How could they possibly be right in the face of the superior "revelatory knowledge" as "received" by these two great prophets? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That's the point. what you see as an obstacle is in fact an advantage. Every chemical reaction or compounding is just a little different , which means that, over time all possible mathematical configurations will emerge, and the right one needs to emerge only once. Q, the universe is a cauldron of atomic and molecular activity. Due to the nature of physical values of these particles, some things are inevitable, while other things are not mathematically permitted. And that is "natural selection' in a nutshell..............Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Our Intelligent Designer had not invented them yet. A small lapse in imagination....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! p.s. Imagine how early snowmen must have felt. I would have lodged a complaint...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!........Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
They comprise millions of replications of ice molecules, plus the dozens of replicated patterns that combine to form the six-fold symmetry and the other symmetries of the individual snowflake, plus the replicated metapattern of similarities between different snowflakes in a given fall. That's how a snowflake grows without becoming a "shapeless" lump of ice - by replication of an initial pattern. Which includes a large and profound spiritual realm or level of organization. You appear to be underestimating the natural world. I'm talking about the replication of structures - including chirality - that appears when clays erode and the bits end up regrowing into replications of the clay structure the seed bit was broken from. The best replicators predominate downstream - the less likely or unlucky become scarce, and in time vanish. The chances may very well be small, but the assumption that they decline in every case is guesswork - and the assumption that they decline to zero is without material support. Meanwhile, time favors replicators and long shots. Which includes a large and profound spiritual realm or level of organization. You appear to be underestimating the natural world. I put your term in quotes, as vague - you would have to tell me. As far as I know the chemistry surrounding the dozens of different kinds of hydrothermal vents is not well understood or anywhere near completely described. It wouldn't, necessarily. So? This is substrate - the larger patterns would be yet to come. The only claim is that suitably biased and selective and replicative substrate promoting chirality and selecting for it was common all over the planet - the necessary conditions for Darwinian evolution of homochirality existed.
There Ladies and Gentleman, the actions of a frustrated peurile child, needing to raise a members Mrs, simply because I deflated his ego, in pointing out why and how, his adored hero Tour, exposed himself as anything but a scientist and nothing more then a religious ratbag.
From James Tour's own mouth................... https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/ Based upon my faith in the biblical text, I do believe (yes, faith and belief go beyond scientific evidence for this scientist) that God created the heavens and the earth and all that dwell therein, including a man named Adam and a woman named Eve. As for many of the details and the time-spans, I personally become less clear. Some may ask, What’s “less clear” about the text that reads, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth”? That is a fair question, and I wish I had an answer that would satisfy them. But I do not because I remain less clear. So, in addition to my chemically based scientific resistance to a macroevolutionary proposal, I am also theologically reticent to embrace it. As a lover of the biblical text, I cannot allegorize the Book of Genesis that far, lest, as Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof said, “If I try and bend that far, I’ll break!” God seems to have set nature as a clue, not a solution, to keep us yearning for him. And if some day we do understand the mechanisms for these macroevolutionary changes, and also the processes that led to the origin of first life, it will not lessen God. As with all discoveries, like when the genetic code in the double-stranded DNA was discovered, they will serve to underscore the magnanimity of God.
So even if we work out how DNA came into existence god gets the credit I'm starting to think the game is rigged Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yeah incrdible isn't it? And this is the bible thumping bastard that q-reeus wants us all to bow down to and accept his faulty excuse making and misinterpretations.
Your level of misrepresentation has become extreme - even by your usual unconstrained standards. Here at SF you have unfortunately free rein to indulge in such madness.
Whatever floats your sunken boat q-reeus. We have a saying in Australia, "done like a dinner" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please don't mix and match entirely different concepts like that. Someone here may take it seriously. No. A fantasy based on a wholly inadequate capacity or rather incapacity of clays and other crystaline mineral structures. See discussion of that and other 'hopefuls' here: https://creation.com/origin-of-life-the-chirality-problem
There we have it Ladies and Gentlemen! Right from the horses mouth! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! https://creation. Real dinky di scientific analysis, unbiased and totally evidenced...NOT!! Read the 8 or so links and real scientific opinion, unbiased in any of the links I have given, instead of any crap that supports your ID myth and that of your bible thumping idol, Tour. All may burst your protective bubble you need to exist.
