Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

1000th!

 

I gotta another rock in the back yard, I'm waiting for it to turn to gold.

This random chance shit is great man. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

Stu, I am "brainlessly" reposting because this is the weight of the scientific community.. Your beliefs are nothing short of zealous delusions.

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


http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf [/B][/QUOTE]

 

You are brainlessly repeat posting the viewpoint of a philosopher pontificating on what he says scientists are saying. That is not the weight of the scientific community. It is at the most, the subjective opinions of a philosopher.
Idiot.

 

There is plenty of science showing life from non life
It's called abiogenesis.
Your mindless denial does not make it go away.

 

You tell'em stewie. My next door neighbor has a fence post with a frogs leg growing out of it. Looks like a left leg to me. I'm thinking about sneaking out there after dark and cutting it off. Frog legs are tasty you know.

 

Wrong again! You can't even get your own story straight

Like all ridiculous things God can't be defined or reasoned into existence .
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3269455#post3269455

Your flawed assumptions and logic are what is irrelevant... as is just about every STUpid post you make.

Are you so STUpid that you can only parrot my calls for you to get professional help and stop making a fool of yourself?

 

When someone is as disconnected from reality as Stu, is in wrong to correct him?


a·bi·o·gen·e·sis   [ey-bahy-oh-jen-uh-sis, ab-ee-oh-] Show IPA
noun Biology .
the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abiogenesis

--

Web definitions

a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

--
Definition of ABIOGENESIS

: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abiogenesis


Its not just stu against against science, or stu against nobel prize winners, or stu against logic, it is stu against dictionaries again.

 

Careful now crummie .
You should just stick with staring at that stone you're waiting to turn to gold. It's less ambitious, you won't need leave your yard, whereby you may become a danger to yourself and others.