Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

Not to speak for anyone else, but what's the problem with simply admitting we don't really know? We have lots of ideas, theories, educated guesses and beliefs. But we just don't really know for certain, maybe never will.

 

That's right, anything you can't deal with is stupid.

 

If that were the case, why all your name calling, aggression and illogical argument about these statements? ....

"the fact is that the building blocks of life themselves can and are formed naturally by chemical reaction from inorganic material."

"There is plenty of science to show how life can come from non life."

Science is not at all varied about the proof that the essential building blocks for all life can form from inorganic material.

So I'll ask again, what is your problem with that? Why have you gotten so agitated in this and other threads about that?

What "we" do know is how the basic and essential components for life can and do form from inorganic material. What is not known exactly is what did happen to first kick off the process, and how synthesizes occurs into all the complexity - the complexity itself though, which again, IS known about.

That apparently is what you are getting very confused about. There are distinct areas which are known and others in which there is incomplete advanced research to discover the complete answer. Whether that is forthcoming or not is what only science can determine.

Why do you wish to keep interjecting the word atheism?

So why do you keep saying I assert things which I have never asserted?

Ah but then again, honesty was never your forte.

 

Of course there is nothing wrong with saying the whole process is not known.
But saying one-thing is not known, is not the same as saying nothing is known about it.

Oh and you missed out proofs...... lots of ideas, proofs, theories, educated guesses and beliefs.

 

you are a deceptive troll.

I have told you mulitiple times, we know about the building blocks - amino acids. They were first discovered in the famous miller urey experiments 50 or 60 years ago...

This building block argument of yours has never been the issue.

It is whether there is science showing how life evolved from non life. You said there was... you are a crackpot.

 

This is what Stu called philosophy on this thread because these scientists show Stu to be a crackpot.


http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

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

 

*PULLS FINGER*

 

Of course it is philosophizing, and worse, he starts out relying on a false premise.

• "We now know that the probability of life arising by chance is far too low to
  be plausible,..."

That's not known, and it's not science. It's an arbitary assertion.
He is a philosopher, philosophizing, not even opening on a substantiated idea, but unscientifically on false grounding.

Get a f'kn brain Jem for you own sake. Do you really want to be as big a fool as Trader666?

 

What a pathetic thing to say. Of course building blocks are the 'issue' here.
Furthermore I did not say 'there is science showing how life evolved from non life'.. wtf is wrong with you?
Do you imagine altering what I said somehow helps you reason ?

Why don't you go try and read what I did actually say, if you are at all capable of any comprehension ability that is.

It's the fact that those building blocks, essential for all life on earth, can develop completely naturally, which makes the whole 'life from non life issue' possible.

Emanating from that alone, there is in fact plenty of science to show how life can come from non life.
Apparently unhappy with that, for no logical or rational reason you've been able to provide, YOU introduce the word evolved into the 'issue'.

Quote from Jem

" [If]... there is plenty of science showing life evolved from non life..."
"It is whether there is science showing how life evolved from non life."

The word evolved is not present in any of the statements I made which you are wetting yourself about.
So how come you introduced it?

However, this is from whom you like to keep referring to as a Nobel prize winning scientist whilst tying to pretend he makes some kind of devastating point against 'life from non life'. Yet the science is all about how 'life evolved from non life'
Your own hero expects to be able to turn the how into did.

• "We are interested in the chemical and physical processes that facilitated the transition from chemical evolution to biological evolution on the early earth. As a way of exploring these processes, our laboratory is trying to build a synthetic cellular system that undergoes Darwinian evolution.
  ...................
  Such a system should, given time and the right environment, begin to evolve in a Darwinian fashion, potentially leading to the spontaneous emergence of genomically encoded catalysts and structural molecules. " Dr. Jack Szostak

But that's what your irrational argument relies on isn't it?
Trying to ignore all the scientific proofs within abiogenesis along with any other science which provides a well-substantiated explanation using the words how life can come from 'non life ' , so you scream and kick and contort the whole question about as if you have anything like an argument , just so long as there is no statement yet to say life did come from 'non life'. At that point a different style of denial will no doubt issue forth from your ridiculous confusion.

Well, all your name calling and childish nonsense won't change the fact that there IS actually - plenty of science to show how life can come from non life.