Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

The talk was about building up of organisms not the breaking down.
Dead bodies are more to do with death than life. Don't you think?

 

"can you read... Jem.. why can't you think... is it too emotional for you? too hard to admit I did not mention anything about proof of random evolution from non life to life..."


I did say science proves the essential building blocks of life itself originate from material unrelated to life.

Why are you trying so hard to misunderstand that by distorting it so much?

 

nice try troll... I am sure you have also said the sky is blue... that is not what the issue has been.

 

this is the issue. I am glad I saved the page because I anticipated your troll tactics.

see that... your quote stu..

"there is plenty of science showing life from non life"

We are waiting for just one piece of scientific proof or observation from you showing life coming from non life...

you can troll as much as you want... you can use as many words as you want...

amino acids, organic matter, building blocks, miller urey, natural processes.... but...

you can not get around the fact you have no science showing life from non life...

in short there is no science showing abiogenesis because the proof if it exists has not yet been uncovered... it is speculation.

 

I know, but a dead body still DOES IN FACT posses all the "building blocks of life".

 

Then wait no longer. There is plenty of observation and proof in the science called abiogenesis, also referred to as biopoesis, showing how the essential components of life come from 'non life'.

Proof of life from non life is your red herring strawman false interminable statement in place of what I and others actually did say.

You can ignore it like it wasn't there.
You can deny the logical outcome from all the science indicating life from non life , and blindly stick to the the contrary of life not having formed from non life, but being magicked from something with no evidence of anything at all, which you call God.

Creationists like you were, still are, denying the scientific observations which show how evolution can occur. Then discovery of the proof comes along and creationists still deny it.

Writing's on the wall. Cat's out of the bag. The same is going happen with abiogenesis.
There is no alternative. Discoveries are too far along.
It's going to be abiogenesis or no empiric knowledge.

Why are you struggling so hard with that is the weird part.

 

You're suggesting non living matter has all the building blocks of life.
Ok.

 

it was your quote stu... we are waiting for the evidence of life from non life..

not non life to amino acids. non life to life.

 

Go back then and re read the thread. It's all there.
Go and Google. It's there too.

Because you can't accept a true statement does not make me delusional

 

This is a summary of the science in a paper from MIT... you can see Stu's conclusions are the delusional rants of an et atheist who can not accept science conflicts with his desire for evolution by random chance.


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


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