Revelation is starting to make some sense..

Yes you have been lying for years and you want me to present YOUR own false assertion. What a clown you are.

..my comment..
"there is plenty of science to show how life can come from non life"

..you altered to say..
"there is plenty of science to show how life came from non life".

..that is not paraphrasing.
You can't tell the difference can you?. You're an idiot Jem, trying to make an idiots argument.

One thing is abundantly clear, you can't deal rationally with what IS being said.

That's as meaningless a comment as saying when the earth appears flat, it is a logical possibility that the earth is flat.

But in any case evolution is a designer. The environment is a designer. There is really no requirement or necessity for any other designer. Especially an imaginary one.

You present your own fucked up versions of 'penrose , susskind and nobel' (when are you ever going to learn how to spell that !??) 'prize winners'.

And what I compared was, the value of talking about a Creator with those other ridiculous comparable concepts. They're about the same.
I can't help it if you can't read.

 

Well, wouldn't that make life inevitable rather than a little less improbable? We are talking the straightforward reality of chemical reaction that will result in molecule chains forming given a correspondingly accommodating environment in many and various locations.

I'm not sure what point it is aside from that, which you say Orgel is making.
All life on Earth contains the same common chemicals (DNA).
It is known how inorganic chemicals can form organic molecules.
So then it is the actual processes which would have taken place, the synthesis, which is still in discovery.

Whatever the source, be it from meteorites or deep sea vents, or a 'primordial soup', the origin is going to be a chemical one.

 

every thing you write is a deception...
you tried to pull a bill clinton... only you completely changed the words.

Your trollness is humorous...
You always lie about this and yet I keep linking to your quote.

you wrote this ...

"There is plenty of science showing life from non life".

I am sure the Bill Clinton in you realizes that is not the same as saying "can come" from non life.



http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...62&perpage=6&highlight=pathway&pagenumber=124

 

Yes, precisely. Not only is life inevitable given enough time and suitable conditions, if you make those assumptions I suggested, but so is evolution. Joseph Henry Vogel offered an elegant, 2nd Law, mathematical proof that organisms must evolve --i.e., they can not not evolve. It is his Rutgers Economics Ph.D. dissertation. I can't recall the year, but if you search for it, or write him --he is currently at the Univ. of Puerto Rico main campus-- you can get the paper that resulted. But I warn you it involves some advanced mathematics.

 

there was very limited time and there were very unsuitable conditions most of the time.

 

summary of the science of a paper from MIT which surveyed many of the top scientists in the field.

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

 

============
Great question, future currents;
i, also have marveled many times about a wood duck zig -zagging thru the woods @ amazing speed, not hitting trees!!

 

I have to highlight Stu's troll...


Real quote from Stu...

"There is plenty of science showing life from non life".
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...&pagenumber=124

Stroll then trolls this one out...

 

... already refuted and debunked a hundred times in a hundred threads.

If you knew anything about it, you'd soon realize both yourself and the author should understand how natural selection removes those false notions of so called chance.

You have an insanity in endlessly repeating the same nonsense from your cache of cut&pastes expecting a different outcome other than the fact they are wrong.

 

Caught yourself again, hook line and sinker.

So you admit it , this was not real.......
Quote from jem:
"For years you said we had proof that life came from non life."

There it is then, incontrovertible, you have 'for years' been lying that I said something I did not.

In hankering for your Creator you have a problem with comprehension and honesty. It doesn't come as a surprise.