Computing the origin of life

Computing the origin of life
The early Earth was a hellish place with impact galore and a choking atmosphere, and yet somehow life got a grip there. Credit: Simone Marchi/SwRI

As a principal investigator in the NASA Ames Exobiology Branch, Andrew Pohorille is searching for the origin of life on Earth, yet you won't find him out in the field collecting samples or in a laboratory conducting experiments in test tubes. Instead, Pohorille studies the fundamental processes of life facing a computer.

Pohorille's work is at the vanguard of a sea-change in how science can tackle the complex question of where came from, how its biochemistry operates and what life elsewhere might be like. Rather than relying on the hit-and-miss of laboratory experiments, Pohorille believes that theoretical work is just as important, if not more so, in understanding how life could have emerged from non-life.

"The role of theory is twofold," he says. "It provides explanations and generalizations of what is observed in experiments, but it also has some predictive power."

Pohorille's theoretical work resides within a field known as ; Pohorille himself is director of the Center for Computational Astrobiology and Fundamental Biology at NASA's Ames Research Center in Mountain View, California, and a Principal Investigator with the Exobiology & Evolutionary Biology Program. Computational biology involves designing and writing algorithms within mathematical models that seek to explain life's complex biochemical processes. This is in comparison to 'artificial life,' which creates virtual life-forms that reside in the computer and which can mimic life's processes. However, the approach of computational biology hasn't been an instant hit with all biochemists and evolutionary biologists.

"It's still contentious, partly because there is a group of people who do believe that [searching for] the is a strictly experimental issue that can only be solved in the lab," says Pohorille. "I respectfully disagree with those who think that way."

This is a view shared by Eric Smith, a researcher in complex non-equilibrium systems at the Earth-Life Science Institute (ELSI) which is attached to the Tokyo Institute of Technology in Japan. Smith highlights how, in recent years, the fields of computational biology and chemistry have matured to the point that researchers used to working in the laboratory can no longer ignore it. "I think we're on the threshold of where it's going to start becoming a serious tool, but it's important to remember that it's only one tool of many."

An example of the usefulness of computational biology can be seen in Smith's work delving into the origins of carbon-fixing, which describes how organisms convert inorganic carbon into the organic compounds vital to life. Smith and his colleague Rogier Braakman of the Chisholm Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology combined a computational approach to phylogenetics (which is the study of the evolutionary relationships between organisms) with metabolic flux balance analysis (which allows metabolisms to be recreated in mathematical simulations on the computer) to disentangle the six different ways in which life is known to fix carbon, in the process figuring out which of the sextet evolved first. Consequently, Smith and Braakman were able to show how this form of carbon-fixing, which was one of life's original metabolic processes, was able to arise from simple geochemistry. As such, it mirrors the overall quest for the in terms of how biological processes developed from geochemistry.

Although some of these research questions are attainable using computer modeling, we are still lacking an understanding of many of the basic rules governing biochemistry as well as early life's genetics. Some researchers have speculated about an 'RNA world' wherein the self-replicating RNA molecule not only played the role that DNA, which is fashioned from RNA, does today, but that it also arose pre-biotically and was a cornerstone in the origin of life. However, many scientists, including Pohorille and Smith, disagree, claiming that RNA is too big and unwieldy a molecule to have played a role in life's probably simpler origins. Instead, they suspect that there was some other chemistry at work in the origins of self-reproducing life, although what this chemistry could have been remains a subject of vigorous discussion.

Given this uncertainty, Pohorille favors forming generalizations about the biological processes at work in the origin and earliest evolution of life, rather than looking for specific outcomes. Using computational theory, he advocates focusing on the underlying principles of biological processes that are rooted in the laws of physics and chemistry. "What is needed are some general rules that guide us in building scenarios," he says. "Just having individual experiments that say something is possible – because that's as much as we can get from the experiment – is not enough."

Artificial life

One of the biggest questions about the origin of life and its subsequent evolution is how random molecules managed to organize themselves into complex living organisms. What prompted them to form complex molecular chains that became the basis of life, and what are the underlying principles that govern which molecules became the important cogs in the system? With so many permutations of how molecules can combine, on the face it would seem extremely unlikely that nature would just stumble onto the right combination of molecules to form self-replicating life.

At Michigan State University, Chris Adami thinks he has the answer. A professor of microbiology and molecular genetics, Adami takes computational biology to the next level by using the artificial life software called Avida, which runs self-replicating programs that mimic biology and evolution. Through Avida, which he co-developed in 1993 with his Michigan State colleague Charles Ofria and UC Davis' Titus Brown, Adami is able to test his controversial but potentially revolutionary idea that life can be defined as 'information that self-replicates' and that the selection of useful molecular systems for life is governed by the laws of probability.

Avida operates by creating a virtual world in which programs compete for CPU time and memory access, just like organisms competing for resources in the real world. These virtual lifeforms can self-replicate, but crucially they have copy error programmed into them so that, just like in real life, mutations can be carried over to daughter programs to simulate evolution by natural selection. Because they are self-replicating, mutating computer programs could potentially be very dangerous were they to escape Avida and infect the Internet. As a safety precaution, the virtual world is run on a simulated computer inside a real computer so that the programs appear on the outside merely as data.

Where does the first replicator come from? In Avida the first replicator is purposefully written, but in real life the first biological replicator had to emerge spontaneously from nature, and this is where selectivity comes in. "It turns out that replicators, whether in nature or within Avida, are rare," says Adami, "and the odds are that a random program – or assembly of molecules – will not replicate."

The programs are written in a computer language that contains 26 instructions, analogous to individual monomers in chemistry, labelled as the letters of the alphabet from a to z. Adami uses this system to draw an analogy to the written word. Imagine a bag filled with equal numbers of all the letters of the alphabet. A random drawing of the letters into sequences of varying lengths, called 'linear heteropolymers,' creates strings of instructions into which information is encoded. If these polymers were meant to be 'words,' they would mostly be gibberish, containing a jumble of 'q's and 'z's and other letters without connoting meaning. Similarly, the molecules that were available on early Earth had many different ways to bind together to produce a variety of chemical reactions; the chance of nature generating the right molecular structure to enable self-replication is slim.

The Biased Typewriter

Adami points out though that language is loaded to favor certain letters that crop up more often than others. Seldom are 'q's or 'z's used, but 't's and 'e's and 'a's are common letters in words. Adami suggests that the selection problem can be better understood as the 'biased typewriter' model, in which some molecules and chemical reactions are more likely to occur than others. If the letters in the bag were scrabble tiles, with more of the common letters and fewer of the rarely used letters, then even pulling them out at random would lead to some real words being produced, just by chance.

With his student Thomas LaBar, Adami tested the principle of the biased typewriter in Avida, loading the instructions with those monomers that are useful for self-replication. In a billion random programs made from chains of 'letters' that Avida subsequently produced, Adami found that 27 of them could self-replicate. He used those 27 to create a probability distribution and then kept running the program, finding that the number of self-replicators kept increasing dramatically.

"In other words, what this tells you is that if you have a process that generates these monomers at the right frequency, then you're going to be able to find the self-replicators much faster," says Adami.

Computing the origin of life
How did the first self-replicating polymers, the precursors of life, come to form on the early Earth around four billion years ago? Credit: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Conceptual Image Lab

Just 27 initial self-replicators out of a billion linear heteropolymers doesn't sound like very much, but early Earth was a big place full of opportunity, with all kinds of different environments in which nature could experiment by combining monomers to form useful polymers for life. However, although Adami's theoretical estimates have been born out experimentally by Avida, replicating the process to test the RNA World theory is a different proposition because the amount of information contained within RNA is too great even for the computer to handle. Nevertheless, Adami sees his 'biased typewriter' model as one of the general rules to which Pohorille was referring.

Eric Smith agrees with Adami that the basic idea behind the biased typewriter is on point.

"By biasing the building block inventory, you can drastically change the likelihood of one assembly versus another and we see it in all sorts of places in biology," he says.

When it comes to the importance of information and the relevance of artificial life, Smith has his doubts. "One shouldn't look for a big answer from any one piece of work," he says. Instead, he says, the origin of life isn't just one problem that requires an overarching solution, but an enormous sequence of problems, including the origin of all the metabolic processes as well as self-replication that must each be solved and no one model or computer program can provide the answer. Yet it was once thought that artificial life might have been able to do just that.

"People on both sides—artificial life and origins of life—don't really pursue that much anymore," he says. "There's not much cross-talk between the two."

Andrew Pohorille is also skeptical about Adami's approach, as well as the usefulness of artificial life to origin of life research, suggesting that without some high-level mathematical concept that explains why there is only one set of rules that governs the origin of life and life's processes, whether real or virtual, then the rules of virtual worlds like Avida will not necessarily translate into the real world.

"There may be many rules that lead to these kinds of processes," says Pohorille. "The question is whether any of these rules have anything to do with the rules that operated at the origins of life."

Adami acknowledges that the rules in Avida won't be the same as the geochemical and biochemical rules that operate in real life, but he argues that regardless of the chemistry, the principles of information theory remain.

"It's of course true that we will not find how life evolved on Earth by looking inside a computer," he admits, "But we can test general principles and, once we know these principles, we can go ahead and test those in biochemical systems."

Computational Astrobiology

In the laboratory researchers work with terrestrial life and observe its processes, but on alien worlds life could be very different, operating under different rules that are impossible to test with Earthly life in an experiment. Computational biology and artificial life, however, offer the unique abilities to explore life abstractly by investigating different processes that could exist on other planets with different environments and geochemistry. Could computational biology help astrobiologists describe alien life before we even find it?

NASA scientists certainly think that's feasible, having recently invited Chris Adami to a workshop to discuss biomarkers, where he presented his idea of how to look for life through information and its replication, rather than RNA and proteins. Adami describes this research effort in terms of patterns that are unnatural or in disequilibrium, looking for letters and finding 'e' more common than 'h', as in the Avidian life example. In order to do this the local geochemistry needs to be known fairly well, which is something far beyond out current abilities of exoplanet studies.

Closer to home our knowledge of geochemistry is a little better, or at least can be improved in the near future. Take Europa, for instance. "We're thinking about what evidence for life we should search for there," says Pohorille. The idea is to computationally explore the range of molecules other than proteins or nucleic acids that could perform the same functions as they do on Earth, and figure out what their biosignatures would be on Europa. On a cautionary note, it might be tempting to describe something too extreme using these alternative concepts for life. "It's kind of a dilemma," says Pohorille. "What is enough and what is too much?"

Something might look like life in Avida, but there's a danger of falling into the trap of looking for a pattern that resembles life, but isn't, like confusing the motions of a slinky toy with those of a snake. It's this concern that virtual life in the computer, such as Avidian life, may only be masquerading as representing life that causes so many researchers to be suspicious of its results. "In principle artificial life could help provide alternatives to Earth life, but you've got to figure out what your computer model is an abstraction of, and that's the hard part," says Smith.

Nevertheless, the scientific community as a whole is slowly coming around to the notion that computational biology and chemistry, as well as possibly , could be vital in progressing the field further. Smith, for example, wonders whether our understanding of the chemistry of complex systems needs to take on a cyborg-like quality by integrating a lot more closely with computational research.

Meanwhile, the field needs a new generation of scientists trained in the use and application of computers for theoretical work, something that is forthcoming now that the computational tools are available and scientists are figuring out new and innovative ways to use them.

"When I started doing these computational simulations, almost nobody could see how it could possibly be related to anything remotely interesting to the origins of life community," admits Pohorille, saying he was tolerated by his peers because he was just "one odd guy." Today, however, he says that younger researchers are realizing that theory and experiments have to go hand-in-hand.

If the field of computational biology is truly going to grow, the funding has to also. Currently, NASA is the only agency in the United States funding origin of life research, with some private money coming from the likes of the Simons Foundation and the Templeton Foundation. "Tell me of a university that is looking for theorists specializing in the origin of life," asks Pohorille rhetorically. "I haven't heard of one." Internationally, ELSI in Japan is one of the few institutions hoping to get closer to the origin of life through computational efforts.

As computing power increases, scientists using it will increasingly be able to solve problems about life's processes. Perhaps computational biology will be just one tool among many available to researchers, but its presence will not only help scientists to think of new ways to explore the origins of life, but also to come up with new ways to think about it too. The mystery of life's origins could one day be solved thanks to that modern antithesis of life – the computer.


Explore further

Quantum artificial life created on the cloud

This story is republished courtesy of NASA's Astrobiology Magazine. Explore the Earth and beyond at www.astrobio.net .

Citation: Computing the origin of life (2018, December 14) retrieved 18 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-12-life.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
317 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Dec 15, 2018
Interesting workshop discussion, but it only illustrates how fragmented the cross discipline area is. Biologists would disagree with all that since it is fairly certain that the universal ancestor lineage had evolved a WL metabolism (pace Smith), evolved in alkaline hydrothermal vents (pace Adami) and from an RNA based half alive state (pace Pohorille).

In fact, since such vents can naturally (by thermal cycling) replicate strands of suitable length to evolve self replication during the transition from biochemical producing geosystem to half alive reproducing biosystem, there seem to be no likelihood problem involved. Those vents are - to the best of our current knowledge - our geological sister (though not exactly a lineage forming one).

Dec 15, 2018
RNA world is plausible, so long as there is a way to provide a steady supply of nucleotides. These consist of an amino-acid, a sugar, and a phosphate group, all of which require different conditions for synthesis. In other words, metabolism had to precede any macromolecule replication. You don't need a computer to tell you this, just some basic organic chemistry.

Dec 15, 2018
Good luck all of you "Origin of life" seekers - none of you will ever find it.

Dec 15, 2018
RNA world is plausible, so long as there is a way to provide a steady supply of nucleotides. These consist of an amino-acid, a sugar, and a phosphate group, all of which require different conditions for synthesis.

"different conditions"... ?
In other words, metabolism had to precede any macromolecule replication.

Please explain what you mean by "metabolism"...

Dec 15, 2018
Obviously, Metabolism is a prerequisite to any replication, for without a metabolism, there is no programme/blueprint/methodology for a replication to follow.
Even in the presence of all required chemicals/materials, without the instructions, it all just sits there with nothing happening.

Dec 15, 2018
IOW, it is Matter that has never lived, so that you can't even call it "dead". The term "dead" refers to something or someone who was once a living cell, entity, person, etc. Has a working metabolism, inhaling and exhaling, body fluids moving along, heart beat.
Without these and other life processes - it is not alive.
Therefore, a group of molecules, along with water, heat, atmosphere, etc will not produce a living life form without the instructions that GIVE it Life.
Somehow, I tend to believe that the Life-giving Instruction that were allotted to Earth have been used up and no more is forthcoming to THIS planet.
But that is only MY opinion, otherwise NEW LIFE should have been found with new Metabolism/Instructions from a new Programme/blueprint/methodology within a new cell-type. It is the CELL that is the progenitor of the later-evolved life forms. This is why a living body is composed of Trillions of cells - each cell having its own metabolism/RNA/DNA/chromosome, etc.

Dec 15, 2018
SEU: "Somehow, I tend to believe....."

Yeah, thanks for the science.

Dec 16, 2018
@Jayarava, you should read At Home In the Universe by Stuart Kauffman.

Dec 16, 2018
Responses to some comments:

"These consist of an amino-acid, a sugar, and a phosphate group, all of which require different conditions for synthesis."

You mean nucleic acid, sugar, and a phosphate.

Let me first note that the first one pot nucleic acid chemistries has been demonstrated [you can google it].

But again alkaline hydrothermal vents had all the different conditions, within and without, in the Hadean. Today nucleic acids derives from amino acid metabolism, and amino acids were common due to Miller synthesis. Sugars, including the pentoses in nucleotides, are non-enzymatically synthesized in an anoxic Fe(II) containing ocean from the 3C hydrocarbons that minerals can synthesize from CO2 by the exact same pathways that cells use even today, so they would be produced by non-equilibrium synthesis in the vent pore system. And abiotic phosphates can be synthesized by minerals and met the pentoses in the pores, the same pores that can do the replication.

Dec 16, 2018
- ctd -

"none of you will ever find it."

Are you trying to contradict my claim that we *have* possibly found it? Maybe you need the reference; note that the paper bind the entire universal ancestor lineage to the vents, meaning it covers the emergence: https://www.natur...l2016116 .

Dec 16, 2018
- ctd -

"without a metabolism, there is no programme/blueprint/methodology for a replication to follow."

The genome is not a blueprint, since genes does not decide the placement of proteins. It is more like a recipe program during development and homeostasis.

And the claim gets it backwards, since in modern cells enzymes encodes metabolism. However, as I related earlier, many or possibly all of the cell core metabolism has been found to develop naturally in Hadean conditions [I omit references for now, since they are several]. And similarly RNA strand replication is a natural product in Hadean, meaning the task to coupling genes to the environment such as producing key enzymes including those for self replication can happen for the usual reason (fitness).

Dec 16, 2018
- ctd -

"it is not alive."

Biologists are way ahead of you; note how the reference I linked to (or possibly its sister publications, I cannot remember) describes the half closed last universal common ancestor cell system as _half alive_.

We observe the gradual transition in parallel with the gradual evolution of the genome that have you so concerned that this - which we see happen - somehow cannot happen.

Of course it could, we have long seen that the early planet was heat sterilized and that it now has life, hence we have seen that it - life emergence - happened naturally. It is the details that we are filling in.

I, for one, welcome our phylogenetic sister geology, alkaline hydrothermal vents*!

* Note that these in turn naturally occur on terrestrial planets (Mars have them, say). Those planets are mainly iron, magnesium, silicon and oxygen. The iron core leaves the Mg/Fe silicate crust for serpentinization, which makes these organics producing vents.

Dec 16, 2018
What must also be obvious is that life has started many many times, in various way been able to form a working metabolism out of the surrounding chemical mix, such that it can grow larger and possibly die, yet not having devised a way to replicate itself.

Yes, this is one of those 'definitions of life' but what if something Started living, continually grew up to or beyond certain size, and then never died. We have some huge, fatty, single cell organisms as large as at least 1 ft across and I have heard of deep sea gigantic versions up to 8 ft across.

Who knows if they actually replicate or just get bigger. Is their genome too spread out to be partitioned and replicated for division? Does 'replication' for them happen by accident if they get squished in half or broken up by other means, if it does not kill them.

We also find life in EXTREME places here on Earth, such that many of the places we have found in our solar system SHOULD support SOME forms of life.

Dec 16, 2018
Spiegelman's Monster says that the RNA world could never lead to a living organism. Also there isn't any way for stochastic processes to produce codes and living organisms are rules by codes.

Dec 16, 2018
joe, you are falling into the same logic trap as seu.
Based upon the rules you both insist inflicting upon an innocent deity.
Oops, I meant Universe.

By your logic, water cannot phase into either ice or vapor. Because there is no regulatory blueprint to tell water how to heat or cool. No set of instructions to follow.

Water phasing is innate to it's structure as an elemental bonding. The only external causation is the addition or deprivation of heat from the environment.

joe, I am not sure if you want to join with seu in making hysterical demands upon the deity? I wouldn't recommend it.

It is important to comprehend the vast span of Time that evolved inert materials into chemical combinations into complex organic chemical reactions into collective bio-chemical activity into the first self-replicating lifeforms. Billions of years, just to get started. Occurring trillions of times a day.

& no one had to wave a magic wand to trigger the process.

Dec 16, 2018
Spiegelman's Monster says that the RNA world could never lead to a living organism.
Really? How, exactly, does that work?

Dec 16, 2018
Da Schneib-

It works exactly as described in all of the textbooks. Really. Nature tends towards the simplest solution. And with respect to replication the more streamlined = faster replication and with it domination of the resources. The original strand of 4500 nucleotide bases was pared down to 218 bases in just 74 generations.

Dec 16, 2018
rrwillisj-

If you are talking to me then what you say is gibberish. The nucleotide codons represent their amino acid counterparts and do NOT chemically transform into them. The genetic code is a code in the same sense as Morse code. It is an arbitrary designation- meaning it is not determined by physics or chemistry.

And throwing time at the problem just exposes your desperation. It isn't a very science thing to do.

Without a designing intelligence all you have is magic.

Dec 16, 2018
Right, it's in all the textbooks and none of the molecular biologists read them. And nobody's heard of it even though it's been around since 1964.

And you didn't explain how it works, you only explained what the Wikipedia article says.

From your response to @rrwillsj it's apparent you're a creationist. So that's the end of that.

Dec 16, 2018
Right, it's in all the textbooks and none of the molecular biologists read them. And nobody's heard of it even though it's been around since 1964.


I explained that nature tends towards the simplest solution. And in this case the solution was faster replication which meant streamlining the existing structure.

It worked by first intelligently designing a replicating RNA and giving it the resources to replicate. Nature proceeded to get rid of the waste. That is what it does.

From your response to @rrwillsj it's apparent you're a creationist. So that's the end of that.


Wow. So only creationists understand the genetic code? Really?

Read what Larry Moran has to say: https://sandwalk....ode.html

Or not. The genetic code is a real code I which RNA codons represent their amino acid counterparts. They do not become them. High school biology, gentlemen

Dec 16, 2018
Without a designing intelligence all you have is magic.
That's intelligent design creationism in a nutshell.

We done here?

Dec 16, 2018
Oh and noticed you left out how later experiments showed that not even a single viral RNA molecule was required; forms similar to Spiegelman's Monster developed given just the replicase and the RNA bases. Gee, evolution of something that replicates from something that didn't.

Now, you were saying?

Dec 16, 2018
@joep
It worked by first intelligently designing a replicating RNA and giving it the resources to replicate
what "intelligently" designed a replicating RNA?
Wow. So only creationists understand the genetic code? Really?
no
Read what Larry Moran has to say: https://sandwalk....ode.html
a blog is nothing more than the opinion of the person writing the blog unless there is validation in the form of evidence (like: studies that are validated)

a better link would be one that goes to a study, better still one that goes to a validated study

the link in question has absolutely zero references to any studies that validate the claims, therefore it can't be validated by the average reader, and as such is at best an untested claim
http://www.auburn...ion.html


Dec 16, 2018
There is nothing wrong with Creationist Methodology. Life comes from Life - not from a swaying heap of chemicals that have come together simply by accident inside a warm vent in shallow waters. Those chemicals - nucleotides, amino acids, etc. were not equipped with the "blueprint" at the beginning to force Life and motility into the strands of chemicals in the soup - not until those chemicals were ENDOWED with the power from the Instructor to pass their unique properties INTO the "bodies" of the other chemicals within the group. IOW, each "strand" had to cross/enter INTO all the other strands in order to create a "MATRIX" at the behest/command of the Instructor/Creator. It was done at the Quantum level - protons to electrons, etc.
The MATRIX was then endowed with the ability to split/divide in even/equal proportions to create a daughter cell - thus there were two - and then four - and eight - Fibonacci Sequence, and it was no accident, but created ON PURPOSE by the Creator.

Dec 16, 2018
There is nothing wrong with Creationist Methodology
yes, there is
for starters, it's a religious belief
secondly, "Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation", as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes" - https://en.wikipe...ationism

see also: OED

by definition it *requires* the acceptance of a belief that is purely one of faith (= no evidence)
as such, it's not replicable, nor is it validatable, therefore it's pseudoscience masquerading as a legitimate science in an effort to justify yet another aspect of religion
Life comes from Life
this cannot be possible in a natural universe, nor even with a universe containing a deity (as that would specifically require "turtles all the way down")


Dec 16, 2018
And with regards to a "validated study", there didn't appear to be a "study" of the proceedings in the creation of the first living cell, as it happened several millions of years ago - where no human was present to study the process.
And as the process itself has never been replicated since that first time, whether within or without the lab, there has been no study except for the attempt(s) being on the record.
If you wish to perform a "validated study" of the original process, you would have to see about a several of Time up to the very second that the first living cell was created - and study it.
Otherwise, you can wait and wait for the possibility of it happening again - which it will not.

Dec 16, 2018
@eggy the creationist fanatic
there didn't appear to be a "study" of the proceedings in the creation of the first living cell, as it happened several millions of years ago
God of the Gaps argument
just because it doesn't exist now doesn't mean it won't exist in the future
where no human was present to study the process
...so, because no other human was present to study the process of a crime scene, does that mean no one was there to do a crime?

we know what we know because we take small steps and validate the basics
it's part of the scientific method, though not part of religion at all
And as the process itself has never been replicated
god of the gaps argument
If you wish to perform a "validated study" of the original process, you would have to see about a several of Time up to the very second that the first living cell was created - and study it
bullsh*t
see: forensic science
which it will not
ASSumption ignoring all of science to date

Dec 16, 2018
That is what I've said already. It cannot be replicated nor can it be validated, as it only happened once in the shallow waters millions of yers ago.
BTW, tbgl's allusion to "half-alive" is pure bull dingies, as nothing can be only "half" alive.'
Everyone has a belief system. You have yours and I have mine. You cannot validate yours and, mine happened long ago, so it is impossible to validate also.
So keep believing as you will, it is none of my concern. But I will present my views here in any case...thanks

Dec 16, 2018
@eggy the creationist fanatic
It cannot be replicated nor can it be validated, as it only happened once in the shallow waters millions of yers ago
[sic]
nonsensical argument

it's like saying we can't replicate orbits around the planet because our satellites weren't created millions of years ago like our moon
as nothing can be only "half" alive.'
which definition of life are you using?
Everyone has a belief system... You cannot validate yours
wrong
I follow the scientific method
by it's very definition it requires validation before acceptance as a fact
But I will present my views here in any case...thanks
just so long as you know that you will receive criticism from the scientifically literate posters on this site which poke holes in your religious belief

belief is for religion, not science

Dec 16, 2018
There is nothing wrong with Creationist Methodology
"yes, there is
for starters, it's a religious belief
secondly, "Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation", as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes" -

Actually, and I have said this before which you ignored - there is nothing "religious" about the belief in Creationism and the Creator. The creation of the first living cell occurred long before religions were made up by men. So that believe in a Creator and His creations surpasses all religions and your twisted logic of requiring validation for something that happened so long ago.
As YOU would not be here today, and your birth would not have occurred at all, had it not been for that creation of a cell in the waters, and yet you exhibit your stupidity as though you have greater knowledge than the One who was responsible for all of Life.

Shame on you.

Dec 16, 2018
I am not going to continue trying to refute your asinine arguments since I know and understand your future and that of your ungodly Soul.
Keep believing as you do and continue to berate your Maker as you do. You will suffer the consequences of your thoughts, words and deeds, and that needs no validation.
Nor does it have anything to do with any religion that you wish to talk about - of which there hundreds.

Dec 16, 2018
@idiot eggy the creationist fundie fanatic
there is nothing "religious" about the belief in Creationism and the Creator
that very statement proves you wrong

it *requires* the belief in a creator, which has no evidence

so long as the answer is "god did it" then it's not science and it's purely a religion, which has *no requirement* for facts
So that believe in a Creator and His creations surpasses all religions
so, which religion takes precedence? which god is the real one?
yet you exhibit your stupidity as though you have greater knowledge than the One who was responsible for all of Life
I do
https://strangeno...rus1.jpg

Shame on you
so, if the creator gave you life and a brain, why aren't you actually using it to provide the evidence of said creator that can be validated?

the shame is on you, not I

PS - if you're x-tian, then you're also acting against the biblical word of your creator (JER 31)
Shame, shame, shame

Dec 16, 2018
@idiot fanatical creationist nutter TROLL
I am not going to continue trying to refute your asinine arguments
you can't refute logic and evidence with belief
since I know and understand your future and that of your ungodly Soul
threats still won't work on me - besides, you've still not made good on the other death threats!
adding more to the heap makes you look like a shallow, ineffective spineless idiot
continue to berate your Maker as you do
no
I'm berating your delusional maker - who apparently can't even prove it exists! LMFAO
any religion that you wish to talk about - of which there hundreds
because you're illiterate, I'll type this slow so you can have your Mom read it
1- no one wants to hear about your religion
2- my exact point is that there are hundreds of thousands of religions and factions, so citing a creator of just one of those idiotic religions is nonsensical as it just proves you're an idiot and don't know WTF the scientific method is

Dec 16, 2018
Your silly ad hominem prove what a cretin you are. And your continuation of your apparent lack of comprehension wrt what I have said about religions show that you are of a childish mind, possibly suffering from cognitive dissonance.
You have proven that you are NOT a believer in the "scientific method", since you have shown time again that you are unable to accept alternative logic as a possibility - and choose instead to rule it out, as though you are knowledgable about that which you have no knowledge about whatsoever.
As far as threatening you and your measly life - if you had bothered to read what I had said more thoroughly, you might have noticed that it is your Soul that we will take, not your flesh. There are others who will take your flesh - which is filth.

Now you can copy and paste my words all you want - but it is YOU that is the liar, as well as illiterate since you did not read and understand what I had said to you.

Dec 16, 2018
ROFLOL You have never even once offered logic nor evidence, but you certainly do insist on verifiable and validated evidence from those who comment in this site to say that they have been working on a scientific project. You DEMAND that they tell YOU all about their project and you DEMAND that they validate it to YOU. Just who do you thing you are? You are a nobody. A complete zero who thinks you are something special - in a lousy website. ROFLOL
You have no shame nor a moral compass.
It is apparent that you are also a victim of demonic possession, as is Otto, else you would not be vomiting your challenges to commenters as though you had every right to do so. Which you don't - but they don't know that, do they.

Dec 16, 2018
ROFLOL I see that DaSchiithead is rating you 5s. Birds of a feather and all that.
The others will come to stop your heart - then we will come to take your unholy Soul to where it belongs after the filth that is your flesh begins to rot.

Dec 16, 2018
Your silly ad hominem prove what a cretin you are
so, what about your "Captain Chickenshit" and "Captain Shitlips" comments?
that makes you the cretin by your own definition!

also - your silly deranged delusional beliefs without evidence prove what a cretin you are
your apparent lack of comprehension wrt what I have said about religions show
1- it doesn't matter what you said
because
2- religion is irrelevant and subjective. it's not science
You have proven that you are NOT a believer in the "scientific method"
so, because I don't accept your delusional rantings without evidence and validation then I don't accept the scientific method?
you do realise that you're being nonsensical, right?
unable to accept alternative logic as a possibility
wrong - I don't accept stupidity or your beliefs, and that is very different

... and you've never once been able to provide evidence that is valid, let alone validated

2Bcont'd

Dec 16, 2018
@idiot f*ckwad eggy on the face cont'd
As far as threatening you and your measly life - if you had bothered to read what I had said more thoroughly, you might have noticed that it is your Soul that we will take, not your flesh
your exact words: "And when we come for you, you will learn fear, I assure you"
the first line of that post: "Wrong - I have never been religious..."

by definition, that is a direct physical death threat, which you followed up by threatening my grandchildren
We will be sure to withdraw all protection from your grandkids
so, that makes you the lying idiot cretin in this conversation
but it is YOU that is the liar, as well as illiterate
well, when I copy your words verbatim and they make a statement that directly contradicts your claims, it makes you the liar

nice try, delusional one
It is apparent that you are also a victim of demonic possession
prove it
should be easy for you

don't use religion, though...

Dec 16, 2018
@idiot f*ckwad eggy on the face cont'd
I see that DaSchiithead is rating you 5s
thank you for proving, once again, that you're illiterate!
DaS doesn't rate me at all
LMFAO
The others will come to stop your heart
Another death threat? LMFAO
you're just digging your hole as deep as you can, eh?

you do know that this just proved my arguments about you, right?
LOL
YOU. Just who do you thing you are?
[sic]
well... I can definitely spell better than you!
LOL
it's free: http://grammarly.com/

You have never even once offered logic nor evidence
wrong again

here is evidence of your compulsive lying and threats: https://phys.org/...lls.html

https://phys.org/...ath.html

also note: there doesn't have to be evidence to refute a subjective belief like religion
logic states only the reciprocal argument is required
https://www.lawmi...e-claim/

Dec 16, 2018
@S_E_U.
Life comes from Life - not from a swaying heap of chemicals that have come together simply by accident inside a warm vent in shallow waters....
Perhaps you should read up on 'Chaos Theory/Dynamics' (as confirmed via experiments with self-similar and non-linear-interacting systems). Then read up on all sorts of naturally formed 'bubble' and 'vesicle' structures in nature (including Carbon-Carbon Nastructures like Buckeyballs/Buckeytubes etc). Then read up on 'natural 'contaminants/inclusions' into all sorts of natural materials (including natural bubbles, buckeyballs, vesicles etc) which give radically new/more expansive probabilities for further more complex/dense 'evolutionary' inclusions, re-arrangements etc naturally over epochs, across innumerable reactions/interactions all over the universal phenomena space/constituents. In short, such things effectively created their OWN 'blueprints' as they went along. Until here and there, now and then...Voila!

Cheers.

Dec 17, 2018
And a jolly Hi to you too, RC :)

All those that you mentioned are, of course, plausible and probable, having come long after. However, I was referring to the FIRST living cell that was CREATED, from which all other living daughter cells divided and multiplied, thence evolving and changing form, size, genetics, etc. - all the way up to the present.
Each generation changed a little at a time or needed to change fast, all according to the requirements and conditions of the time and place.
But it is easier to go with the flow and adhere to the science that denies the real events of the beginning of Life on Earth, which is also a denial of the existence of a spiritual Creator who is not of the same "substance" as Matter/Mass from which gases, liquids, and solids are made. The Earth had already existed and was filled with water, which is why the first living cell was created IN the water since there was no dry land at the time.
Believe as you wish, my friend. It's your choice.

Dec 17, 2018
Actually, and I have said this before which you ignored - there is nothing "religious" about the belief in Creationism and the Creator. The creation of the first living cell occurred long before religions were made up by men
Weve often suspected that the trolltrain known at different times as pirouette/russkiye/obamasocks et al is the kind of sick troll who makes up outrageous bullshit just to push off legitimate posters.

'God exists because he created life before people existed' is an obvious example. Nobody's that stupid except on purpose.

Go back to farming sweet sorghum with your 900 ft tall probated, glassy-headed martian friends you turd.

Dec 17, 2018
"PUSSYTARD PRETENDING TO BE A BLACK GUY..."As a Black man I find it discriminatory and incredibly stupid"...EXCUSE ME, A BLACK PSYCHIATRIST (as racistblackguy)..."I am employed as a Psychiatrist"..."

"The evil person's Soul doesn't experience the FIRES of hell immediately. No, it has to wait a very long time until the Sun goes supernova and envelopes and draws the Earth into it"

"The cell had all its ducks in a row, so to speak, and God only had to use His Energy to start up the tiny "machine" so that it could become self-aware with EM coursing through its neurons" "How do you know that cell didn't come equipped with everything. It was created by God, not you" [uh because neurons are cells you moron]"

"THINKS DRY ICE CAN CURE MELTDOWNS: "The dry ice will not need to be right in with the rods, but just above to cool them."
Cont>

Dec 17, 2018
Jeez even reposting previous pussytard bullshit will screw up a thread. How's THAT work you moron?

Dec 17, 2018
Without a designing intelligence all you have is magic.
That's intelligent design creationism in a nutshell.

We done here?

Intelligent Design creationism only exists in the minds of the willfully ignorant,

Yes, you are done and clearly you are ignorant

Dec 17, 2018
So you don't have an answer about the experiments you left out.

I figured not. Cretinists usually don't.

Dec 17, 2018
Oh and noticed you left out how later experiments showed that not even a single viral RNA molecule was required; forms similar to Spiegelman's Monster developed given just the replicase and the RNA bases. Gee, evolution of something that replicates from something that didn't.

Now, you were saying?

What are you talking about? Produce the evidence or shut up.

Dec 17, 2018
So you don't have an answer about the experiments you left out.

I figured not. Cretinists usually don't.

I didn't leave out anything that is contrary to what I have already posted. Clearly you are just a bluffing fool.

Dec 17, 2018
So you don't have an answer about the experiments you left out.

I figured not. Cretinists usually don't.

I didn't leave out anything that is contrary to what I have already posted. Clearly you are just a bluffing fool.

Dec 17, 2018
Manfred Eigen, a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, performed experiments in 1974 as described. Here's a link to the paper: https://www.natur...321089a0

...we show that Qβ replicase condenses nucleoside triphosphates to more or less random oligonucleotides.


Oh, and I see you got onto this from Dumbski. I suppose I should have known.

Meanwhile, there's also another study using this same replicase, and Spiegelman is specifically mentioned in the abstract: https://link.spri...01326129

So, cretinist, the next time you think to come on a science board with your crap about the super magic sky daddy from the Babble by the drunken stone age sheep herders, think twice. Because you don't know your azz from a hole in the ground. It might be a good idea if you kept up with recent developments, you know, like over the last 50 years or so.

Dec 17, 2018
Manfred Eigen, a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, performed experiments in 1974 as described. Here's a link to the paper: https://www.natur...321089a0

So, cretinist, the next time you think to come on a science board with your crap about the super magic sky daddy from the Babble by the drunken stone age sheep herders, think twice. Because you don't know your azz from a hole in the ground. It might be a good idea if you kept up with recent developments, you know, like over the last 50 years or so.

You don't know anything about science. The links in no way support any claim of the RNA world. Heck you are ignorant of the genetic code. You know less about biology than middle school students

Dec 17, 2018
Again, there is no way to go from the imaginary RNA world to an organism that uses codes. And without codes there wouldn't be any living organisms.There is no way to test the claim that can even happen.

Only clueless people think that life arose via stochastic processes.

Dec 17, 2018
Earth to Captain Stumpy- Everything Larry Moran said on his blog is validated by what is said in his biochemistry textbooks, biology textbooks and peer-reviewed journals.

Your ignorance of science and the genetic code is not an argument.

Dec 17, 2018
You made a specific claim. That claim is rejected by the evidence I presented. Now you're just flailing, and evidently lying for jebus.

As for the genetic code, it's combinations of four codons in groups of three, which specify to the ribosomes what amino acid to grab next to add to a growing protein, or to "cut" or end translation of RNA to a polypeptide. I see no reason to bother giving the translation table from RNA to polypeptide, since you don't appear to know how that works either.

Since your thesis is disproved, looks like your conclusion is too.

Buzz off, @JoeMama. Welcome to my ignore list. You can't possibly have anything to say that's meaningful on this subject after this flaming debacle.

Dec 17, 2018
You made a specific claim. That claim is rejected by the evidence I presented. Now you're just flailing, and evidently lying for jebus.

As for the genetic code, it's combinations of four codons in groups of three, which specify to the ribosomes what amino acid to grab next to add to a growing protein, or to "cut" or end translation of RNA to a polypeptide. I see no reason to bother giving the translation table from RNA to polypeptide, since you don't appear to know how that works either.

Since your thesis is disproved, looks like your conclusion is too.

Buzz off, @JoeMama. Welcome to my ignore list. You can't possibly have anything to say that's meaningful on this subject after this flaming debacle.


No, my claim was not rejected by the evidence you presented. Clearly you are just an ignorant fool.

The genetic code exists and your position doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing it.

Dec 17, 2018
Manfred Eigen, a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, performed experiments in 1974 as described. Here's a link to the paper: https://www.natur...321089a0

So, cretinist, the next time you think to come on a science board with your crap about the super magic sky daddy from the Babble by the drunken stone age sheep herders, think twice. Because you don't know your azz from a hole in the ground. It might be a good idea if you kept up with recent developments, you know, like over the last 50 years or so.


"M. Sumper and R. Luce of Eigen's laboratory demonstrated that a mixture containing no RNA at all but only RNA bases and Qβ replicase can, under the right conditions, spontaneously generate self-replicating RNA which evolves into a form similar to Spiegelman's Monster.[4] Note that despite the term self-replicating RNA, the RNA did not replicate itself: the Qβ enzyme is what made the RNA molecules."

That confirms what I claimed.

Dec 17, 2018
@joeP
Earth to Captain Stumpy- Everything Larry Moran said on his blog is validated by what is said in his biochemistry textbooks, biology textbooks and peer-reviewed journals
then post links to the information rather than to a blog

look - you made the claim, but you linked to a blog that has no references to validate his claims, so the burden of proof is still on you to validate the claims

That is how all science works (see link above)
Your ignorance of science and the genetic code is not an argument
your inability to validate your beliefs is not an argument

You made a claim that is only validated if the reader accepts you and your blog link as an authority - there are no references, no studies, and no means to validate other than accepting your claim with his

that would be like saying: because cantdrive and velikovski state the grand canyon was carved by lightning then it must be true; there's a link to a blog saying it is

Dec 17, 2018
Earth to Captain Stumpy- Anyone with a high school education in biology would have known what Larry Moran said is true.

You are clearly an ignorant and clueless person.

Dec 17, 2018
Again, there is no way to go from the imaginary RNA world to an organism that uses codes.

Why not?
The RNA world theory is that the first RNA codes to evolve were for RNA-based ribozymes and related structures but independently of DNA and modern proteins which came later.

https://en.wikipe...NA_world

So far there has been no good argument against this theory I have come across and it seems perfectly plausible and valid.


Dec 17, 2018
Again, there is no way to go from the imaginary RNA world to an organism that uses codes.

Why not?
The RNA world theory is that the first RNA codes to evolve were for RNA-based ribozymes and related structures but independently of DNA and modern proteins which came later.

https://en.wikipe...NA_world

So far there has been no good argument against this theory I have come across and it seems perfectly plausible and valid.


Clearly you do not know what a code is. And there still isn't any evidence for a RNA world. It is imaginary.

Dec 17, 2018
@joeP
You are clearly an ignorant and clueless person
then why can't you actually provide validation for your claims?

so far you provided argument from authority by linking a blog that has *zero* references, and your excuse for those lack of references is, and I quote
Anyone with a high school education in biology would have known what Larry Moran said is true
until you can validate the claim with reference material that does not require the reader to accept an authority then the person who is ignorant and clueless is you

you made a claim, the burden of proof is upon you to establish it's credibility
It's not our place to do your homework

Clearly, you do not know what science or the scientific method is if your entire argument is linking an opinion and then using ad hominem attacks to justify your claims

Dec 17, 2018
@Captain Stumpy-

Again your ignorance is not an argument. Anyone with any background in biology knows what I claimed is 100% factual. It is not my place to educate you.

https://www.scien...code.htm

http://hyperphysi...ode.html

Obviously you are just a willfully ignorant jerk who doesn't know anything about science.

Dec 17, 2018
@joeP
Again your ignorance is not an argument
neither is yours
Anyone with any background in biology knows what I claimed is 100% factual
then why can't you prove it with supporting evidence?
It is not my place to educate you
no, it's not
it *is* your place to validate your claims with reference material though, otherwise, it's untested claims at best, but more probably an opinion

Obviously, you are just a willfully ignorant jerk who doesn't know anything about science or how the scientific method works.
https://www.scien...code.htm
better, but only a reference defining what the genetic code is
http://hyperphysi...ode.html
good biology links, but does it actually validate your claim that I quoted? let me re-quote it
what "intelligently" designed a replicating RNA?
where is that intelligently designed evidence?

still waiting

ad hominem to follow in 3...
2...
1...

Dec 17, 2018
@Captain Stumpy-

Everything I have claimed is supported by every scientific paper and textbook on the subject of the genetic code.

The replicating RNA in the context of the experiment was done by Dr. Spiegelman.

No one has ever observed stochastic processes produce self-replicating RNA's

Dec 17, 2018
segue & joe. Since you insist that your belief is the equivalent of knowledge.

Your chain of irrational logic begs the question. If Life & intelligent life are pre-determined, pre-designed, pre-designated by an original creator intelligence?

Who the hell? What the hell! Designed the designer? Created the creator?

The incompetent schlub bungled the job so badly. That we wound up in this meshugge mess of a chaotic universe?

I think we should demand our deposit back!

Dec 17, 2018
@joeP
Everything I have claimed is supported by every scientific paper and textbook on the subject of the genetic code
then, by all means, show me "what "intelligently" designed a replicating RNA?"

.

that was my original question to you and you've avoided answering it


Dec 17, 2018
@Captain Stumpy-

Your first response to me contained a lot of crap that required an answer. The answer to your question should have been obvious- the RNA was engineered by humans in the lab that carried out the experiment.

Dec 17, 2018
@rrwillsj-

Do you have an argument? Or is raw spewage the best you have?

Science goes one step at a time. We have what we can observe, touch and test.

If your position had something beyond morons like yourself then we wouldn't even be discussing Intelligent Design.

Dec 17, 2018
@joeP
Your first response to me contained a lot of crap that required an answer
and the very first thing I asked was
what "intelligently" designed a replicating RNA?
so why didn't you answer it first?
why the BS when you are clearly in the wrong above?

in point of fact, my first post has one question, one statement of fact answer to your question quoted, and explanations of your logical fallacy argument from authority with my supporting evidence

this prompted your irrational response

if you're going to fly off at every poster because you don't like being challenged, you're in the wrong place, especially considering there are posters here who know their stuff (like antialias_physorg, Torbjorn, runrig, maggnus, zz5555, Ira, DaS, thermodynamics and a few others)

so when you pop off with random "read this blog" crap while not actually providing validated references and refusing to answer questions, you mark yourself as the idiot you claim others to be

Dec 17, 2018
@Captain Stumpy-

The answer to your question should have been obvious. So obvious that only a two year old would even ask it. And I am in the right place as the knowledgeable people would never have challenged me on the genetic code nor would they have asked who designed the RNA replicator.

Dec 17, 2018
@joeP
The answer to your question should have been obvious
really? to whom?
where was it spelt out in context in the quoted post?
So obvious that only a two year old would even ask it
it's also obvious to any semi-literate person that a claim without references is belief, not fact, and that a post to a blog is like saying that because you can find information on the internet it must be then true
IOW - you're wrong. still
nor would they have asked who designed the RNA replicator
and yet, above, you have people challenging you or asking you questions

Da Schneib has proven to be scientifically literate, and you've not answered him with anything but ad hominem and bullsh*t stalling tactics like above with me

that is demonstrative of you being a trolling crackpot seeking attention for idiocy and attempting to bait and inflame conversation, like eggy

thank you for validating that you're just here to troll


Dec 17, 2018
@Captain Stumpy-

You are the troll here. Everything I said and everything that Larry Moran said about the genetic code is old news and supported by the scientific literature. You would have to be almost completely ignorant of biology to question what was said about the genetic code.


Dec 17, 2018
@joePP
You are the troll here
so, because I ask a question and you flip out, and you don't know d*ck about the scientific method or validating your claims, I'm the troll?
LMFAO
what colour is the f*ckign sky in your world?

I asked you a question so you could clarify and I could determine if you were spouting creationist crap or making another point

also, you don't know dick about actually supporting your claims, which can be important for some readers here, like the layman or teenager looking for answers, hence my additional comment in my initial post

the rest is all your own delusional troll crap because you felt attacked
You would have to be almost completely ignorant
you keep using that same bullsh*t attack

if you're so correct, why can't you substantiate your claims with references?
(you know, actual science instead of hand-waving and blaming others!)

is it because you're full of sh*t?
or just a liar?
or maybe a fanatical creationist like eggy?
All?

Dec 17, 2018
@Captain Stumpy-

You are the troll here. Everything I said and everything that Larry Moran said about the genetic code is old news and supported by the scientific literature. You would have to be almost completely ignorant of biology to question what was said about the genetic code.

says JoePizza

Hi JoeP
Too bad that you had to undergo the disgusting behaviour from a NONSCIENTIST that is Captain Stumpetydumpty and his cohort/loverboy, DaSchniebo. DaSchnippo is only slightly more well-versed in science than CaptainChickenshiit - but together, along with a few others like Otto and his sox - they have proven time and again that they have a belief that they OWN this public science site, and have the lawful ability to determine WHO will be allowed to make their comments. The former alleged firetruck captain demands from anyone who has an idea for a science project/research that they submit their validated evidence to HIM - a nonscientist.
You have no such obligation.

Dec 17, 2018
@JoePizza

Notice when CaptainChickenshiit says this:

"I asked you a question so you could clarify and I could determine if you were spouting creationist crap or making another point"

Chickenshiit DEMANDS that YOU clarity so that HE/IT could DETERMINE blab blab blab and blab.
The former firefruck captain has NO VALID SCIENTIFIC CREDENTIALS to DEMAND ANY validated evidence from anyone who uses this science website to bring their ideas/projects/work to be shared with other possible science scholars in these forums. If YOU wish for someone to help you to validate your ideas/projects/work and to help you with possible valid ideas of their own, then it is up to YOU to make that connection with them. No DEMANDS - otherwise it is easy to tell that the one who demands has an ulterior motive for making such demands.
Chickenshiit does this all the time - especially to unwary new people.
This demon is soooo predictable. LOL

Dec 17, 2018
Why is it that cretinists are always trolls?

Dec 17, 2018
why? a paying job somebody has to do it. otherwise.they would have to return to their ancestral profession of honey-bucket carrier. the stuporstitious really have no aptitude or intellectual capacity for better.

Dec 17, 2018
Why is it that cretinists are always trolls?
says Da Schnotnose

Good question - why are you? Why -- even rrwilliejoe has been curious to know why you like to troll people. Isn't that right, williejoe?
I agree about the stuporstitious like DaSchnotnose who like to troll people to see what they are saying about him. He can be found hovering over each forum to catch anyone mentioning his name.
Loneliness and a craving for attention does that, I hear.
It is possible that DaS lives alone - just like SpookyOtto the pussyturd, who hates women and girls.

Dec 17, 2018
I think it's because they think they're smarter than everyone else and have contempt in their hearts.

Dec 18, 2018
Does this make the mindset of the YECs and other religious fanatics clear to everyone? They are psychotics. They have been driven insane by conflict between the things they are socially forced to believe and the real world.

Dec 18, 2018
@Captain Stumpy-

You are an ignorant troll. Clearly you don't know anything about science. Anyone with any knowledge in biology knows that my claims are supported by the scientific literature. Your continued willful ignorance is not an argument, moron.

Dec 18, 2018
Why is it that evos are always dishonest cowards who couldn't support the claims of their position if their lives depended on it? Why are evos always anti-science and anti-reason?

Dec 18, 2018
The mystery of life's origins could one day be solved thanks to that modern antithesis of life – the computer.


The solution is that life was Intelligently Designed.

Dec 18, 2018
The solution is that life was Intelligently Designed
Perhaps. But it wasnt designed by the god of abraham because that god doesnt exist.

"Tel Aviv Univ archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog wrote in the Haaretz newspaper:

"This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai."
Cont>

Dec 18, 2018
@theghost:
Perhaps. But it wasnt designed by the god of abraham because that god doesnt exist.


That is your unsupportable opinion, anyway

Dec 18, 2018
The god of abraham claims to be perfect. Omniscient, omnipotent, morally impeccable. It SAYS so in the book he wrote. But that book is all about people we know never existed and events we know never happened. The evidence from biblical exegesis and a century of archeology make this abundantly clear.

So this god is either ignorant of the past, or he chose to ignore it and make up his own. OR, in his infinite power and glory he chose to obliterate all the evidence for it and replace it with totally convincing contrary evidence.

In any case the god of abraham is either an incompetent or a liar. And as these traits are contrary to the state of perfection, he does not exist.

Much more plausible to conclude that he was created by entirely human incompetents and liars, which the evidence DOES support.

Or he could be some lesser god I suppose. But how could you believe all the promises of immortality, wishes granted, retribution, and absolution from such a lying incompetent?

Dec 18, 2018
@joey-doughbrain
You are an ignorant troll
says the creationist idiot spouting religious ideology on a science site
Clearly you don't know anything about science
I predicted you would say that using the scientific method
Anyone with any knowledge in biology knows that my claims are supported by the scientific literature
there are absolutely zero studies supporting that life is from intelligent design per your quote

not one
ever
anywhere

this is why you keep spouting the same thing - but repeating it doesn't make it truer

Your continued willful ignorance is not an argument, moron.


Dec 18, 2018
That is your unsupportable opinion, anyway
I just gave you all the proof you need. The evidence is incontrovertable.

But ask yourself just what sort of god would promise you absolutely anything you could ever want in return for believing that his enemies could never be good, honest, decent, trustworthy people unless they believed in him?

Are you really that gullible?

This is the god of us vs them. Outsiders vs insiders. Tribalism.

Dec 18, 2018
@The Ghost-

You didn't provide anything but someone's opinion. And at least I am not as gullible as evolutionists and materialists.

Dec 18, 2018
@Captain Stumpy- You don't know anything about science and I didn't post any religious stuff. Clearly you are just an ignorant troll and very proud of it.

There is no evidence that life spontaneously arose. You don't have a mechanism capable of producing codes.

You are a liar and a loser

Dec 18, 2018
@religious fanatical pizza-brain
And at least I am not as gullible as evolutionists
so... wait: evolution isn't a religion requiring acceptance on faith - it's a scientific fact supported by *ssloads of evidence, but we're the ones who don't know science?

just taking the Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent." reference alone there is more validated evidence for evolution than your idiot sky faerie

your belief is based on a tome written by sheepherders with no empirical evidence supporting that your deity exists, let alone the fact that, as Otto pointed out, the evidence that *is* used to support your tome is usually debunked in the scientific literature

but you're not gullible?
ROTFLMFAO

how is that global flood myth stolen from Gilgamesh working out for yall?
validate that ark yet?

LMFAO

Dec 18, 2018
@joe the liar
and I didn't post any religious stuff
LMFAO
you mean other than this, right?
And at least I am not as gullible as evolutionists and materialists
that definitely demonstrates a creationist religious fanaticism if you're willing to dismiss evolution as not being science
Clearly you are just an ignorant troll and very proud of it
Your continued willful ignorance is not an argument, moron
You are a liar and a loser
There is no evidence that life spontaneously arose
god of the gaps plus ignorance
there is even less evidence for intelligent design (an oxymoron considering the religious requirement)
You don't have a mechanism capable of producing codes
and you have a validated demonstrable mechanism proving your deity magically farted out life?

LMFAO

Dec 18, 2018
@Captain Stumpy- Yes evolutionism requires faith. The talk origins site is not a science site. Clearly you are an ignorant and gullible little kid. You have the science education of a three year old.

Dec 18, 2018
didn't provide anything but someone's opinion
So then the religionist expects his critics to list all the evidence and get embroiled in endless arguments. Why? We know religionists fear and loathe evidence.

"Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."
Martin Luther

-You also ignore the evidence of all the damage your ignorance and bigotry does to the world.

But you dont care. All that selfish self-centered religionists care about is how good their fantasies make them feel.

Tribalism is the natural state of man. It feels GOOD to belong, to join together to fight the enemy, to enjoy the respect and support of fellow tribesmen.

Religions feed off of this state, to outgrow and overwhelm their counterparts who are trying to do the same to THEM.

There can never be peace as long as religions exist.

Dec 18, 2018
@the ghost- Grow up. You didn't provide any evidence that demonstrates the God of Abraham doesn't exist.

And the ignorance and bigotry are all yours. There can never be peace as long as ignorant losers like you exist.

Dec 18, 2018
@joe the liar
Yes evolutionism requires faith
no, it doesn't
by the very nature of the scientific method there is no faith involved: there is observation, testing, validation and replication - something not any religion is capable of
The talk origins site is not a science site
no, but the sh*tload of references in that single document is evidence that you're a liar and a religious nut

There are no less than 90 studies referenced in all those links demonstrating your blatant false claims regarding evolution requiring faith - *all validated*

look up what "validation" means with regard to the scientific method

Clearly, you are an ignorant and gullible little kid. You have the science education of a three-year-old.

what's your next lie and ad hominem attack for not being able to produce scientific evidence for your delusional claims?

I got nothing but time...

Dec 18, 2018
@Captain Stumpy the ignorant ass- Clearly you have serious mental and cowardice issues and should seek professional help immediately. Your position requires more faith than any organized religion does.

Dec 18, 2018
@Captain Stumpy- You are a scientifically illiterate troll. Evolutionism makes claim that cannot be tested. It is not science. It requires loads of faith.

You are so ignorant that you don't realize that the mechanisms dictate the pattern, Theobald's "evidences" are absent a mechanism and yet his evidences are all about patterns.

Now you will be ignored

Dec 18, 2018
@joey the lying POS religious troll
And the ignorance and bigotry are all yours
really?
there is no bigotry in your idiot religion?

care to make a bet that I can prove you're a liar with your own bible?


Dec 18, 2018
@joey the lying hypocritical religious idiot
You are a scientifically illiterate troll
says the religious idiot who is directly violating his own god's written word and posting on a science site and doesn't understand what validated studies mean
LOL
Your position requires more faith than any organized religion does
well then, it should be easy for you to refute all those studies referenced above
You are so ignorant that you don't realize that the mechanisms dictate the pattern
says the man who believes in an invisible sky faerie claiming intelligent deisgn
Now you will be ignored
so?
that won't stop me from proving you're an idiot to those who read further than you do
LMFAO

Dec 18, 2018
@Captain Stumpy- You are too stupid to prove anything beyond your own ignorance.

Good luck with that, moron

Dec 18, 2018
How can we test the claim that life arose via stochastic processes? We can't and that is why it takes faith to believe in such a thing.

How can we test the claim that stochastic processes produced the genetic code? We can't and that is why it takes faith to believe in such a thing.

Heck given starting populations of prokaryotes evos don't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes. More faith is required.

Stumpy is too stupid to understand any of that.

Dec 18, 2018
@joey the lying hypocritical religious idiot

1- the above is all just another "god of the gaps" argument - not having an answer now doesn't mean we won't' ever have an answer
perhaps your sky faerie forgot to give you a brain?

2- it's also a distraction from the fact that your argument is the only argument that requires faith - science is replicable and, as we've seen by the studies referenced, you're claims are blatantly false and demonstrably stupid as they're validated repeatedly (isn't lying a bad thing in your religion?)

3- just because you don't understand the science doesn't mean no one does

4- you've already been caught in several lies and religious idiocy, so claiming that we're the stupid ones or that we're the ones needing faith is making you look like an idiot

you'll simply resort to more ad hominem and refuse to address any references to studies above, then keep repeating the lie, because that's what cults do


Dec 18, 2018
Stonehenge is a designer of the gaps argument. Heck we know that mother nature can produce stones- big stones, small stones.

References to studies does not equal scientific evidence for. All of our KNOWLEDGE says that codes only come from ONE source- an intelligent agency. It goes against everything we know to say that stochastic processes not only produced the genetic codes but also all of the components and systems to carry it out in a biologically relevant way.

To say that stochastic processes didit is nothing more than admitting to magic and ignorance.

Dec 18, 2018
@lying joePP
References to studies does not equal scientific evidence for
so, the evidence in the studies that are validated in other studies with unrelated personnel isn't scientific evidence for evolution?
WOW

how does that work?

I mean, obviously, demonstrated by your above arguments, the only thing required for refuting science is for you to repeat lies and share an opinion that isn't substantiated with evidence, so how is it that evidence in a study that is validated isn't scientific evidence?
codes only come from ONE source- an intelligent agency
assumption without evidence
we can say they originate from a source, but you can't say they originate from an intelligent agency

there is absolutely zero empirical evidence for it and it requires an ASSumption based upon your specific faith

- in that regard, which faith is the true faith of origin?
it can't be christianity, or even any abrahamic religion for that matter

Dec 18, 2018
Wow, the equivocation is getting thick, here. Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution. Intelligent Design is an argument pertaining to the MECHANISMs of evolution.

And AGAIN- it is a FACT based on ALL observations and experiences that codes only come from one source- and intelligent agency. Only a moron would say that is an assumption.
No one has ever observed codes coming from nature via stochastic processes. No one knows how to test the claim that stochastic processes could produce codes..

There is absolutely ZERO evidence for materialism. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that stochastic processes can produce codes.

Dec 18, 2018
@joe-liar
Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution
is that why you said
Yes evolutionism requires faith
?
intelligent design is by definition anti-science, and therefore cannot be *for* evolution as evolution doesn't require magical faerie intervention
ntelligent Design is an argument pertaining to the MECHANISMs of evolution
no, it's specifically an argument for the first cause being magical due to deific intervention
it is a FACT based on ALL observations and experiences that codes only come from one source- and intelligent agency
links and references that are not to a religious site?
thanks
Only a moron would say that is an assumption
only a moron would state something is fact while not providing evidence that it *is* fact while arguing pro-religious bullsh*t on a science site

so, you've still not refuted any study above
nor have you provided facts other than what you claim are facts

what's your next faith-based idiotic post?

Dec 18, 2018
Only a complete scientifically illiterate chump would say that Intelligent Design is by definition anti-science. ID doesn't require God. ID does not require the supernatural.

Stumpy wants references to something that is well known. There was no study to refute.

There is a difference between evolution and evolutionism. Stumpy needs to get an education.

Dec 18, 2018
@idiot illiterate liar Joe
Only a complete scientifically illiterate chump would say that Intelligent Design is by definition anti-science
ahem - "Intelligent design is a religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" ", therefore, because it's religious and requires a deity for it's existence, and it uses an old, fake, patched together nonsensical irrational deity with *no evidence whatsoever*, then it's anti-science

moreover, only a complete scientifically illiterate chump would say that Intelligent Design doesn't require a god or that it's not religious, especially given that the definition is from the cults that defined it

you can refute the references if you like - they're all here: https://en.wikipe...t_design

There was no study to refute
so, you're a liar then! Thanks

you need an education
start here:
http://readingbear.org/

Dec 18, 2018
@idiot illiterate liar Joe

PS - "intelligent design" implies in it's name that there was a first cause separate from natural evolution interfering with the natural world as it specifically states the design is based on intelligence - and any logical look at the universe will refute that immediately (just look at the human body alone as proof of that oxymoron)

https://www.brita...t-design

https://www.merri...20design

See also: OED

if you can't argue a point with supporting evidence then you're just another liar pushing an ideology or religious belief without evidence


Dec 18, 2018
@the ghost- Grow up. You didn't provide any evidence that demonstrates the God of Abraham doesn't exist
See? Right there it is.

"This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai."

-So what does this evidence mean to you? Have you even thought about it?

Dec 18, 2018
@JoePizza.
How can we test the claim that life arose via stochastic processes? We can't and that is why it takes faith to believe in such a thing.

How can we test the claim that stochastic processes produced the genetic code? We can't and that is why it takes faith to believe in such a thing.
Hello. Please first read my post to @S_E_U made on Dec 16, 2018 above. Therein I gave just a few hints as to the COMPLEXITY and DYNAMICS which nature has been manifesting in our infinite/eternal universal energy-space (without any 'god' needed). Nature is NOT ONLY 'stochastic'. But ALSO has INHERENT physical/chemical 'laws' and symmetries/asymmetries by which it forms, evolves/devolves and 'recycles' material. Consider observed, and empirically-applied/experimentally-reproduced, THERMODYNAMICS. And also consider many/diverse FEEDBACK LOOPS in many processes in nature, both organic/inorganic reactions/interactions, involving electro-magnetic rearrangements, charge flows etc. :)

Dec 18, 2018
@S_E_U
@JoePizza.

As luck would have it, there is a new article on work in which carbon nanotubes mimic biological structures. It takes only a little extrapolation to see how this can evolve given time, innumerable interactions, in plentiful natural soup of reactants. I long ago had occasion to tell some here/elsewhere that I was also working on my own theory for A-biogenesis. One of my many insights so far has been that carbon nanotubes and buckyballs/spheres etc (in varying parameters/layers/connections etc) are the most readily and ubiquitously available natural 'backbones' from which can be naturally built up the more complex structures and interconnecting 'systems' of charge-carrying etc 'pumping' mechanisms/ducts via which complex self-replication can proceed apace as more and more random/feedback inclusions/contaminants affect and 'energize' the chemical/physical dynamics and structural evolutions eventually leading to the complex life that we observe now.

Cheers.

Dec 18, 2018
ps: @S_E_U and @JoePizza.

The link to that new article re nanotubes mimicking biological structures is...

https://phys.org/...ogy.html

Cheers.

Dec 18, 2018
Darwin Days for the YECs.

Dec 19, 2018
Reality Check- Intelligent Design is OK with things evolving by design. What you don't have and will never have is a way for stochastic processes to produce the codes that rule biological organisms.

You don't even have a methodology to test the claim that biological codes arose via stochastic processes.

Dec 19, 2018
TheGhostofOtto-

Only a moron would think that you could refute the existence of the God of Abraham with archaeological evidence.

Dec 19, 2018
Only a moron would think that you could refute the existence of the God of Abraham with archaeological evidence
Ok, so you think that 1000s of archeologists, some of them extremely religious, are all morons.

But how do you explain the FACT that they have found tons of hard evidence that says your bible stories could not have happened because other things were going on at that time which would have made them impossible?

Did your perfect moral paragon trick them all? Then like I said, he's a deceiver. A trickster. A liar.

Just like youve been tricked.

Dec 19, 2018
Reality Check- Intelligent Design is OK with things evolving by design
Reality Check- Intelligent Design is OK with EVERYTHING. For religionists, the phrase 'god made it happen' can apply to anything, and it explains nothing.

The question you may want to ask yourself is why did he make it look so much like it happened by itself?

More deception? More trickery? More lies??

Dec 19, 2018
Yes Ghost as only a moron would think they could show that the God of Abraham doesn't exist via archaeological evidence. And only a loser punk and liar would say tat ID is OK with EVERYTHING.

It doesn't look like it happened by itself. Again you don't have anything that can produce codes and biological organisms are ruled by them. You are a delusional ass.

Dec 19, 2018
@JoePizza.
Reality Check- Intelligent Design is OK with things evolving by design. What you don't have and will never have is a way for stochastic processes to produce the codes that rule biological organisms.

You don't even have a methodology to test the claim that biological codes arose via stochastic processes.
It appears you missed my explanation that:
Nature is NOT ONLY 'stochastic'. But ALSO has INHERENT physical/chemical 'laws' and symmetries/asymmetries by which it forms, evolves/devolves and 'recycles' material. Consider observed, and empirically-applied/experimentally-reproduced, THERMODYNAMICS. And also consider many/diverse FEEDBACK LOOPS in many processes in nature, both organic/inorganic reactions/interactions, involving electro-magnetic rearrangements, charge flows etc. :)
See? Your arguments/logics based on your simplistic "stochastic-only" assumptions are therefore not valid. Again, please read all my posts in this thread and re-think it all. :)

Dec 19, 2018
ps: @JoePizza.

Re existence of god(s): I was born into a Catholic family, and was only 9 years old when I realized that the gods/demons fairy tales were just that, fairy tales for children and weak/complicit 'adults' who 'needed' to be controlled instead of realizing right and wrong for themselves, and so being brave enough to take personal responsibility for their actions. The realization came not only from the obvious (even to me at age nine) of the hypocrisy and lip-service paid by so-called 'devout believers' who were BAD people, but also due to observations that innocent children and adults have been suffering, dying and/or been damaged for life, due to no fault of their own; either by natural disasters/diseases etc and/or people/political/cultural etc animosities/acts beyond their control. Any 'god' that allows such crimes/evils to be perpetrated in 'his name' by so-called 'devout believers' is ipso facto NON-existent OR NON-caring 'god'. And hence 'evil in itself'. :(

Dec 19, 2018
@idiot illiterate YEC fanatic
...with archaeological evidence
If the archaeological evidence demonstrates that [x] never happened (like a global flood, or the exodus, etc), then this is physical evidence that your holy comic-tome is false

if the holy comic is false then you can't discuss the infallibility of your deity

if the deity is proven to be fallible as well as really, really f*cking stupid, like by creating a universe that is extremely good at killing off it's living organisms, then you can logically conclude that said deity doesn't exist within the definition offered by the people

if the definition of the people is flawed, it's directly due to the deity by either fault or by nonexistence

which leads us to Epicurus
https://strangeno...rus1.jpg

all the evidence points to the non-existence of your deity and there is *no* evidence for its existence

Only a moron would think that you could refute science with religion

Dec 19, 2018
It's amusing watching the YEC trolls try to cover up where they shiit on the carpet.

Dec 19, 2018
Hey stump, ira
punk liar moron delusional ass
Note the bitter disdain of the committed religionist? Every once in awhile you can get a godder to reveal their true self.

""external antagonism and internal friendship. Hence their members have acquired two different sets of sentiments and ideas, adjusted to these two kinds of activity... A life of constant external enmity generates a code in which aggression, conquest and revenge, are inculcated, while peaceful occupations are reprobated. Conversely a life of settled internal amity generates a code inculcating the virtues conducing to a harmonious co- operation" (Spencer, 1892, i, 322).

"These two different sets of sentiments and ideas he called the 'code of amity' and the 'code of enmity'."

-A state where the heathen, goy, and infidel are not worthy of respect... because they're not quite human, are they?

Tribalisms a bitch, wot? It's in the books, gods word and all that-

Dec 19, 2018
and only a loser punk godless heathen would think that ID was ok with EVERYTHING
Of course it is. It's a miracle. Suspension of the very laws god himself wrote to govern the universe.

He just wiggled his nose and poof! there it was.

God can do anything he wants you know.

Dec 19, 2018
God can do anything he wants you know
except, apparently, prove that he or his earthly "son" is real

or follow the laws "inspired" by him in his holy comic

or demonstrate he is real

or provide a YEC idiot capable of refuting evolution with even a plausible scientific evidence-based paper

or provide validation for YEC "science"

or prevent evil

or ... man! I'm going to need an *ssload more posts for this because I could go on for a while!

Dec 19, 2018
YAgain you don't have anything that can produce codes and biological organisms are ruled by them.


There are (at least) 2 problems with this:
1. There's nothing that precludes random, chemical, and biochemical processes from producing these codes (e.g., http://www.talkor...rob.html ).
2. Claiming there was a designer for all this doesn't really help you at all since then you must say how the designer was created. Since humans are supposedly created in his image, that would suggest that abiogenesis from an RNA like world followed by billions of years of evolution. If it's good enough for the designer, why isn't it good enough for humans? What use is there in the designer when the designer's very existence suggests that the designer isn't necessary?

Dec 20, 2018
except, apparently, prove
Well he doesn't have to. He invented faith. That in itself is a miracle.

Dec 20, 2018
zz555- There are many problems with your post.

1- talk origins is NOT a science site

2- talk origins has no idea how to test the claim that nature produced codes.

3- You are a dolt as no we do not have to say anything about the designer in order to infer design. You don't even ask about a designer until AFTER you have determined design exists.

4- There isn't any evidence for any RNA world

Dec 20, 2018
Reality Check- nature is stochastic and what you posted doesn't change that fact. Buy a dictionary and learn how to use it.

You don't have any evidence that nature can produce codes. You don't even have a methodology to test the claim.

Dec 20, 2018
There isn't any evidence that nature can produce codes.

It goes against everything that we know to even suggest nature can do such a thing.

There isn't even a way to test the claim that nature can produce codes.

Only through faith can you say that nature produced codes.

Dec 20, 2018
@joeyPP
talk origins is NOT a science site
but the references provided in said discourse are validated legitimate studies that you are *still* ignoring
talk origins has no idea how to test the claim that...
talk origins is no different than phys.org - they provide a reporting of the data in terms that are usually easier to comprehend for a layman while adding context and, this is the important bit, providing references to support the claims (unlike you and your YEC bullsh*t belief)

and again, you still haven't addressed any of the science referenced
3-
that whole mess is stupid and wrong, plus a blatant lie

YEC requires a designer to work - it's in the definition, you illiterate moron

moreover, you still haven't addressed any of the physical evidence provided in the references that I gave, let alone the talk origins studies I and zz5555 linked

that makes you intentionally avoiding the evidence and a lying religious fanatical troll

Dec 20, 2018
Captain Stumpy- You have FAILed to provide any evidence that nature can produce codes. You have FAILed to provide any methodology to test the claim.

Talk origins is nothing but a propaganda site. It doesn't reference any science that supports evolution via stochastic processes.

And YOU are too stupid to make a case. You don't even know what science entails.

Also you are clearly an ignorant liar and a troll.

3- You are a dolt as no we do not have to say anything about the designer in order to infer design. You don't even ask about a designer until AFTER you have determined design exists.

All fact. Anyone who disagrees is clearly a moron

Stumpy will never take one reference and shows how it demonstrates nature can produce codes. Stumpy is clearly a bluffing liar and coward.

Dec 20, 2018
@idiot illiterate joey the religious fundie
You have FAILed to provide any evidence that nature can produce codes
our discussion wasn't about codes, so quit changing the subject in the hopes that you'll be able to distract from your epic failure to provide empirical evidence for your claims
Talk origins is nothing but a propaganda site
talk origins presented an *ssload of validated science that you can't respond to with equivalent science to refute the claims of the site

that isn't propaganda - propaganda would be something like your idiot ID sites that present a known false claim and simply repeat it till people believe (or lie about evidence and proof, like you're doing above)
And YOU are too stupid to make a case. You don't even know what science entails
I've presented science in refute of your claims

you've presented opinion

the only idiot here who doesn't know what science entails is you (and you're a liar too)

Dec 20, 2018
@idiot illiterate joey the religious fundie cont'd
Also you are clearly an ignorant liar and a troll
so, you're pissed off because you can't produce scientific evidence of your claims and I managed to refute your claims with links and references

thanks for validating that for me
3-
repeating a lie doesn't make it truer
it's the way of the cult, though... perhaps you should repeat said lie again in the hopes that you'll truly believe
Anyone who disagrees is clearly a moron
if it were fact you would be able to produce evidence that meets the criteria under the scientific method

ya only gave your opinion and a blog of opinion
that ain't science - but if you're so literate then you know that, right?
LOL
Stumpy will never take one reference
where is the study that validates your claims?

and why do you keep moving the goalpost when cornered about evidence?

LMFAO

religious idiots are all the same

Dec 20, 2018
OK, Stumpy, please tell us why we have to know something about a designer BEFORE we can determine whether or not something was designed.

Or shut up.

What I and Larry Moran claimed about the genetic code is supported by all of the scientific literature on the genetic code. Only a complete ignoramus would question it. And here you are.

The discussion is about codes. The talk origins 29+ evidences is NOT about any mechanism, so it cannot support evolution via stochastic processes. Not only that the mechanism determines the pattern and most of the arguments are about patterns.

He never provides a mechanism capable of producing codes. He never provides a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes.

So thank you for proving that you don't know what you are talking about and can only bluff.

Dec 20, 2018
From 29+ evidences:
The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes.


WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes.

Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:
It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings.


Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms.


Dec 20, 2018
But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper- "The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics", Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998.

Dec 20, 2018
@joeyPP the religious fanatic and liar
please tell us why we have to know something about a designer BEFORE we can determine whether or not something was designed
just as soon as you tell us why a designer is required for natural processes that have never shown a need for a designer, nor have they demonstrated any evidence for a designer

note: per the typical discourse in science, provide links and references to the evidence
What I and Larry Moran claimed about the genetic code...
is opinion until you can provide validation

I'm not going to do your homework when you're not even willing to do the basic homework to validate your claims - that is typical of scientific discourse. in point of fact, you can see it in every study I referenced above in the section called [wait for it] "References", normally found at the end of the study

that is something you have yet to provide, therefore you're presenting opinion

2Bcont'd

Dec 20, 2018
@idiot illiterate cont'd
He never provides a mechanism capable of producing codes
you never provided validation of your claims
So thank you for proving that you don't know what you are talking about
except that I've provided evidence, making you a demonstrable liar now (isn't that morally repugnant in your religion?)

thanks for repeatedly proving that one
WRONG!
stating a belief without reference or evidence is equivalent to opinion only, therefore you're just whinging and hoping someone will take pity on your idiocy
Clearly Theobald is ignoran
attitudinal statement refuted by empirical evidence, therefore this is a false claim (AKA - a LIE)
But Doug's biggest mistake was
attitudinal statement not supported by evidence

no refute + validation against a repeatedly validated study makes you a liar again

that also makes your "intelligent designer" not so intelligent, mind you

provide facts, not opinion, you illiterate YEC troll

Dec 20, 2018
Captain Stumpy the ignorant and pathological liar- You are lying as no one has ever shown that natural processes are capable.

I don't care about your willful ignorance, asshole. I provided two other sites that supported my claim about the genetic code.

Umm, I provided the evidence. I cannot force you to read it you willfully ignorant ass.

I have also provided validation for my claims about the genetic code. Stumpy is lying again.

Stumpy never provided any evidence that stochastic processes can do anything. He is a bluffing liar.

Dec 20, 2018
@joeyPP the religious fanatic and liar
You are lying
then where are your validated studies that are equivalent to my referenced studies refuting the evidence? LOL
I don't care about your willful ignorance, asshole
so... why can't you provide evidence?
you're the one claiming ID is science, so... where is the science?
is it magical science?
or is it in stealth mode?
or maybe, just maybe, ID requires faith to believe? (IOW - NOT SCIENCE)
I have also provided validation for my claims about the genetic code
shifting the goalposts again, eh?
no, you didn't
Stumpy never provided any evidence that stochastic processes can do anything
moving the goalpost to assuage the burn of the epic failure of your argument will not prove you're correct about anything and only proves you're a liar

moreover, you still haven't provided the requested evidence from any scientific source per my above requests

try again?

Dec 20, 2018
1- There isn't any evidence for any RNA world

2- Given a RNA world all experiments lead to Spiegelman's Monster. That is a limit as to how long the RNA strand will be which is predicated on its replication rate

3- Also given a RNA world there isn't a mechanism capable of producing coded biology

4- No amount of stumpy lies and whines will ever change those facts

ID is science as it follows from Isaac Newton's four rules of scientific reasoning.

That is the ONLY known cause for codes such as those seen ruling biological organisms is via an intelligent agency.

No one has NEVER observed nature producing such codes. No one knows how to test the claim that nature produced them.

If someone comes along and demonstrates nature producing those types of codes then we can no longer make that claim. However someone could also come along and prove those claims like they do with math problems.

Dec 20, 2018
@joeyPP the religious fanatic and liar
No amount of stumpy lies and whines
projection on your part - which is a common tactic of the fanatical religious sects

This is especially funny since any reader above can see that you have yet to actually provide evidence in refute to my validated studies!

Thanks for continuing to demonstrate why religion is bad for science

PS - you keep making claims about "facts" you think are true but you have yet to actually provide any validated studies refuting those I linked above...

so - where are all those studies from reputable sources that are validated refuting the science like the studies I presented to you proving you're an idiot?

I'll wait

and I'll only keep bringing it up since you've taken to evasion, lying, moving goalposts, distraction and D-K based rants

Dec 20, 2018
breaking down joe

He has:
-focused on two BIO threads about life
-discussed ID instead of presenting science
-attacked when presented with science and a question
-openly believes ID is science when it's demonstrably proven to be pseudoscience
-refuses to actually link validated studies in refute
-keeps moving goalposts
-can't differentiate between evidence levels and considers opinion refute to validated fact
-doesn't understand the foundation requirements of the scientific method
-demonstrates egotistical narcissistic sociopathy and Bipolar swings
-demonstrates Dunning-Kruger, projection, martyr-victim complex
-syntactically similar to at least three known sock-puppets
-repeats a known lie in an attempt to convince himself it's true
-continues to troll/bait
-shows no scientific literacy and uses copypasta from ID sites

If anyone else has feedback, especially about their suspicions regarding sock-puppets, let me know about it

Thanks

Dec 20, 2018
Umm, Intelligent Design is demonstrably science. ID makes testable claims. Claims that can be falsified if someone ever steps up and demonstrates that nature can produce what IDists claim is intelligently designed.

Codes are a great example of the evidence for ID. And the fact that no one even knows how to test the claim that nature didit proves that the pseudoscience is with the anti-ID mob.

My first post was about codes and Spiegelman's monster. Any claim that I moved any goalposts is a cowardly LIE.

That stumpy thinks it provided validated studies just proves it is a clueless loser

Dec 20, 2018
Intelligent Design is demonstrably science
no, it isn't
the very definition of it states it's a religion and in December 2005 the court upheld that, yet again, preventing you idiots from pushing your known lies in schools
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005) Case No. 04cv2688

repeating your lie doesn't make it truer, though I know you will continue to repeat it because you're trying to convince yourself it's true
Any claim that I moved any goalposts is a cowardly LIE
except that your moving goalpost is evident above and here: https://phys.org/...tor.html

when asked a question, you lied and attacked
when confronted with evidence, you changed the topic (goalpost moving)
when presented with the fact you lied and distracted from the topic, you repeated your lies

That liar-troll thinks its religion is science just proves it is a clueless loser

next?

Dec 20, 2018
I would think it an imperative of ANY sort of abiogenisis based life to not only expand to fill as many niches as that system is able to fill, and that nearly Any sort of set of conditions, given it being stable enough for long enough, can also come up with it's own life forms.

Seeing as how life appears to work towards higher intelligence, with us just the present tool using and ecosystem domineering species presently on this planet That We Know Of (most of the planet is still unexplored in real detail, especially past about 5 miles down.)

There seems to be an almost religious bent to spread 'OUR' form of life into the Greater Universe. I would expect that to be a universal trait of life: to spread out into new niches, even if they have to be created. I would expect that life has gone beyond the edges of our atmosphere, catching rides via hydrogen filled spore sacks. Imagine vacuum-euglena based on graphene and metallic ions to join the many sheets, a true plasmagnetivore

Dec 20, 2018
Intelligent Design is demonstrably science

no, it isn't
the very definition of it states it's a religion
Nono hes talking about his own custom version which has been meticulously devised (he prayed for revelation).

That's the thing about personal gods - they let you make up any version of themselves that you want. And by extension, any version of reality that suits your fancy.

You can even pretend its falsifiable because nobody has told you it isnt.

Wheres the inquisition when you need it??

Dec 20, 2018
You can even pretend its falsifiable because nobody has told you it isnt
-and he doesnt have to believe it even if they did, because, well, its GOD.
https://youtu.be/bPOzo5Flkjc

Dec 20, 2018
@JoePizza.
nature is stochastic..
"Stochastic" explicitly implies undirected randomness. But I have been trying to point out for you that the natural reality is NOT merely undirected randomness processes/structures...it's ENERGETICALLY FAVORABLE/UNFAVORABLE chemical/physical reactions/interactions/structures/forms producing ever more complexity according to what is energetically favorable/self-reinforcing etc in natural dynamical chaotic systems where PATTERNS and TEMPLATES arise naturally to further direct evolutionary complexity. Nature creates PATTERNS and TEMPLATES and CATALYSTS which further direct reactions/products to produce and MULTIPLY self-similar and chirally/energetically favorable products/forms. In chemical/drugs/materials industry we EXPLOIT such natural NON-RANDOM techniques/capabilities. Eg, in CRYSTAL formation/growth, nature is creating/expressing PATTERNS ("codes", if you will) for growth/replication.

Learn more/wider relevant chemistry/physics. :)

Dec 21, 2018
Reality Check- that is not what stochastic means. Clearly you are an ignorant troll.

Good luck with that. You don't have any evidence that nature can produce codes. You don't even have a methodology to test the claim that nature can produce codes. Codes are more than patterns, moron

Dec 21, 2018
OK, Stumpy, please tell us why we have to know something about a designer BEFORE we can determine whether or not something was designed.

Or shut up.

And because stumpy is an ignorant coward it FAILed to answer my challenge.

Dec 21, 2018
@joeyPP the fanatical religious troll
OK, Stumpy, please tell us why we have to know something about a designer BEFORE we can determine whether or not something was designed
sure
just as soon as you tell me why we need a designer

.

Or shut up.
you're the idiot who came to a science site to talk about your religion, so perhaps the more logical thing would be for *you* to shut up
And because stumpy is an ignorant coward it FAILed to answer my challenge
wait... so, when I ask a question that you refuse to answer because you're an idiot talking religion on a science site it's because I'm a coward and ignorant?

ROTFLMFAO

you do know that your religion states your actions are not only wrong, but directly contradictory to your own deific statements on the current covenant (JER 31)

makes you a liar *and* directly challenging your deity because you think you know better

Dec 21, 2018
stumpy, you ignorant ass. I am not talking about religion. Everything I have said pertains to science. But you are a willfully ignorant coward who can only attack.

We need a designer to explain this universe and life. YOU don't have anything beyond sheer dumb luck to explain it. And even that falls short.

I am not a Christian, you ignorant dick. I am not religious. But your little mind won't be able to grasp that

Dec 21, 2018
We need a designer to explain this universe and life.


No, YOU need a designer to explain this universe and life. I (and other scientifically-minded posters here) clearly do not.

Dec 21, 2018
@joeyPP the fanatical religious troll
I am not talking about religion
yes you are
you said
We need a designer to explain this universe and life
and you mention ID, which is a religion, not science

moreover, you said
Intelligent Design is demonstrably science
this is *demonstrably* false as noted in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, where the judge stated, and I will quote
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child
that makes you, by definition, a religious fanatic *and* incapable of objective thought
The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory
just because you believe it doesn't mean it's true

lastly, requiring a creator simply means you've moved the goalpost yet again

Dec 21, 2018
@joeyPP the fanatical illiterate x-tian idiot religious troll
I am not a Christian, you ignorant dick. I am not religious
actually, if you believe in ID then you are as it's just a relabelling of creationism which is firmly established as a sect of the x-tian faith, But your little mind won't be able to grasp that, so perhaps I"ll add this for helping you understand (from Kitzmiller v. Dover)
A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)

The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)
whoopsie on you, illiterate idiota!
LMFAO

Dec 21, 2018
@Phyllis Harmonic-

Without an Intelligent Designer all you have is sheer dumb luck- untestable, unable to be reproduced and unscientific. Congratulations

And you still don't have a mechanism capable of producing the codes that rule biological organisms. So where is your "science", Phyllis?

Dec 21, 2018
untestable, unable to be reproduced and unscientific.


Holy crap, you really are abysmally stupid. Your god is untestable, unable to be reproduced, and has absolutely no predictive power. Science is a tool for systematic understanding of physical processes and requires no belief. Your so-called god is the exact opposite.

Dec 21, 2018
@JoePizza.
that is not what stochastic means.
I'm working from scientifically/mathematically/generally understood definition as per wiki...

https://en.wikipe...able=yes

Please post which 'definition' YOU are working from, @JP; before going further. :)
you are an ignorant troll.
@JP, I've been on-science, on-point, courteous (more so than other interlocutors of yours in this thread) so please don't again cry "troll", when it's clear I am not. :)
Codes are more than patterns, moron
Now, mate, no need to get nasty; it diminishes even further any claim to your own 'knowledge' and 'genuineness'. Try to resist doing to me what certain others here have been doing to you; else you're just as bad as they are, and less knowledgeable/genuine to boot. And it's not a good look for you, or the 'case' you are trying to 'push', @JP.

And, @JP, you missed my point: patterns etc are PRECURSORS of greater evolutionary complexity. :)

Dec 21, 2018
Phyllis-

I am comforted by the fact that I could easily eviscerate you in a debate on science. I never said anything about God, asshole. We have tried and true techniques for determining whether or not design exists. You don't have any science to support your lame-ass position.

Dec 21, 2018
Reality Check- stochastic means it has a random component. And seeing that all mutations are supposed to be chance events stochastic fits what evolution does.

Look, you don't have a mechanism capable of producing codes and you don't have a way to test the claim that nature can do it.
You lose.

Dec 21, 2018
@JoePizza.
stochastic means it has a random component.
No. Stochastic IS random. That's the point I've tried to get across; with the further point being that although Natural processes have a random component (as I already implied), I ALSO stressed that Nature has NON-random 'overlays' due to 'thermodynamically preferred states' and natural 'pattern/templates forms' that further evolve complexity beyond what mere chance could achieve. :)

Did you read up on Chaos Theory etc, like I suggested to you and S-E-U before? That is not purely stochastic, but has to do with likely products/forms due to initial conditions, laws and INHERENT possibilities of interactions/forms which involve FEEDBACK loops that may self-reinforce/conserve certain thermodynamically/geometrically 'favorable/persistent' forms/states that 'seed' further complexity. :)
And seeing that all mutations are supposed to be chance events...
But, as I just explained again, it's NOT 'only' chance. :)

Dec 21, 2018
No. Stochastic merely has a random component. They have a word for completely random- RANDOM.

According to Ernst Mayr, one of the architects of the modern synthesis, all genetic variations are chance events. He says so in "What Evolution Is". According to peer-review all variations are either classified as accidents, errors and mistakes.

For these reasons, biologists routinely use branching Markov chains to effectively model evolutionary processes, …


from http://www.talkor...ierarchy

and:
Markov processes are stochastic processes,..


from: https://en.wikipe...d_chains

Dec 21, 2018
Evolution with Stochastic Fitness and Stochastic Migration:
Like other evolutionary mechanisms, migration is a stochastic process, involving both random and deterministic elements.


from: https://journals.....0007130

and

Biological evolution is the natural and more or less stochastic process of the origination of living systems (organisms) from abiotic systems, of the cumulative change of their properties, and of their diversification and proliferation


http://www.eolss....5-02.pdf

Dec 21, 2018
Despite the fact that some evolutionary mechanisms are more or less deterministic (selection, evolutionary drives,) others (mutations, genetic drift, and speciation) are purely stochastic. Therefore, biological evolution as a whole is a stochastic process, i.e. one in which chance plays a fundamental role.


from the above pdf "EVOLUTIONARY MECHANISMS AND PROCESSES"

Dec 21, 2018
@JoePizza.

I begin to suspect you are conflating Chaotic Systems/Processes, with Stochastic Events occurring within a chaotic system/process. There is subtle/crucial effective distinction between the two.

In quantum chemistry/physics context (which we are talking about when A-BIOGENESIS is the focus) there may be myriad radiation-induced changes in material of all sorts: now THAT radiation-impingement EVENT may be by RANDOM CHANCE (or stochastic as you say); HOWEVER, IF the 'product' of that change is self-reinforcing/persistent etc sufficiently to seed' further complexity by further random chance radiation impingements, THEN the process is 'evolving' into a NON-RANDOM CHANCE one IF the original material goes on to create further patterns/templates which SELF-REPLICATE etc....which brings in your BIOLOGICAL/GENETIC evolutionary hierarchy context: that is yet another whole DIFFERENT SET of processes/possibilities with ENHANCED NON-RANDOMNESS due to EXTREME complexity. :)

Dec 21, 2018
@RealityCheck-

I am not conflating anything. I have supported my claim. Nice chatting with you.

Dec 21, 2018
sto·chas·tic
[stəˈkastik]

ADJECTIVE
technical
randomly determined; having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely.

Dec 22, 2018
@extra large pepperoni idiot fanatical religious troll
Without an Intelligent Designer all you have is sheer dumb luck
unless [gasp] you have known laws of physics that apply to the natural world that are observed, tested and validated (see: Science https://en.wikipe.../Science )
untestable, unable to be reproduced and unscientific
god of the gaps argument, false claim

You don't have any science to support your lame-ass position and you've only presented your opinion
I am comforted by the fact that I could easily eviscerate you in a debate on science
false claim directly contradicted by the evidence

perhaps you should consider x-tian comedy, where the bar is extremely low and you stand a chance of getting published (or a stand-up gig)
I never said anything about God, asshole
false claim - you admitted to ID, you idiot! LMFAO

Dec 22, 2018
Crystallization is a good example of Stochastic system that would appear to be Similar to life in many ways, and that is crystallization of various elements and minerals: There is a definite order to it, but each atom or molecule joins the assembly semi-randomly as there are places that the particles fit, exactly, and it a low energy state. So there are subtle gradients across the medium that produces a crystal. It is not life itself, but crystallization is a life like process using energy, taking in 'food' and getting rid of 'waste product' however, crystals dont move.

They DO, however, respond to their surroundings, which IS a process of life. Put pressure on many crystals and it produces an electric charge. As a side note, I wonder sometimes if that piezoelectric effect is communication, acting with exterior to affect crystallization rate, or, possibly to start a new nucleation site via charge to start a new crystal, thus breeding. Or all above.

We have lots to learn still.

Dec 22, 2018
sto·chas·tic
[stəˈkastik]

ADJECTIVE
technical
randomly determined; having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely blah
Yah I am having trouble finding this and other terms he has stole from actual science, in the NIV.

Re genetic code this is all I can find
https://en.wikipe...ble_code

-courtesy nicholas Cage

Dec 22, 2018
@JoePizza.
I am not conflating anything.
And I trust you will not do so in future, now that I have pointed out for you the subtle but crucial effective distinction between:

- Chaotic Systems/Processes; and

- Stochastic Events occurring within a chaotic system/process. :)
I have supported my claim.
And I have pointed out where your own simplistic (ie, not-fully-informed) assumptions/conflations may have led you to conclusions/arguments/claims that are therefore flawed from the outset when laying out/putting your 'case' here. :)
Nice chatting with you.
Same to you, @JP. And best wishes to you and yours during the holiday season that is now upon us. Stay safe; stay well. :)

ps: Good luck and good thinking, everyone. :)

Dec 22, 2018
RealityCheck- I provided references that support my claim that evolution proceeds via stochastic processes.

I have forgotten more about evolutionary biology than you know and it just so happens that I don't forget.

Dec 22, 2018
Intelligent Design is not about God.

Intelligent Design does not require God.

Stumpy is a lying, scientifically illiterate punk who couldn't assess evidence if its life depended on it.

Dec 22, 2018
@JoePizza.
I provided references that support my claim that evolution proceeds via stochastic processes
No, via "stochastic' EVENTS; which are PART of the greater Chaotic Processes creating self-similar and other patterns/templates and possibilities which allow for further chaotic evolution via even more complex 'stochastic' series of events which IF producing self-reinforcing/persistent states/forms then themselves go on to further enhanced chaotic processes; eventually/inevitably ending up with complex 'life' states/processes/forms IF ENERGETICALLY 'favorable' according to natural forces/energy dynamics etc.
I have forgotten more about evolutionary biology than you know...
Same here, @JP. :) With the addition that I have forgotten much more about ALL the OTHER/WIDER natural universal phenomena than you apparently know at this present stage in your own 'educative trajectory'.

@JP, for A-BIOGENESIS insights, you need to know more BEYOND 'evolutionary biology'. :)

Dec 22, 2018
RealityCheck- I am still awaiting your supporting references. I have provided mine and can provide more.

Dec 22, 2018
@JoePizza.
I am still awaiting your supporting references. I have provided mine and can provide more.
I have alluded to:

- Chaotic systems/dynamics; and

- Stochastic events occurring as PART of said chaotic systems/processes, as explained already.

So, @JP, if YOU are challenging the well-understood/experimentally-confirmed body of evidence, principles and implications of such a body of well-published science, then it's up to you to show where that body of science is flawed; or where I have been remiss in depending on same when pointing out where your arguments/conclusins/claims' flaws lay.

Also it may help to clarify where YOU are 'coming from' if you can now unambiguously state :

- whether you are limiting your arguments/claims to the CONTEXT of AFTER 'life' states/forms (RNA/DNA/CELLS etc) had evolved...OR

- whether you also include the context of A-BIOGENESIS (which A-PRIORI involves NON-'biolgical' energy states/forms/dynamics etc).

Thanks. :)

Dec 22, 2018
@Joe-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good, thanks for asking.

RealityCheck- I am still awaiting your supporting references.


I hope you are a patient man, a lot of peoples here have been awaiting on that for years and years, and they will still be awaiting for a long time more too.

It don't do any good to try to hurry him up either, trust me Cher, some really smart peoples have been trying to get him to get a move-on for 11 or 10 years.

Dec 22, 2018
RealityCheck- You have yet to allude to a process that can produce codes along with the components to carry them out.

If you have life then you have the codes that you cannot account for.

I am not challenging any published science. I am not challenging anything that is scientific.

Dec 22, 2018
@JoePizza.
You have yet to allude to a process that can produce codes along with the components to carry them out.

If you have life then you have the codes that you cannot account for.

I am not challenging any published science. I am not challenging anything that is scientific.
Are you even aware that amino acids can form naturally; and have even been detected in various space nebulae where the necessary elements and energy flows are present for their natural production just like any other molecules involving 'starter' material of inorganic Carbon, Nitrogen, Hydrogen etc? Extrapolate from there, to where further aggregations of such amino acids may lead naturally without a 'designer' involved'; only the natural energetically favored states/forms that inevitably ensue given sufficient time and abundance of material which is naturally 'imprinted with potentials' for further aggregation/coiling etc due to GEOMETRY, TOPOLOGY, CHARGES.

More complex than you realize. :)

Dec 22, 2018
LoL! Amino acids are not a living organism.

You can have a sea of amino acids and an ocean of nucleotides and you still couldn't produce the codes that rule biology nor the components to carry them out in a biologically relevant manner.

Dec 22, 2018
@Uncle Ira.

Hi, Ira. Good to see your industrial strength stupidity hasn't 'done you in', and so taken yourself out of the gene pool. :)

Oh, and mainstream are still proving me correct all along, Ira.

Example 1:

https://phys.org/...hot.html

Just like I tried to teach you and others about distributed plasmoid-fusioning processes in sun, years ago, in...

https://phys.org/...per.html

EXample 2:

https://phys.org/...mic.html

Confirming what I've been pointing out for you, @RNP etc for years; re overwhelming power of accretion-disc-polar-jets-systems to deconstruct and eject humongous amouts of matter to deep space over eons; which material reforms into the 'pristine/primeval-looking' Hydrogen/Helium clouds/stars that therefore have no need for 'BigBang
explanations'.

Anyhow, Ira, best wishes to you/yours over the holidays. :)

Dec 22, 2018
@JoePizza.
LoL! Amino acids are not a living organism. You can have a sea of amino acids and an ocean of nucleotides and you still couldn't produce the codes that rule biology nor the components to carry them out in a biologically relevant manner.
You haven't been listening, mate. It's not about just the sea of materials; it's about what natural potentials for further evolutionary trajectories from inorganic to organic to biological complexities INHERENTLY existing within natural energetically-favorable possibilities from GEOMETRY, TOPOLOGY, CHARGE ARRANGEMENTS/RE-ARRANGEMENTS etc which go on naturally all the time, whether or not we are able to observe them all; which occur in myriad chaotic permutations and self-directed processes (as already pointed out earlier) all over the infinite/eternal universal energy-space constituents extent/dynamics.

So, @JP, unless you are able to 'experiment' for as long, as thoroughly and deeply as nature, then your beliefs are moot. :)

Dec 22, 2018
RealityCheck- If all you can do is throw father time around as a security blanket, ala Linus van Pelt, then you have left the realm of science. There isn't any magic with deep time, energy and resources.

Didn't Toto expose the man behind the curtain? How did we get back to that state of argument?

Dec 22, 2018
Intelligent Design is not about God.

Intelligent Design does not require God.

Stumpy is a lying, scientifically illiterate punk who couldn't assess evidence if its life depended on it.

Then what Intelligence did the designing?
Is someone or something travelling in time?

Dec 22, 2018
@joe - half-the-IQ of pizza dough
and it just so happens that I don't forget
except you forgot that ID is a religion, not science
Intelligent Design is not about God
it's a christian religious sect, you idiot
perhaps you should actually read up on what you're talking about before making false claims that are obviously debunked with a 2 second search?
Intelligent Design does not require God
LOL

You're lying again! the very name explicitly states a requirement of outside interference

Plus, because you forgot, ID is a christian rebranding of creationism (Kitzmiller v. Dover)
Stumpy is a lying, scientifically illiterate punk who couldn't assess evidence if its life depended on it
projection

you've just *demonstrated* you're a liar and a religious fanatic above, and that you have the memory of a gnat

moreover, you've still not produced evidence of your claims

thanks for demonstrating this once again

Dec 23, 2018
@JoePizza.
If all you can do is throw father time around as a security blanket, ala Linus van Pelt, then you have left the realm of science. There isn't any magic with deep time, energy and resources.
Why do you 'segregate' time from all the other factors I elucidated, all of which, when acting together in combination, manifest 'evolutionary/complexity' synergies way more powerful than merely time + randomness would?

Sure, IF , as you claim, RANDOM (stochastic) factor over time WAS ALL there was to it, then Time might not be so determinant.

HOWEVER, when combined with ALL the MANY OTHER factors I've been pointing out, then 'deep' time (across which manifest innumerable/reiterative chaotic 'cycles' of 'self-similar' reactions/interactions producing/re-inputting FEEDBACK and self-reinforcing etc evolutionary products/potentials for ever-changing/expanding MOLECULAR 'evolutionary pathways') becomes a potent amplifier of inherent/emergent synergies/potentials.

Cheers.

Dec 23, 2018
@joepizza
I am comforted by the fact that I could easily eviscerate you in a debate on science. I never said anything about God, asshole.


Is that supposed to make me feel inferior? You're just a sad little man who's only sense of agency comes from posting ridiculous comments to an internet forum- you haven't got the chops to make anyone feel inferior. As for your comfort, I suspect that the only real comfort you get is from your right hand and jar of vaseline.

Dec 29, 2018
More answers:

Spiegelman's Monster says that the RNA world could never lead to a living organism. Also there isn't any way for stochastic processes to produce codes ... doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing it. ... there still isn't any evidence for a RNA world. It is imaginary.


We know that life evolved DNA/protein cells from RNA/protein cells. We know that since we observe that it evolved the RNA based genetic machinery - with DNA codes - you claim could not be produced by evolutionary mechanisms (with, among others, deterministic selection and stochastic mutation). The discovery resulted in two Nobel Prizes:

- tbctd -

Dec 29, 2018
- ctd -

- 1989 Altman, Cech: "for their discovery of catalytic properties of RNA. ... DNA or protein? The discovery of catalytic RNA may solve this "chicken and egg" problem. "

- 2009 Ramakrishnan, Steitz, Yonath: "for studies of the structure and function of the ribosome. ... This catalytic triad of ribosomal RNA, ribosomal protein and tRNA substrate may reflect a more complex starting point for the route to the present protein dominated world than a pure RNA world."

[various quotes from the Nobel Prize Organization site]

So it appears long RNA self replicators are not a problem. Indeed, I *already* described how vents can replicate RNA before self replicators evolved. So why giving us a non sequitur?

Dec 29, 2018
There is nothing wrong with Creationist Methodology.


What is wrong here is the claim that there is such a "methodology". It is known to be religion, which in turn is known to be a) no method but magic and b) wrong on everything.

there didn't appear to be a "study"


Wrong. It was published in peer review. You really don't know how we do observations. I can observe what happened millions of years ago by working with published genetic data, same as how we observe the sedimentation of similarly old rocks by working with sedimentation and isotope data.

Dec 29, 2018
talk origins is NOT a science site


It is by obvious definition. In the same way this site does, it describes and references science. And even if it is not a site *for* scientists, it is a site *by* scientists *with* their articles in open peer review.

The talk origins 29+ evidences is NOT about any mechanism


That article is obviously *all* about mechanism, in this case evolutionary processes, geological processes, et cetera. You don't seem to know what a natural process is, so study that before making erroneous claims.

See above on evolution of code, long since described on this very page you posted on where you since have obsessed over the topic. This is specifically not an open area, though details are still researched. We know from observation *how* the code can evolve, that *it evolves* (modern variants in some cases), and from the result which is positively selected for robustness that *it evolved* all the way from non-code (as it must have, how else).

Dec 29, 2018
nature is stochastic


We expect nature to be lawful (inclusive deterministic) and contingent (inclusive stochastic), and it is. Same as parts such as evolution or other biological processes, or any geological process, is; you yourself confirm that by later references. This is not a theoretical problem for our understanding, it is just a feature of nature.

Intelligent Design is demonstrably science


Then this demonstration is erroneous since the conceit is legally adjudged to be religion. But we all know it does not use science methods - or *any* method except trolling science - and is openly anti-science. It is also wrong, there are demonstrably no 'designs' (only "apparent" design by laws and processes) or 'designers'.

life appears to work towards higher intelligence


Well, it certainly does not appear so for biologists. Most life is unicellular after 4 billion years; life "works" towards unicellularity.

I think you have a human bias here.

Dec 31, 2018
talk origins is NOT a science site
It is by obvious definition. In the same way this site does, it describes and references science
Well so does this

"Rabbi Berger, the Rabbi of King David's Tomb on Mount Zion, said that the confluence of Tu B'Shvat and a lunar eclipse was described in the Yalkut Moshe, which is a book of kabbalistic insights. This book was written by Rabbi Moshe ben Yisrael Benyamin in Munkacs, Poland in 1894..."

"Rabbi Berger quoted from the book that a lunar eclipse in the Hebrew month of Shvat is an especially bad omen that could bring harsh natural phenomena. He further stated that the eclipse would trigger severe earthquakes around the world. However, these calamities would spare Israel as the lunar eclipse occurred on the holiday of Tu B'Shvat"

-And of course it's not astrology because its jehovah, the original astronomer.

Jan 02, 2019
Life from non life
phys.org> Pohorille believes that theoretical work is just as important,
if not more so, in understanding how life could have emerged from non-life

If you start out with the premise
that the proton and the scrumptious electron are non life
it is a very poor starting point
as does Pohorille
know of the existence of our scrumptious electrons
over the billions of years
our protons have gone out and married their scrumptious electrons
these married couples
have gone out into the vacuum together
joined forces with the billions of brides
the billions of newly weds
have joined forces in the vacuum and multiplied
have collapsed in billions of stellar Lyr clouds
creating stellar stars
to provide the energy and materials
in this vacuum
creating planets
where our scrumptious newlyweds settle down
as a 60,000yotta life span makes them newlyweds
where out of this microbial swamp
They create the first microbe

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more