evolution, the facts that inform the theory'?

Question: If "no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction" why should I take those seriously who speculate that "there likely is abundant simple single cell life around" in the universe (since you talked about that in the comment before the one I'm responding to)? As far as I'm aware of, no significant experimentation has been done in outer space regarding this issue and no conclusive discoveries of unicellular lifeforms in outer space have been made. Isn't this more something for Hollywood rather than the sciences or serious discussions about reality? And there is more to be said about nucleotides (see bolded part below)

I would say the fact that life currently exists on earth, assuming known physical processes led to it is is reasonable. And supports the hypothesis of abiogenesis, taking abiogenesis to space does not remove the need of abiogenesis. Saying abiogenesis did not happen somewhere sometime goes against known facts about the world.

As for scientists being unable to replicate life, we do not know the exact circumstances of all the potential chemical environments on young earth, and how sensitive initial proto-life is to said parameters. It would be astounding if a few scientists had already recreated all possible chemical environments from the distant past. We do know that RNA by itself can carry functions similar to proteins as well as dna, and there are those who believe in an rna world hypothesis, where rna was the initial molecule.

On August 8, 2011, a report, based on NASA studies with meteorites found on Earth, was published suggesting building blocks of RNA (adenine, guanine and related organic molecules) may have been formed extraterrestrially in outer space.[50][51][52] In 2017, a numerical model suggests that the RNA world may have emerged in warm ponds on the early Earth, and that meteorites were a plausible and probable source of the RNA building blocks (ribose and nucleic acids) to these environments.[53] On August 29, 2012, astronomers at Copenhagen University reported the detection of a specific sugar molecule, glycolaldehyde, in a distant star system. The molecule was found around the protostellar binary IRAS 16293-2422, which is located 400 light years from Earth.[54][55] Because glycolaldehyde is needed to form RNA, this finding suggests that complex organic molecules may form in stellar systems prior to the formation of planets, eventually arriving on young planets early in their formation.[56]-rna world

As for life not only is it found in the most extreme of locations but it has been found kilometers underground. Life is pretty hardy once it arises.

originally posted by: Xenogears
I would say the fact that life currently exists on earth, assuming known physical processes led to it is is reasonable. And supports the hypothesis of abiogenesis, ...

I'm not quite sure how evading the argument of induction regarding the conclusion of design+creation (and thus at least 1 designer+creator) by biasedly assuming what basically boils down to reasoning that '(Mother) Nature did it' no matter what the evidence is pointing towards, is reasonable and "supports the hypothesis of abiogenesis", which makes the same biased assumption.

Isn't it called circular reasoning, or perhaps better said on this occasion, circular assuming with bias for 'Nature did it'? 'Nature found a way' as they say without thinking through that the forces of nature have no foresight or will to determin what it's looking for, that way to life or other subtopics for the preservation, continuation and maintenance of life? Such as DNA Repair Machinery.

I know where machinery and technology comes from. Don't even have to think that long or hard about it. It ain't natural processes or the forces of nature acting on lifeless matter and/or energy on their own, no matter how long you wait around. Someone has to set this up as well no matter what roles the forces of nature (or physical processes or chemical reactions) play in it afterwards:

"Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses."

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

I'm not sure if the so-called "RNA World Hypothesis" is a testable hypothesis as that term is defined in at least 1 Encyclopedia of scientific principles that I've seen. But if you want to talk about that subject I suggest you consider saying something about the topics of interdependency and what Dr. Carol Cleland refers to as "the coordination" in relation to it. What qualifies a theory as a scientific theory? According to the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific theory, such as Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, must

- Be observable

- Be reproducible by controlled experiments

- Make accurate predictions

The same encyclopedia defines a hypothesis as “a more tentative observation of facts [than a theory],” yet lends itself “to deductions that can be experimentally tested.”

The possible existence ('once upon a time') of a reproducing viable lifeform that consists purely of RNA is also something that is akin to me as the suggestion of the possible existence ('once upon a time in a land far far away') of a pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster. I'm going to need a bit more evidence than... 'we don't know' (or the phrase earlier used 'not yet fully understood'), 'maybe this maybe that', to start taking it more seriously. Mind you, viruses are not considered lifeforms by most biologists I've heard about it and they are dependent for their longterm existence (and emergence) on lifeforms. If you have trouble with the definition for "lifeform" try the introduction to this video, which also covers the topic of interdependency again since it's important to consider regarding this myth of a pure RNA-based reproducing lifeform:

Chapter 7 Section (7.4)

A pure RNA-based reproducing lifeform for which in my opinion there is about as much evidence as for the possible existence of mermaids, unless you want to count the existence of so-called "RNA viruses" as superior and more relevant than the fabricated so-called "evidence" for mermaids in this documentary (it's the longer version of that documentary that shows the supposed "fossils", hey, at least they present some supposed 'fossils', that's 1 step up from what's presented for some other mythological lifeforms that supposedly existed a long time ago, conveniently too long for any viable evidence to remain):

But that would be 'in the eye of the beholder'-stuff anyway (your opinion compared to my opinion about the so-called "evidence" for those mythological lifeforms, just like the pink unicorn and flying spaghetti monster).

a reply to: Xenogears
Btw, when I posed the question: If "no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction" why should I take those seriously who speculate that "there likely is abundant simple single cell life around" in the universe (since you talked about that in the comment before the one I'm responding to)?

And then when I said: "As far as I'm aware of, no significant experimentation has been done in outer space regarding this issue and no conclusive discoveries of unicellular lifeforms in outer space have been made"; I was referring to experimentation being done in outer space to test (verify) "the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life" anywhere in the universe "from nothing but a molecular soup" (to use Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz' words to describe the storyline a.k.a. the hypothesis of abiogenesis*). If you can't even accomplish or discover anything significant in this area on earth as described in the words "no empirical evidence supports..." "and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction", why would I expect any significant advancements in this field of research when figuratively the burden of proof is shifted into the realm of pure mythology and into the farthest reaches of untestability and potential speculation and imagination (far into the universe where no tests can currently be performed that would verify or show this so-called "hypothesis" to be correct or false)? Metaphorically speaking.

Remember that you also were talking about "abundant simple single cell life around" in the universe, not just a few of the building blocks (or even smaller components that are not assembled together in a coordinated fashion for functioning interdependently in a lifeform; regarding your "sugar molecule" reference, is it reasonable or even relevant to point to a mountain that may contain various metals in discussions about the origin of cars when clearly the material being used is not the primary subject of causation in such a discussion?). There's another question that rises from your preferred use of the word "simple":

QUESTION 2: Is Any Form of Life Really Simple?

*: I was also considering the earlier used phrasing when it was mentioned that:

They speculate that the first cells or at least their major components arrived on earth from outer space. Why? Because, despite their best efforts, scientists have been unable to prove that life can spring from nonliving molecules.

And that would be the storyline involving the term "panspermia", but it's still the same overarching idea/philosophy: 'Nature did it.' Just partly somewhere else in the case of Panspermia, and then more of "the coordination" (using Dr. Cleland's words) took place after arrival on earth of these major components, somehow it all worked out by accident or chance and formed lifeforms, we are to believe. I'm sorry, not buying it. I'm going to stick with the argument of induction. Perhaps it would help if they could get their story straight first. Those promoting these various storylines about the origin of life.

originally posted by: Xenogears

On August 8, 2011, a report, based on NASA studies with meteorites found on Earth, was published suggesting building blocks of RNA (adenine, guanine and related organic molecules) may have been formed extraterrestrially in outer space.[50][51][52]

Why don't they state that they found adenine and guanine in or on these meteorites on earth and know for certain that these molecules (or the nucleotides if they found the complete nucleotide with the five-carbon sugar ribose and one phosphate group) were already present in or on these meteorites before they landed on earth?

In 2017, a numerical model suggests that the RNA world may have emerged in warm ponds on the early Earth, and that meteorites were a plausible and probable source of the RNA building blocks (ribose and nucleic acids) to these environments.[53]

Throwing out numerical models based on pure speculative numbers might be a bit premature if my earlier question has an unsatisfying answer that still shows Professor Robert Shapiro's observation in 2007 to be the case after 2011:
“Some writers have presumed that all life’s building blocks could be formed with ease in Miller-type experiments and were present in meteorites. This is not the case.” Shapiro says that “no nucleotides of any kind have been reported as products of spark-discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites.”
RNA building blocks are nucleotides which contain the information that the machinery within a cell uses when properly arranged in a functional manner. RNA is a nucleic acid. Ribose (molecules) is what the backbone of RNA is made up of when the nucleotides are linked together containing the code of life (part of it, not talking about DNA right now). The backbone of RNA itself, i.e. the chain of ribose molecules itself does not contain this specific information with a specific function in living organisms. The way what you quoted refers to "RNA building blocks (ribose and nucleic acids)" is rather confusing by not mentioning nucleotides at all (which contain the code when arranged in the proper order), referring to nucleic acids as RNA building blocks, and mentioning ribose as somehow being significant in discussions about the origin of functional* RNA (*: functional in relation to their functioning in lifeforms that can actually survive or exist long enough to reproduce, cause without reproduction, end of story).

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Sauvignon

What I find amusing is those who defend the science with nothing

Nearly a dozen pages and no answers
You would think the average evolutionist would work out that they are doing more harm than good for their cause and leave it alone

No beneficial mutations, no increase of information, nothing and they are still talking like they have science on their side

It beggars belief

I have no doubt a peer reviewed journal article is on its way 😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

A simple example of beneficial mutation are the mutations that are allowing microbes to digest plastics.

As for a list covering most of the facts, there's a simple one in the TalkOrigins website
www.talkorigins.org...

Talk origins, really
I will counter your talk origins link with a Answers in Genesis link that explains why you are wrong

No thanks xeno

a reply to: Raggedyman

As usual you don't read what is posted. You troll and you troll but you never contribute. So try this. CONTRIBUTE to the thread.

Answers in Genesis?? LMAO!

Ken Ham's home base...

Which has NO answers

I say simple life is likely to be abundant because I seem to recall that there is new evidence life arose on earth much earlier than previously believed, and soon after earth's formation. Suggesting it may not take that much time for it to do so, and can arise in highly hostile conditions of very young earth.

As for rna, we have to keep into account what can or cannot be done by simple short strands with random sequences. Have you seen the r-pentomino in game of life? That game has like 3 or 4 ultra simple rules, yet ultra complex behavior emerges. Our physical laws, at least at current understanding, seem more elaborate. We do not know what the limits are of the simplest molecules, some may have the potential to yield greater development.



It is known that from simple rules, some have the potential for reaching the limits of complexity in terms of how the system evolves through time. That similar happens in reality should not be of surprise. That eternal laws or rules hold such potential inbuilt in them, in the body of truth, has to be understood as part of the nature of truth.



Again, we know there's physics, and chemistry that follows physics, we see the present day world. We already know that from single celled life multicelled life evolved, the idea that there was some system that preceded single cell life, follows from the evidence at hand. As I said even an entire fully formed single cell popping out of thin air is allowed by quantum physics, just far more unlikely in my opinion than simple molecules having a chain of increasing complexity towards the first cell. Just like some single cells gave rise to more complex multicellular life.

a reply to: whereislogic

why should I take those seriously who speculate that "there likely is abundant simple single cell life around" in the universe

Unless they can explain how any of that 'simple single cell life around in the universe' could survive entry into the atmosphere to reach the ground in a viable manner, then you probably have no reason to take them seriously.

I am not denying that it is impossible, I just cannot imagine how it could work.

On the other hand, it is much easier to comprehend that the initial 'form' of life on Earth WAS NOT A CELL. This, of course, begs the question about "exactly what is life". Is it not life until it is recognizable as what we in the modern world would call a 'cell'? Or can pre-cellular 'things' that 'reproduce', 'eat', and 'evolve' be called life. I go with the latter.

The simple fact is that life on earth DID NOT 'begin' with a cell. Cells DID NOT spring magically into existence with all the parts of a modern cell (this is discussed starting at about the 1:30 mark in the below video). Cells evolved from much more simple life forms that were not cells just as multicellular life forms evolved from single cell life forms that were not multicellular, (and etc).

Once again, I reach into my bag of videos since there are folks here that think it is only true if it is on video.

I recommend you turn up the audio. You can skip the first 2:40 if you don't want to deal with the debunking of the psuedo-science anti-abiogenesis arguments (but they are incisive and worth reviewing).

Edit: I really do suggest you do review that 2:40 of the video because it directly addresses some of the questions brought up in your post.

a reply to: Akragon

Well that's what I think of talk origins

Irrespective ak, you wil say and do anything but answer my question

I wonder why that is?

a reply to: Noinden

Yet I asked a question and you answered it so
Oh no, you didn't did you

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Akragon

Well that's what I think of talk origins

Irrespective ak, you wil say and do anything but answer my question

I wonder why that is?

You wouldn't understand it IF i bothered to explain it anyways... others have tried, and you dismiss them as if you know the subject better then anyone... and you really don't have a clue... further more you can't even be honest that you don't have a clue

i offer visual evidence of evolution in bacteria on the first page... you call it dumb

Scientists explain it various forms of evolution to you... you dismiss and attack

Honestly i don't understand how the mods let you continue with this nonsense...

i suppose its a free forum though

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: whereislogic

why should I take those seriously who speculate that "there likely is abundant simple single cell life around" in the universe

Unless they can explain how any of that 'simple single cell life around in the universe' could survive entry into the atmosphere to reach the ground in a viable manner, then you probably have no reason to take them seriously.

You seemed to have missed or are talking past the point why I said that. I first shared the fact regarding the so-called "hypothesis of abiogenesis" that in the last 50 years "no empirical evidence supports" it and "no scientific advance leads in this direction", regarding it happening on earth by chance (only the forces of nature acting on lifeless matter, as per the abiogenesis storyline, a.k.a. "the chemical evolution theory of life" or simply "chemical evolution"). So if what can't be proven to have happened on earth, where all the conditions are perfect for life and where we can do tests fairly easily and on a regular basis regarding this issue, why should I expect any improvement on this front of "empirical evidence" and "scientific advance" if metaphorically the burden of proof is shifted to the farthest regions where no regular experimentation can be performed and where we are tossed about in the ocean of human imagination by every wind of teaching and speculation? What happened to actual evidence rather than just fancy storytelling to make one's story sound more convincing? What happened to testability of proposed hypotheses? Why should I take those seriously who clearly have no intention to ever verify anything they're selling regarding this issue considering what they've conveniently done with their storyline after realizing they could never prove the mathematically impossible to have happened by chance, not even under ideal conditions like on earth? Sometimes not even when "cheating" (contradicting their own storyline with the manner in which they conduct their experiment) by using intelligently devised chemical engineering techniques in their experiments concerning so-called "abiogenesis" and not checking what the forces of nature on their own are capable of achieving since that project had already failed from the get-go. An example or further clarification how the scientist below uses the word "cheating" in the same manner I'm using it above (1:58 - 2:47):

On the other hand, it is much easier to comprehend that the initial 'form' of life on Earth WAS NOT A CELL.

Nope, cause that's a myth (myths may be easy to believe/imagine, but I agree with Newton that that's not understanding/comprehension), and all the evidence from observations of actual lifeforms points to it being a myth (and an imagination, a biasedly speculative one at that, born out of a desire to fit it into a specific part of the overarching storyline). Speculate about lifeforms that are not made up of cells all you want (aliens or not), but these kind of suggestions require more extraordinairy evidence than pointing to lifeless RNA viruses and the like. The definition for life as linked in the video when I mentioned this before works rather well for me. No ambiguity, and no need to capitalize on the ambiguity of language. I don't have any requirement to come up with a mythological simpler lifeform to fit into my storyline that tries to increase its marketability (its plausibility in the eye of the biased beholder) by going from simpler forms to more complex forms and then on other occasions still arguing that evolution has no direction (when people aren't paying attention anymore to the original storyline and why it was necessary to imagine simpler lifeforms, such as lifeforms that are not made up of cells). No known form of life is simple enough to warrant the explanation or suggestion that natural forces acting on lifeless matter or energy are the sole(exclusive) cause for their emergence. I require better evidence for such lifeforms, or as you put it "the initial 'form' of life on Earth WAS NOT A CELL", better evidence than just saying I should comprehend that it's a fact. Or that video that I've already seen that is filled with fancy storytelling and zero pieces of reasonable evidence for the existence of these mythological "much more simple life forms that were not cells", using your words. I don't consider a need* for imagining these so-called "more simple life forms", as reaonable evidence for the supposed possible existence (in the past) of these mythological "much more simple life forms that were not cells" in your version of the story, as you have ended up considering it with the way you've been talking about it as if it's settled that they existed. *: for the purpose of avoiding that the general 'nature did it'-storyline sounds even more unplausible, unreasonable or even outright ridiculous (poof, a whole cell complete with the trimmings of DNA, RNA and molecular machinery that make it all work out for survival and reproduction, a specialized cell membrane that allows exactly what it can safely process into the cell but keeps harmful things out, etc.). Bringing us back to the circular reasoning-thingy I talked about earlier to Xenogears.

And again, the person I was responding to was talking about "abundant simple single cell life around" in the universe, not "much more simple life forms that were not cells". So if "no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction" why should I take those seriously who speculate that "there likely is abundant simple single cell life around" in the universe (since Xenogears talked about that in the comment before the one I was responding to)? I'm not sure if it's possible I can find a satisfying answer to that question in the commentary made so far in response to that question or the parts quoted from and seemingly taken out of context in response to it by you just now (given the content of your response not being very useful in answering what I was thinking about when putting it like that, as explained in a little more detail here now).

a reply to: Akragon

I have never understood how the mods let you troll every thread

Your video,was not proof of anything, no new information was
Oh why bother, it's beyond you

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Akragon

I have never understood how the mods let you troll every thread

Your video,was not proof of anything, no new information was
Oh why bother, it's beyond you

Don't accuse me of your faults...

im no troll, i just dislike stupidity... And you consistantly prove yourself to be the very definition of both

Just because you don't understand anything about the topic you post about.. does not mean others don't

Though, being a Ken Ham follower speaks volumes about your replies

no new information was

Ya just stop... resistance to antibiotic would be considered what?

a reply to: whereislogic

You really should go back and review the first 2:40 or more of the video I posted - because it explains exactly why the beginning of your video is completely wrong.

1) Your video accuses science of failing to reproduce "spontaneous generation" and as something modern scientists have been trying to do. In fact science definitively proved "spontaneous generation" was not possible over 300 years ago: in 1668 by Francesco Redi; again in 1765 by Lazzaro Spallanzani; and again, and finally, in 1859 by Louis Pasteur. Science does NOT claim spontaneous generation, and has not done so for over a hundred years. The opening gambit in 'your' video is misleading and intellectually dishonest.

2) The Miller/Urey experiment was never meant as an attempt to create life and was never 'sold' as such an attempt. It was an attempt to see how easy or difficult it was to create the building blocks of life. Your video claims that Miller/Urey used the wrong materials and conditions and got the wrong results. Miller/Urey was not necessarily trying to duplicate the early conditions of earth, because he did not know what the early conditions of Earth was like. The conditions he chose was on possible set of conditions that were hypothesized and ran his experiment to determine if that set of conditions could lead to life.

Your video claims that the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere absolutely precludes the possibility of evolution. That is rather annoyingly absolutist don't you think? Not to mention totally off topic since the subject is abiogenesis, not evolution.

How could he get the wrong results? There was no 'wrong result' possible. He was not attempting to prove that these conditions were the exact conditions that led to life on Earth, he was trying to verify whether or not these specific conditions COULD lead to life. The result is either YES it COULD lead to life or NO it COULD NOT lead to life. Either way he either shuts down the hypothesis or passes it for further study. The fact that his experiment did produce amino acids doesn't mean that it was the exact conditions that DID lead to life on Earth or eliminate other sets of conditions, it just means that the conditions he tested MIGHT lead to life.

That is all it did, that is all it was ever meant to do, and anyone, like the gentleman in your video, who tries to beat it up into a failed attempt to make life are (once again) being misleading and intellectually dishonest.

Realize also that as our understanding of the pre-biotic Earth changes, so too are the experiments repeated for the differing sets of conditions. Science doesn't stop happening because one experiment becomes famous. Those experiments continue to demonstrate that the building blocks of life are quite easy to reproduce in a variety of conditions, oxygen 'rich' or not. Futhermore, recent findings show that there may have been more hydrogen in the atmosphere than thought so the atmosphere may have resembled the Miller - Urey conditions more than we thought.

Bottom line: the conditions Miller-Urey tested have since been determined to (probably) not be those of the early pre-biotic Earth, but that does not invalidate their experiment because that is not what they were trying to prove. What the experiment shows is that a simple chemical mix and energy can create the building blocks of life quickly. That they didn't duplicate the exact conditions/system involved on Earth is irrelevant to that unavoidable conclusion.

a reply to: whereislogic

I require better evidence for such lifeforms, or as you put it "the initial 'form' of life on Earth WAS NOT A CELL", better evidence than just saying I should comprehend that it's a fact.

The proof is one of 'your' (not necessarily you personally, but those of you on the anti-science, anti-evolutionary 'side') biggest argument. Don't you keep up with your own arguments? Again, my response is in the video I posted.

'Your' argument runs something like this: 'The odds of a 'modern' cell just popping into existence out of a pool of organic chemicals is so high against it that it would be impossible. In fact 'you' often calculate that the odds are 1 in (10 to the power 50000), which is a darn high number, and darn strong odds against (if we accept those odds, of course, which I don't, because I think it is much higher, but I will accept them anyway for the sake of argument).

Any honest scientist would agree that that is a pretty good sign that a 'modern' cell didn't just happen to pop into existence. No way, no how. So you've won then, right?

Of course you can say that must mean that 'God did it', but all it really means is that a 'modern' cell didn't pop into existence from nothing, and was, in fact, not the first life form on Earth, that the first life form on Earth was much, much, simpler, and that living things got more complicated over time till cells formed, (... lots of steps skipped ...) then multicell lifeforms, (... lots of steps skipped ...) then US!

The question remains then, at what point do you decide that a system of chemical reactions is 'life'. That question is, in my opinion, much more interesting than natural abiogenesis versus supernatural abiogenesis. It is also, in my opinion, more philosophical and semantic than scientific.

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
It always makes me smile when people use Evolution as a tool to explain life.

I think it's a pretty solid theory. But it answers so little. No point arguing about it.

It's probably partly... maybe mostly true - but the question of where life began is far too vast and incomprehensible.

Also.

Aliens. And I'm not even kidding.

Life is complex machinery. How did it arise? Well considering it is here, and considering there's no evidence of supernatural events occurring, the likeliest explanation is that there exist extremely simpler machines that can spontaneously arise and serve as initial steps with a line of intermediate complexity machines to get to the current point.

Alternatively, I've heard quantum physicists say that even complex spontaneous appearances of objects, even brains is possible just extremely unlikely. So an entire cell appearing out of thin air is seemingly allowed by known science, if I'm not mistaken, but it is far far more likely that simple machines arose from spontaneous chemical reactions in the beginning.

Logically, this can't happen in the first instance.

Something can't come into existence out of nothing and IN to nothing.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Akragon

I have never understood how the mods let you troll every thread

Why not? They closed this thread down and allowed it to continue after editing out the portion of your OP where you stated matter of factly that the sole purpose of this thread was to openly mock and deride anyone who doesn't support you AIG/ICR certified jabberwocky. Why should you be given a free pass on trolling but others should be banished from your sight because you don't even understand the most basic aspects of evolutionary biology?

Your video,was not proof of anything, no new information was
Oh why bother, it's beyond you

No... it's only beyond YOU my little ragamuffin. You either don't understand science at all, don't bother looking at the material posted by others, or understand it but it offends your fringe sensibilities too much. Whichever it is, new information was indeed added in every scenario, every reply that you pretend it doesn't. Does ICR pay you by the post or by the word? It seems like a profitable racket so maybe I should give pretending to be a fundy a try.

As always, you are invited to actually attempt to falsify the science you disagree with in a form other than simply stating that the replies and citations don't counter your ad nauseum. Likewise, as always, you can't and you know this so you won't bother attempting it. Feel free to prove us all wrong and demonstrate your marvelous knowledge of chemistry and biology.

a reply to: peter vlar

Ken ham called...

Even he wants nothing to do with our friend