You assume that the alleged evolutionary history is true and use this assumption, as your proof that the unevidenced/imaginary first live was very simple compared to simplest form of life today.
You fail to understand that the characteristics that constitute or define life can neither be simple...
Fine, if you want to prove me wrong, go back to #2465 and demonstrate the reasons of your disagreement, if you have any.
Great, so you finally acknowledged the fact that abiogenesis is not a scientific theory (and may never be). That is progress.
We did have a long discussion about...
You still don’t get it. Your oversimplification of life is the problem. Life in any shape or form is very far from simple. The simplest form possible of any living system of any kind is exceedingly complex.
In essence, the rules that defines and enables the existence of a living system of any...
There is always much to learn. Science is ever changing and yes, science is and should be OPEN to new discoveries. This is exactly the point. Science should not be a commitment to a priori.
But possible further knowledge/evidence doesn’t establish any basis to deny current consensus today...
#2465 is not long, no one asked you to write any books. Do you expect me or anyone else to buy your silly excuses? Go back to #2465 and demonstrate the reasons of your disagreement, if you have any.
You blindly follow an outdated theory and deliberately ignore the fact that it was proven...
Nonsense. I said that the original organism must be alive and must have the ability to grow, reproduce and successfully persist within its environment for many generations.
It may be difficult sometimes to express my thoughts clearly/accurately in English as a second language, but I never said...
Nice escape.
No one is asking you to write any books. You have thousands of posts on this forum. You spend lots of time on this forum and it doesn’t appear that you would stop any time soon, yet you don’t have time to respond to a post!!
Have a good night.
Nonsense, copying itself is essentially “reproducing".
"Which one is the copy" is irrelevant with respect to the essential need that the organism must have the ability of reproducing. See #2460 #2463 & #2465.
I explained what I mean by “perfect” organism, identify your “good enough” organism and demonstrate how it can miss any of the essential characteristics as I identified in my post # 2463
No, I’m not thinking of life in the terms of modern life, I’m only identifying the essential...
Based on previous discussions, I knew that proponent of evolution such as yourself would typically ignore the core concept of the argument and rely on some red herring tricks and irrelevant semantics in a trial to cause distraction. That is why I specifically clarified the intended meaning of...
What did I deny?
All what I’m saying it that the overall outcome of NDE studies is that the phenomenon is inexplicable under current paradigm and you did agree.
UFOs are not the same as NDEs. The observed objects/atmospheric phenomena are unidentified (possibly identified but undisclosed)...
It's not logical to claim that you would respect a hypothetical future scientific opinion yet ignore current scientific consensus today.
Yes, there is always much to learn. Your vote is irrelevant. The scientific vote already confirmed that the phenomenon in inexplicable under current paradigm...
You’re welcome. The reason for the short form is because you said nothing of value.
If the prerequisite of a process is not possible, then the process is not possible. Let alone if the mechanisms of the process are also disproved.
The prerequisite of evolution is a perfect organism that has...