Darwin's Illusion

[Polymath257]

But not impossible.

Nope, not impossible, but not likely enough to devote time and energy into the search unless a LOT of other things are shown to be wrong.

It isn't impossible to flip a coin 2000 times and get heads every time. But don't bet on doing so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, you acknowledged it. There is no argument. I stated a fact, you agreed. That’s it. You refuted nothing.

Thanks for the laugh. No it means that you had no point at all. That is why the question "So what?" was asked. It would not matter if your claim was true or false for the argument. It was a worthless argument.

Do you mean it was already accepted as a scientific theory, but that acceptance was never published?[.quiote]

Nope. I do not mean that.

Yes, the theory failed to move beyond the hypothetical stage in more than 100 years because the long research failed to lead to any remotely possible self-sustainable chemistries and pathways that are capable of chemical evolution.

No, even if true, and your claim is false, not moving forwards is not a refutation. In fact your claim is wrong in just about every claim.

[quotie]



Don’t you think “accepted” is the word?

Since it is work in progress the correct attitude is, we can wait. Meanwhile you appear to have no clue as to how close they are to solving this problem. Here is your chance to shine, can you list at least five questions that have been answered in abiogenesis?

As if the majority of the questions have been answered?

They probably have been. But it is not about numbers.

"halfway" per whom? Is that another exclusive unpublished secret of yours?
Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis | Chemical Reviews (acs.org)

Okay. What about it. If you read that article you would have to agree that most of the problems of abiogenesis have been answered. But I already said that it was not a numbers game. Now if you are talking about clickbait articles that claim that the start of life has been solved, I never take those too seriously. As I said there are still problems to be solved in the field.

May or may not?

Clearly may. There has been quite a bit of progress. Mostly in the last 20 years. There is no reason to think that this problem will not be solved.

So, what is reasonable to you? Is it to make whatever claims you wish without any demonstration?

I can and do support my claims. But you are asking for a ton of work and you have not admitted that you are wrong when you were shown to be wrong in the past. That means that you no longer have a right to demand that others do your homework for you. I am not doing a ton of work just to have you deny it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Abiogenesis problem has multiple levels of complexity. The simple organic compounds/ Amino acids, the more complex organic molecules/the chemistry of abiotic nucleotide synthesis of RNA and DNA, then the complex functionalities/live processes of the assumed last universal common ancestor (LUCA) with the ability of self-sustenance/survival, lipids for cell membranes, metabolic functions and mechanisms of heredity reproduction.

Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain the origins and interactions leading through these multiple levels and ending with the LUCA.

The claim that experiments showing that simple organic compounds/amino acids (Miller-Urey experiment) may emerge in nature are evidence for Abiogenesis is illogical (especially that recent evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere had a composition different from the gas used in the Miller experiment). It’s similar to a claim that the existence of a chemical element such as iron in a country is evidence that the country has car-manufacturing industry.

The fact is that neither the problem of chemistry of prebiotic nucleotide synthesis was resolved nor the evidence was ever sufficient, satisfactory or conclusive to support the idea that life may emerge from nonliving matter. None of the numerous attempts led to any remotely possible self-sustainable chemistries and pathways that are capable of chemical evolution. See # 1850 & #2484.

Yes, abiogenesis is a complex problem that has only been worked on for the last seventy years and much of the work was shooting in the dark because we did not fully understand life. We are still working on that a bit. There were many problems. Most of them have been solved. The hardest ones of course have not been solved yet. The article that you linked should have shown you how complex the problems can get. But "hard" is never evidence against. There is quite a bit of evidence for abiogenesis since most of the problems have been solved. I have not seen any evidence against abiogenesis. I have only seen bad arguments.

Meanwhile you have a belief in magic that is not supported by any evidence at all. There are a handful of creationists that can do science but they cannot seem to find any evidence for their beliefs. That appears to be largely for two reasons. One when they have tried to present evidence in the past it was rather easy to refute their claims, and second they appear to be cowards. What new papers have been subjected for peer review that shows any evidence at all for a creator?

 

[gnostic]

Naturally created. Created by intentionless, non-directed chemistry and physics.
I was implying no intentionality; no "creator."

God.

Do you acknowledge natural forces?

Do you understand that natural forces are merely names of unknown forces that exert influences (manifested in the observable realm) through unknown mechanisms?

Do you understand that we don’t know what it is, its intrinsic nature, why/how it exists and how it does what it does? Yet the observed effects demand the existence of these unknown causal influences. How the understanding of God is different?

LIIA

Sciences, particularly Physical Sciences and Natural Sciences required that sciences or scientific theories to pass two essential requirements in Methodological Naturalism:

1. Falsifiability
2. Scientific Method

Failing even the first requirement - Falsifiability - would not allow a MODEL of concept (question on natural or physical phenomena, eg proposed ideas) or explanation (proposed explanations & proposed solutions) - to proceed to the next requirement - Scientific Method.

The points in the above, is that any "model" - any theory, any framework, any concept, any hypothesis, any explanation, any prediction, etc - must be falsifiable, meaning the model must be testable, and the only way "to TEST the model", is the second half of the Scientific Method.

And the test will require observations to the physical or natural phenomena, through evidence gathering or through experiments, or both.

If there are external "cause" for phenomena, then there must be evidence for the "cause" and there must be also evidence for "cause" being responsible for the "effect". You cannot have only evidence for the "effect", because that would defeat the cause-and-effect argument.

What you are proposing that "supernatural being", eg God, being the original cause of the "natural" or "physical" effect, but how do you "test" God, "observe" God, "measure" God, "analyze" God????

You can't. Which mean you cannot add God to your model - or to your hypothesis or theory - because you would be adding something UNFALSIFIABLE into the hypothesis or theory, which would render your concept untestable.

"God did it" isn't a mechanism, and don't yield natural explanation, especially in regarding to biology.

In Abrahamic religions, the core teachings of the respective religions are only found in the Jewish Torah or Tanakh, the Christian Bible and the Muslim Qur'an. All that are required in each of these religions, is that you believe in the scriptures and that you believe in God, and that beliefs required FAITH, not in any PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of God's existence.

Plus, not of the above scriptures offer anything in the way of natural explanation of the physical and natural phenomena, and since the topic are on Evolution & on Abiogenesis, vs Creationism, there are no explanations to the anatomy and physiology of living organisms in any of the scriptures, no explanations on reproduction and passing genetic traits from parent to offspring (nothing about DNA or RNA), no explanations to what the cells are, nor how cells work.

There are no explanations within the scriptures about plant life (Plantae) or about animal life (Animalia), including humans. Nothing in the scriptures include how one species of animal differ from another species. And the authors to these scriptures are completely ignorant about microorganisms such as the unicellular bacteria and the archaea, or the unicellular and eukaryotic cellular organisms, the protozans or the protists - from the kingdom Protista.

The creation in each of these scriptures only offered vague and general description of life, hence no explanations.

But worse of all, your scripture, the Qur'an, included magic creation of the first human - a fully grown male human, Adam, being made of clay and water.

All life, all organisms, whether it be unicellular microorganism or multicellular like animals (which included humans) and plants required cells. Muhammad know nothing about cells. I don't think he even have any idea what molecule or atom are. And cells are made from whole bunch of complex molecules and compounds.

What you and most creationists (regardless if they (creationists) are Jews, Christians or Muslims) don't understand that clay are not made of cells, and clay and water cannot turn into cells.

Do you even know what is the physical properties of clay, the origin source of clay?

Clay originated from minerals of rocks. Rock that have broken down by weathering, to mineral grain, than broken down even further until the minerals have become powdery.

Basically, clay is soil type, and there are other types of soils - silt and sand (sandy soil). And each grain are also made of minerals, originally from rocks.

The mineral for clay is mica. While silt are made of minerals, either feldspar or quartz, and the mineral of sandy soil is quartz.

The points is that all 3 mineral, mica, feldspar and quartz are basically silicate. The most basic silicate is written as SiO4.

More specifically, the chemical composition of clay is aluminum phyllosilicates

Al2Si2O5​

Since clay would include water with silicates, the chemical compound be rewritten as (Al2Si2O5(OH)4) or hydrous aluminum phyllosilicates.

The punchline is this, LIIA, there are NO SILICATE in human body. If Adam was made from clay and water, then we as descendants of Adam, then our cells should contain silicates.

There are no clay in our physical makeup.

Clay is basically a non-living matters.

Didn't you say Abiogenesis contain non-living chemicals?

The fact is that neither the problem of chemistry of prebiotic nucleotide synthesis was resolved nor the evidence was ever sufficient, satisfactory or conclusive to support the idea that life may emerge from nonliving matter.

What do you clay and water are, LIIA? They are non-living matters.

The differences between Abiogenesis and Creationism, is that with Abiogenesis it only deal with natural physical processes and that would include chemical processes, not magic or miracles.

So no matters how you put it, no natural processes can turn clay & water into living cells of human being...not without supernatural or magical forces. Plus neither clay, nor water, are not organic compounds.

And there still the question of - "Where are the evidence for God"?

There are none. Scriptures (eg your Qur'an) are not evidence for anything, especially with the silly story of Adam's creation. Scriptures are just bunch of stories and some rules. They cannot be evidence for itself, because that relying on circular reasoning.

 

[Valjean]

Both creationism and abiogenisis are equal in the sense that the mechanism is unknown (and may never be known).

Abiogenesis does propose a mechanism; a familiar, chemical mechanism. Creationism doesen't even propose mechanism, it's a "theory" of agency. "Godidit" pretty much sums it up.

But I don’t agree with the unevidenced assumption that first life form was exceedingly simple compared to simplest form of life known to science today (single-celled organism) and the unevidenced assumption that first life being simple can emerge spontaneously on its own from nonliving matter.

And yet the simple, chemical processes involved are easily observed in the lab, and it's a lot more conceivable that simple, self duplicating, proto-lifeforms will assemble, than large, complex, multicellular creatures. There is no conceivable process by which complex, fully formed plants or animals could arise de novo -- and no, Goddidit is not a process, it's magic.

The necessary requirements of any living system are essentially the same and its never simple. Any living system of any kind must have vital functions/life processes to allow it to be alive, grow and reproduce. The claim for a much simpler first living system is nothing more than a wishful thinking/myth.

No, there is a gradient, from components of life, like amino acids, nucleic acid, membranes, lipids, and self-reproducing, cell-like structures, to actual living, respiring cells.

At what specific point a lifelike structure becomes life is pretty much an arbitrary call, like the point at which Latin becomes French.
[quoteYou prefer abiogenisis based on the hope that we would have explanation in the future, but such speculation is meaningless it may never happen.[/quote] We both believe in abiogenesis. I believe it happened by familiar chemistry, and began with very simple reactions. You believe complex, fully-formed organisms popped into being by magic.
Which seems more reasonable? Which are we familiar with?

The only fact is that an observed effect demands a causal influence (even if neither the nature of the cause nor the mechanism that exerts the influence is known)Causes are observed in everyday life, but, on closer examination, don't seem so necessary at quantum levels. But, abstractions aside, why would the laws and constants of physics not be sufficient to create life?They seem sufficient for all the effects we see in the material world

The question here is, would the naturalistic view actually prohibit the acceptance of a causal influence of an unknown nature that exerts an influence through an unknown mechanism? It may seem like a radical claim, but the answer is no. Specifically at the fundamental level, it’s actually quite the opposite. It’s a fact that many cannot see/understand. We discussed that before. See #1854 & # 2573

Why 'no'? Why would cause-and effect be in effect at a "fundamental" (quantum) level? Why would chemistry be insufficient to create life?
You're making an extraordinary claim, here; that life cannot arise without magic, wielded by some invisible personage. There is no reasonable reason to propose such a magical personage. No need has been established. The whole idea arises from an ancient book based on superstition and folk tales.

To explain life, we must first understand life. We may think we do but we really don’t. Material doesn’t give rise to life or consciousness; reality is not limited to what can be physically sensed.

Again, you're making a self-serving claim based on personal belief, with no evidence or need.

There is no justification for such claim. See the article below it may shed some light on other aspects of life that are not known or understood, especially line of evidence #2 and #3.

"Not understood" doesn't mean magical or intentional. Bread rising and earthquakes used to be not understood, but that wasn't evidence for a magical God.
Near-Death Experiences Evidence for Their Reality - PMC (nih.gov)

As a posteriori view, Naturalism should accommodate any conclusion driven by data no matter how radical it appears to be. Science should be always open to new discoveries. Science should not be a commitment to a priori. We must follow the road where it leads. We cannot dictate what is at the end of the road before we get there.

First, how did we come to debate NDEs, and what do they have to do with creationism? We don't yet understand them. We don't understand ordinary consciousness. That's not evidence for god. Goddidit never explains anything.

 

[Valjean]

I might agree that it would seen so but observation would seem to suggest that it has already happened since there is no likely source of life from within our solar system and life certainly seems to be much older.

Isn't water, energy and chemicals the most likely source of life here?

 

[Aupmanyav]

What you demand is never attainable for “fundamental questions”. Science neither provides that now nor will ever provide it.

Beyond speculation/wishful thinking do we know the following?
1. Do we know a cause/ mechanism for the instantiation of the universe in reality?
2. Do we know a cause/mechanism for the initiation of life?
3. Do we know a cause/mechanism for how the dark energy exerts its influence (negative/repulsive pressure) on galaxies?
4. Do we know a cause/mechanism for how the strong nuclear force exerts its influence on subatomic particles?
5. Do we know a cause/ mechanism for how any natural force of any kind exerts its influence on matter?
6. Do we know a cause/ mechanism for how/why the natural forces came to existence? do we know or understand its intrinsic nature?

'.. but actual mechanism is never known.'
The notion that “the natural force (such as dark energy) did it” doesn’t claim a mechanism, does it?

.. we infer the presence of causes of totally unknown nature that can’t be understood or observed because we demand an explanation to the observations.

The effect that can be observed demands the presence of the cause even if the cause can’t be observed or understood.

Are you a prophet sent by God? How do you know what science will discover or will not be able to discover in future?
1. Do you know what need God had to create the universe?
2. We have a fair idea. Only the details are to be filled up.
3. Science is investigating it.

Do you feel that science should be ashamed of not knowing? Is 'Goddidit' any better than saying that we do not not know? At least science is not faking it up.

4. Science is investigating it.
5. Science is investigating it.
6. Science is investigating it.

You should say that 'the actual mechanism is not known today.' It does not preclude what we may come to know in future.
Can't be understood today does not mean that we will never know.

In that case kindly let us know the cause of existence of God?

 

[Aupmanyav]

First, how did we come to debate NDEs, and what do they have to do with creationism? We don't yet understand them. We don't understand ordinary consciousness. That's not evidence for god. Goddidit never explains anything.

I think NDE is adequately explained. It is brain's last tango with depleting oxygen and accumulation of carbon Mono-oxide and Carbon Di-oxide in blood, when the motor and pain centers of the brain have been closed down and only sensory and memory functions are at work. We understand the basics of consciousness, it is just like a hard disk storing data with fuzzy retrieval function.

But not impossible.

Presence of organic molecules in space and meteorites is attested, but arrival of life on earth from any other place is impossible for the reasons mentioned by Polymath.

 

[Valjean]

In fact, one of the main concerns is that the new abiogenesis tools of research gave rise to the use of starting materials and controlled lab environments that were not available in nature or consistent with prebiotic conditions which call the relevance of the results into question.

Amino acids, nucleobases, fatty acids, &c. can form under, natural conditions.

There was no life, now there is life, so you logically demand a cause and infer that the cause for life is the interactions of existing lifeless matter. Can the interactions of the lifeless give rise to life? Can the interactions of the non-self-aware give rise to the self-aware? If you say yes, how can you support your claim other than wishful thinking?

With the fact that it happened? What alternative is there?

How about there was nothing and the universe did appear, why don’t you logically demand a cause?

The cause would be chemical evolution. Google.

You accept that the entire universe and life itself originated from nothing.

I don't accept that. You jump to conclusions.

Yet you do demand a cause for life, i.e., you demand the existing to be the cause for the contingent, isn’t it reasonable to infer an (ever-existing) absolute first cause for everything contingent in existence?

I'm not demanding. I just expect biology to work the same way the rest of the world does. As for an absolute first cause, what would that be? God? Superstrings?
I think that at this absolute level, though, determinism no longer applies.

“Life appeared” means that we observed an effect that must have a cause. The cause is not known doesn’t equal abiogenesis is true.

What are the alternatives?
"God" is not a mechanism, it's an agent. God is not a necessary cause. It's a special pleading you seem to justigy by a false dichotome. Something not known or undersyood is not evidence for a god.

Again, you’re talking about experimentations in controlled lab conditions that utilizes starting materials that were not available in nature under prebiotic conditions. The results of such experimentations are irrelevant. Typically the set up of these experiments is not prebiotically realistic in terms of its concentrations, spatial-sequence separation and the availability of pure starting materials.

I'm talking about reactions both in vitro and in vivo.

Do you acknowledge natural forces?

As in natural laws and constants? Yes.

Do you understand that natural forces are merely names of unknown forces that exert influences (manifested in the observable realm) through unknown mechanisms?

Do you understand that we don’t know what it is, its intrinsic nature, why/how it exists and how it does what it does? Yet the observed effects demand the existence of these unknown causal influences. How the understanding of God is different?

God is not observable, measurable, testable, predictive, or falsifiable. Our lack of understanding of a process does not necessitate a god.

Dark energy that acts between galaxies or the strong nuclear force that act between subatomic particles are only names of unknowns. The names may give you the illusion of knowledge but as I said before, we don’t know its intrinsic nature, why/how it exists and how it does what it does? Or how/why the influence of each force is calibrated to a specific value? All what we can do, is merely assign a name to it, that’s it. We can never neither understand it’s intrinsic nature nor the mechanism through which it influences matter. We don’t know any mechanisms; we only observe existing influences. The manifestations in observations (effects) are the only reasons why we infer the causes even if the causes itself are beyond any possible observation or understanding.

Again, lack of understanding ≠ Goddidit!

This is exactly the same case with the understanding of God. The only difference is that God is not an individual cause for an individual effect; God is the absolute cause for every contingent entity in existence

(including the natural forces itself).

An uncaused cause. An unnecessary cause.

 

[Valjean]

What is the basis for the claim that the creation process is intentionless? How can you tell? Is that because we cannot see evidence of purpose, design and functional structures of extreme complexity that absolutely dwarfs the most sophisticated structures ever designed/built by man?

It is reasonable to assume that something's that's neither evidenced nor necessary doesn't exist.

 

[Valjean]

The fact is that there is no known explanation/or mechanism. abiogenesis is not a mechanism, it’s just a name we use to refer to an unknown process that was taken as an axiom. Many would confuse the name itself for an actual mechanism. The mechanism is yet to be known and may never be known.

I don't see why ordinary chemistry is such an incomprehensible mystery. Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

The same is true for “singularity”, it’s merely a name to identify an unknown and similarly the name itself may be confused for actual knowledge, which is not true.

I agree that the physics underlying this is little understood, but most of what we know today was once little understood.

 

[gnostic]

Naturally created. Created by intentionless, non-directed chemistry and physics.
I was implying no intentionality; no "creator."

God.

Do you acknowledge natural forces?

Do you understand that natural forces are merely names of unknown forces that exert influences (manifested in the observable realm) through unknown mechanisms?

Do you understand that we don’t know what it is, its intrinsic nature, why/how it exists and how it does what it does? Yet the observed effects demand the existence of these unknown causal influences. How the understanding of God is different?

LIIA

Sciences, particularly Physical Sciences and Natural Sciences required that sciences or scientific theories to pass two essential requirements in Methodological Naturalism:

1. Falsifiability
2. Scientific Method

Failing even the first requirement - Falsifiability - would not allow a MODEL of concept (question on natural or physical phenomena, eg proposed ideas) or explanation (proposed explanations & proposed solutions) - to proceed to the next requirement - Scientific Method.

The points in the above, is that any "model" - any theory, any framework, any concept, any hypothesis, any explanation, any prediction, etc - must be falsifiable, meaning the model must be testable, and the only way "to TEST the model", is the second half of the Scientific Method.

And the test will require observations to the physical or natural phenomena, through evidence gathering or through experiments, or both.

If there are external "cause" for phenomena, then there must be evidence for the "cause" and there must be also evidence for "cause" being responsible for the "effect". You cannot have only evidence for the "effect", because that would defeat the cause-and-effect argument.

What you are proposing that "supernatural being", eg God, being the original cause of the "natural" or "physical" effect, but how do you "test" God, "observe" God, "measure" God, "analyze" God????

You can't. Which mean you cannot add God to your model - or to your hypothesis or theory - because you would be adding something UNFALSIFIABLE into the hypothesis or theory, which would render your concept untestable.

"God did it" isn't a mechanism, and don't yield natural explanation, especially in regarding to biology.

In Abrahamic religions, the core teachings of the respective religions are only found in the Jewish Torah or Tanakh, the Christian Bible and the Muslim Qur'an. All that are required in each of these religions, is that you believe in the scriptures and that you believe in God, and that beliefs required FAITH, not in any PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of God's existence.

Plus, not of the above scriptures offer anything in the way of natural explanation of the physical and natural phenomena, and since the topic are on Evolution & on Abiogenesis, vs Creationism, there are no explanations to the anatomy and physiology of living organisms in any of the scriptures, no explanations on reproduction and passing genetic traits from parent to offspring (nothing about DNA or RNA), no explanations to what the cells are, nor how cells work.

There are no explanations within the scriptures about plant life (Plantae) or about animal life (Animalia), including humans. Nothing in the scriptures include how one species of animal differ from another species. And the authors to these scriptures are completely ignorant about microorganisms such as the unicellular bacteria and the archaea, or the unicellular and eukaryotic cellular organisms, the protozans or the protists - from the kingdom Protista.

The creation in each of these scriptures only offered vague and general description of life, hence no explanations.

But worse of all, your scripture, the Qur'an, included magic creation of the first human - a fully grown male human, Adam, being made of clay and water.

All life, all organisms, whether it be unicellular microorganism or multicellular like animals (which included humans) and plants required cells. Muhammad know nothing about cells. I don't think he even have any idea what molecule or atom are. And cells are made from whole bunch of complex molecules and compounds.

What you and most creationists (regardless if they (creationists) are Jews, Christians or Muslims) don't understand that clay are not made of cells, and clay and water cannot turn into cells.

Do you even know what is the physical properties of clay, the origin source of clay?

Clay originated from minerals of rocks. Rock that have broken down by weathering, to mineral grain, than broken down even further until the minerals have become powdery.

Basically, clay is soil type, and there are other types of soils - silt and sand (sandy soil). And each grain are also made of minerals, originally from rocks.

The mineral for clay is mica. While silt are made of minerals, either feldspar or quartz, and the mineral of sandy soil is quartz.

The points is that all 3 mineral, mica, feldspar and quartz are basically silicate. The most basic silicate is written as SiO4.

More specifically, the chemical composition of clay is aluminum phyllosilicates

Al2Si2O5​

Since clay would include water with silicates, the chemical compound be rewritten as (Al2Si2O5(OH)4) or hydrous aluminum phyllosilicates.

The punchline is this, LIIA, there are NO SILICATE in human body. If Adam was made from clay and water, then we as descendants of Adam, then our cells should contain silicates.

There are no clay in humans' physical makeup.

Clay is basically a non-living matters.

Didn't you say Abiogenesis contain non-living chemicals?

The fact is that neither the problem of chemistry of prebiotic nucleotide synthesis was resolved nor the evidence was ever sufficient, satisfactory or conclusive to support the idea that life may emerge from nonliving matter.

What do you think clay and water are made of? They are non-living matters.

 

[Valjean]

What is the basis for the claim that the creation process is intentionless? How can you tell? Is that because we cannot see evidence of purpose, design and functional structures of extreme complexity that absolutely dwarfs the most sophisticated structures ever designed/built by man?

It is because:
There's no evidence of intention.
There's no need for intention. The processes are observed to operate automatically, by natural law.
If intentional, the operator is a very incompetent engineer, judging by how poorly designed and haphazard his creations are.

The burden of proof is on you, to produce evidence of a creator. It's not up to science to disprove that for which there's neither evidence nor need.

 

[rational experiences]

Theists state I study one single organism. My science maths conclusion is one single organism.

Sion is his lying. Concluded Sion.

In human teaching all humans are present to be a human theist. Number calculus is human thought applied. Seeing all things as just a human.

You live with Fu Sion.

You want to however practice fis H Sion.

H terrestrial magnetism changes by symbolism as man's science.

The symbol a law H cannot change. You however want it changed.

Was your scientific theists warning.

Earth not a particle or dust is rocks mass law first. If you stood just upon dust you'd sink to your smothered death.

So you said I want to alter a dust that existed as dust by a huge ancient hot then cooled irradiated mass attack.

So when you look at the dust it's history is huge heated mass radiation included first.

You ignored your owned theist advice.

You live in a Fused earth position upon bared naked ground only.

Reasoned as nature is rooted into bared naked ground that prevents your free movement.

As it was before you.

Now you think tell yourself advice first.

You said you lived as man human with cold fused dusts. In the same mind thesis.

That advice said why you don't change dusts.

First you never said dust created life.

As first ever human scientist theist. Your life position. Your story.

You were a man baby human. You were living tribal life. Your two parents with you.

As there is no human baby conscious advice existing before his own two parents.

You however had already been born. Lived your own adult father brother life. Died.

Before you became first science theist. Why recorded life memory is always pre involved in thesis dead humans when you theoried.

You then sacrifice your life biology yet survived. So you put living adult baby man sacrificed into the recorded human deceased memories that are only owned by deceased humans.

Why you were brain mind image voice defected. You hadn't come back from spirit you were not dead either.

Science ....all I identified with by my one single cell thesis is the destruction in biology of the owned living mass of biology cells.

As the theist one cell maths science position.

 

[We Never Know]

Nope, not impossible, but not likely enough to devote time and energy into the search unless a LOT of other things are shown to be wrong.

It isn't impossible to flip a coin 2000 times and get heads every time. But don't bet on doing so.

Its not really likely that the universe and we would just be here but here we are.

 

[Polymath257]

Its not really likely that the universe and we would just be here but here we are.

And how do you conclude it is unlikely? based on what assumptions? based on what data?

But yes, the ultimately unexplained thing is why there is something instead of nothing.

And it is likely that there is simply no answer to that question (there may not be a reason).

 

[gnostic]

The Abiogenesis problem has multiple levels of complexity. The simple organic compounds/ Amino acids, the more complex organic molecules/the chemistry of abiotic nucleotide synthesis of RNA and DNA, then the complex functionalities/live processes of the assumed last universal common ancestor (LUCA) with the ability of self-sustenance/survival, lipids for cell membranes, metabolic functions and mechanisms of heredity reproduction.

Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain the origins and interactions leading through these multiple levels and ending with the LUCA.

The claim that experiments showing that simple organic compounds/amino acids (Miller-Urey experiment) may emerge in nature are evidence for Abiogenesis is illogical (especially that recent evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere had a composition different from the gas used in the Miller experiment). It’s similar to a claim that the existence of a chemical element such as iron in a country is evidence that the country has car-manufacturing industry.

The fact is that neither the problem of chemistry of prebiotic nucleotide synthesis was resolved nor the evidence was ever sufficient, satisfactory or conclusive to support the idea that life may emerge from nonliving matter. None of the numerous attempts led to any remotely possible self-sustainable chemistries and pathways that are capable of chemical evolution. See # 1850 & #2484.

The chemical processes - the chemical reactions - can occur naturally and synthetically, whether the chemicals are organic and inorganic.

But if we’re to believe Adam was created from clay and water (as the Qur’an claimed), than a lot of silicates (clay minerals) should still exist in the modern human body.

No claim minerals were found in human molecular composition.

My point is that you cannot chemically turn clay minerals (silicates) into biological compounds like proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, etc, because silicon is purely inorganic substance.

We do have numbers of different types of minerals, but not of the silicate varieties.

So, basically, the Quran creation narrative of Adam is pure myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The chemical processes - the chemical reactions - can occur naturally and synthetically, whether the chemicals are organic and inorganic.

Bu if we’re to believe Adam was created from clay and water (as the Qur’an claimed), than a lot of silicates (clay minerals) should still exist in the modern human body.

No claim minerals were found in human molecular composition.

My point is that you cannot chemically turn clay minerals (silicates) into biological compounds like proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, etc, because silicon is purely inorganic substance.

We do have numbers of different types of minerals, but not of the silicate varieties.

So, basically, the Quran creation narrative of Adam is pure myth.

Perhaps he practices geophagy.

 

[gnostic]

btw, @LIIA

LUCA is addressed in Evolution, which are concern with species of different taxon groups, such as within genus or within clade, which shared common physical traits between two or more species.

Abiogenesis don't concern itself with species or with speciation. Abiogenesis have to do with the origins of biological compounds or molecules before the formation of cells.

So Abiogenesis is more chemistry-oriented.

 

[We Never Know]

And how do you conclude it is unlikely? based on what assumptions? based on what data?

But yes, the ultimately unexplained thing is why there is something instead of nothing.

And it is likely that there is simply no answer to that question (there may not be a reason).

If its all "likely" then there should be other universe's and other life abundant.