Impossible Abiogenesishttp://youtu.be/numvrexazaw

[Theland]

http://youtu.be/nuMvRExazAw
Seems the maths is against abiogenesis.
How do atheist evolutionists explain this?

[birdie1971]

Whoops!

Apologies Theland. I mistakenly called you Goodlife in my last post!

[Old_Geezer]

LOL

sorry

[Khandro]

birdie; //It is a peculiar trait of the religious that they seem to have a great deal of scepticism about scientific claims regarding evolution and its related subjects even though those claims can be checked and validated by observable empirical data.//

You continually make the distinction between evolution and intelligent design, as if the former nullifies the latter, whereas evolution is in my view a component of intelligent design, and religion need not even enter into that assertion.

[Old_Geezer]

True, as long as you don't equate belief in an intelligent designer as religious. But I think the main issue is that an intelligent designer does not seem a necessary addition to a system of inevitable change and filtering. It's more an added component to a process that already seems complete even if we don't know all about it.

(Unless discussing why a state of there being something is more natural than a state of nothing, which seems counter intuitive and a different question. It's why I sometimes pose the question of why does maths exist. Without it as a tool describing something real "out there" one can not perceive theories of uncertainty creating anything.)

[jomifl]

/evolution is in my view a component of intelligent design/

What do you base that conclusion on Khandro? there is plenty of evidence to support the theory of evolution but there isn't even a proper theory of intelligent design, so nobody knows what constitutes evidence for the notion...'cos that's all it is.

[Khandro]

jomifl; I'll put it in simple terms for you, it's all about chickens and eggs;
Ya gotta da egg, but ya no gotta da chicken.

[Old_Geezer]

I think the sticking point is believing one needs a chicken. It's turtles... sorry I mean eggs, all the way down. Non-living eggs to start with and live eggs later.

[naomi24]

Khandro, //ya no gotta da chicken. //

But neither do you.

[Khandro]

naomi; I may not know which one it is, but when I see my egg, I know a chicken is involved somewhere.

[naomi24]

Khandro, //I know a chicken is involved somewhere. //

No, you don't 'know'. You 'think' a chicken is involved somewhere.

[jim360]

What if it's a snake's egg?

[Old_Geezer]

That's just a croc

[jomifl]

Khandro, no, it isn't about eggs and chickens, try explaining your version of the development of life . If you haven't got an alternative to the current ideas then come back when you have got one. Then we can rubbish that :-)

[Hypognosis]

@Khandro

Egg formation is just a highly specialised form of binary fission. For argument's sake, you might as well wind the clock all the way back to the first unicellular creature which was capable of binary fission and have us consider how it transitioned from being a long-lived cell, previously incapable of binary fission, to something which was suddenly able to reproduce itself, via some internal change (due to exposure to radiation or mutagens).

Either that, or reproduction - at macromolecule level - was ingrained long prior to the novelty of cell membranes and binary fission was bound to occur, as soon as they were in place.

Note: sexual reproduction is several development stages later.