>This makes it impossible to imagine how ordered linear polymers, amino acids and nucleotides could be assembled.
That's because you're a moron, not because it can't happen.

Have you noticed how all the planets in the inner Solar System are rocky and how those in the outer Solar System are gaseous? Or how the Earth's core is iron-nickel while the surface is mostly silicates, and the atmosphere is mostly nitrogen? Why is it like this? Is it "impossible to imagine" a purely physical mechanism that could have caused such a highly ordered state?

File 161699169658.png - (38.88KB , 712x378 , No common ancestor.png )

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3269633/
>These studies suggested that the tympanic ear appears to have emerged independently at least five times, i.e. in the lines leading to amphibians, turtles, lepidosaurs (lizards and snakes), archosaurs (crocodiles and birds) and mammals.
>The consequence is that the auditory papillae and nuclei in the central auditory pathway of tetrapods, especially those nuclei involved in the processing of tympanic (i.e. high-frequency) sound, are not necessarily homologous

Evolution is a giant paradox. Even studies have shown that traits are developed independently and not inherited from a common ancestor. Tympanic hearing is not homologous which in effect disproves the claim that all organisms have a common ancestor which they inherited their traits from. Evolutionists try to have their cake and eat it too.

>>17386
Having a tympanic ear is not a defining trait of all vertebrates, let alone of all life. Why don't you try searching how many times spinal chords arose independently? Or how many times animals lost their cell walls? Or how many times ATP synthesis arose independently?

>traits are developed independently and not inherited from a common ancestor.
Oh, so you don't even believe genetic inheritance is a real phenomenon? For example, tall people aren't more likely to have tall children, black people aren't more likely to have black children, children of people who get cancer aren't more likely to get cancer themselves, and a couple of one species can give birth to an arbitrarily different species. That's how you think it works, is it? Well, no wonder you say this stupid shit, then! Your life must be a confusing hell where nothing makes any sense.

>>17386
It’s funny how they try to convince people that evolution is real when they can’t even prove that all traits are hereditary.

>>17387
Nice cope.

>>17388
Just because you don't understand heritability, evolution, or convergent evolution, doesn't mean that any of those phenomena haven't been demonstrated enough or that they contradict one other in any way. Sorry, but the truth of a proposition is independent of your inability to understand it.

>>17389
Wow, so mister Wikipedia is going to give me a lecture on biology? Cope harder.

>>17390
>give me a lecture on biology
Pearls before swine.

>>17385
What a good ad hominem post, anon. I really like your in depth explanation about how abiogenesis occurs and how the cell is assembled, lol.

>>17393
An ad hominem would be "what you said is false because you're a moron". Me calling you moron and then explaining why you're wrong is not an ad hominem. It's an insult followed by a counterargument.

>in depth explanation about how abiogenesis occurs and how the cell is assembled
I don't need to do that to argue against you. Your contention is that abiogenesis couldn't have happened. Excuse me, that it's "impossible to imagine" how it could have happened. All I need to show is how what you've said does not make abiogenesis implausible. I absolutely do not need to show how abiogenesis definitely happened to argue against it being implausible.

Maybe try learning how to debate first?

>>17394
I hope you are aware that there is more than one poster on the Internet. You are not replying to OP, just so you know. Also, you do not even have an argument. The fact that you refuse to explain how abiogenesis would take place means you admit defeat because your claim is unfounded and without any scientific evidence.

>>17396
>your claim is unfounded and without any scientific evidence
I don't have a claim. OP does, which is "abiogenesis is implausible". As I've said, I don't need to prove that abiogenesis actually happened to prove OP wrong, I just need to show that OP's conclusion doesn't follow from their premise.

>>17396
>The fact that you refuse to explain how abiogenesis would take place means you admit defeat because your claim is unfounded and without any scientific evidence.
Then surely you must have a better theory with regards to the origins of life?

Come on, let's hear it.

>>17393
He uses deus ex machina cope without elaborating on why it would be feasible. Comic book tier post.

>>17400
It's plausible because there's nothing that makes it implausible. We know life is made of chemical compounds that could have appeared spontaneously in the primordial Earth. Until someone finds a reason why any of this would be implausible, abiogenesis is the best explanation for why life exists.

Even more importantly, though, we know life is not an inherent property of the universe, unlike for example gravity. Even if life didn't originate in the early Earth, there was a point in time where no life existed anywhere in the universe. Since life exists now, necessarily it must have arisen at some somewhere through purely physical mechanisms.
Until someone can demonstrate a non-physical mechanism through which life could have appeared (i.e. magic), abiogenesis is not just the best, but the only explanation for life.

Any other questions?

>>17384
I just want to remind everybody here that the official origin story of evolution according to science is that several strikes of lightning caused a chain reaction which lead to the complex arrangement of countless particles that caused DNA to begin self replicating.

>>17403
I just want to remind everyone here that nobody here has been able to provide a better theory regarding the origins of life.

If they have one I'm willing to hear it.

>>17403
And the official origin story of religion is that some magical superior being waved His mighty hand or whatever, and life appeared out of nowhere.

Which, considering that any sort of god is already a lifeform, means this is just a homunculus paradox. Life was created by life, so how was THAT life created? By another form of life...? It's endless.

>>17406
>Homunculus paradox
I'd be careful about providing alternate theories on their behalf. They'll simply respond with a "lol, well that's wrong to" without putting forth the theories they believe to be true.

File 161744278661.jpg - (271.52KB , 500x694 , Fedora holiday.jpg )

>>17400
It was a really lousy post, yeah. I agree with you. No details or thorough step by step construction of a proto-cell by this mysterious physical mechanism.

In order to have a real counterargument, he would first have to prove how ribose, phosphate, purines and pyrimidines formed. These in turn would produce nucleotides in a very low yield, complicated further by the presence of a much larger amount of various nucleotide analogues. Then he would have to show how the nucleotides and their analogues in turn would fuse into polymers (2'5'-, 3'5'- and 5'5'-phosphodiester linkages, variable numbers of phosphates between the sugars, D- and L- stereoisomers of the sugars, α- and β-monomers of the glycosidic bond and assorted modifications of the sugars, phosphates and bases). After that he would have to show how an impartial self-replication mechanism would arise out of this mess that disregards the compositional differences in all of these components. DNA sequences that code for proteins need to convey, in addition to the protein-coding information, several different signals at the same time. These parallel codes include binding sequences for regulatory and structural proteins, signals for splicing, and RNA secondary structure. Basically, it's an impossible task.

>>17409
So what's the alternative theory?

>>17409
>In order to have a real counterargument, he would first have to [load of bullshit]
Just because you say it doesn't make it so.

>Basically, it's an impossible task.
It certainly must be a comfortable feeling to think that you can dictate what is and isn't a valid counterargument, and to then specify that the only valid counterarguments would be impossible to construct, but I'm wondering whether you realize what you've done by doing that.
What you've said here is that your position that abiogenesis couldn't have happened is impossible to disprove. That's perfect! That means it's both unscientific and irrelevant. By your own words, "abiogenesis couldn't have happened" is on the same level as "the universe really started last Thursday in its then-current state, and all evidence of earlier events is fabricated".

File 161747150214.jpg - (486.11KB , 1280x720 , Confirmed idiot.jpg )

>>17412
>load of bullshit

See pic related. You have no knowledge about molecular biology and you have still not provided any evidence for your miraculous physical mechanism creating functional cells out of nothing. It obviously is an impossible task since you have the education of a preschooler.

>>17413
Please explain why I would need to provide any evidence whatsoever that abiogenesis happened to argue that it might have happened. More properly, that it's not impossible for it to have happened. That's what's in discussion here, remember? You started the thread arguing that it was "impossible to imagine" how abiogenesis could have occurred.
If all we're talking about is what is possible then I have no reason to give any evidence of what actually happened, all I need to do is show that what you say doesn't make abiogenesis impossible.

>>17414
Go back to preschool, you toddler. You don't even have the slightest idea how cellular translation works and yet you try to spout your comic book nonsense like a true sophist.

>>17415
My education is not under discussion here.
Why would I need to prove abiogenesis true to argue against abiogenesis being implausible? Why is that the only valid counterargument to anything you've said here? Are you unable to answer even such a simple question, or is it that you don't like the answer you would need to give?

>>17416
Fantasy arguments like yours are not valid. You lack basic understanding of what you're trying to discuss, kiddo.

>>17417
Stop avoiding the question.

>>17418
All you do is spout nonsense without evidence. An argument does no rely on your ability to make stuff up. Anyone can do that, son.

>>17418
>Stop avoiding the question.
I can't help but notice you've avoided providing an alternative theory every time you've been asked for one...

>>17419
Exactly what did I say that would need to be backed by evidence? That some planets in the Solar System are rocky while other are gaseous and what the approximate constitution of the Earth is? Is that what you're disputing?
Stop avoiding the question. I'm pasting it here just so you don't forget:
>Why would I need to prove abiogenesis true to argue against abiogenesis being implausible?

>>17420
Dude, what are you talking about? Did you lose track of the conversation? I'm arguing that abiogenesis is plausible. This fuckhead >>17419 wants to argue that it's implausible and thinks he can sneak by us a requirement that the only way to refute him is to definitely prove abiogenesis. Like we're so stupid we have no fucking clue how to counterargue.

>>17421
Your argument is nonsense. You state that there are planets of different appearance and this somehow proves abiogenesis has happened and this is "proved" by alluding to some incomprehensible physical mechanism. Zero evidence, all talk.

>>17421
>Dude, what are you talking about? Did you lose track of the conversation?
Yep. My bad.

>>17422
So what's the alternative?

>>17423
No worries.

>>17422
>You state that there are planets of different appearance and this somehow proves abiogenesis has happened
Ah, I see the problem. You didn't understand my point at all. You really should have started with that.

Your original contention was that abiogenesis couldn't have happened because after a few rounds of reaction the primordial soup would have been left in a state where all the different compounds would be randomly distributed throughout the solution, and it would be "impossible to imagine" how organized processes could arise from such disorder. I set aside that this is an argument from incredulity and that you have not provided any reasons why the randomness of the solution would be an impediment to further reactions necessary for abiogenesis, and counterargued with this:

The Solar nebula was originally a disorganized gas cloud composed of all the elements that now exist on Earth. From that disorder the Solar System was formed. A highly organized system where (for starters) its main bodies and their structures are determined by the relative densities of their compositional elements. The "incomprehensible physical mechanism" that allows this is obviously gravity.
So, since evidently order can arise spontaneously from disorder via purely physical means (obviously the formation of the Solar System increased the total entropy of the universe, but that's neither here nor there), that the primordial soup was in a state of disorder at some point prior to the origin of life should have no bearing on whether abiogenesis could be possible. If you can accept that the extremely organized system that is the Earth and everything in it originated from a chaotic gaseous solution of hydrogen, helium, and trace elements, accepting that very complex molecules arose from an aqueous solution of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphor, etc. should not be a larger leap of faith.

Although, reading your posts I'm starting to get the feeling that yours is not a problem of accepting or rejecting evidence or ideas, but of... I guess disillusionment with science? You expect science to be able to answer all the questions you might think of, and the moment the answer that comes back is "we don't know [yet]" you immediately want to write off an entire discipline. Sorry, but that's not how science works. If we were forced to reject any conclusions that were derived from incomplete understanding of a natural system we would have to stop doing science altogether.
That we don't know the exact mechanism by which abiogenesis happened down to the very last reaction is not enough to conclude that it didn't happen. Our current knowledge is also not enough to conclude that it definitely 100% happened. I challenge you to find a single biologist who says that. What we do know, however, is that we currently don't have any better explanation for why life exists. Panspermia just moves the problem to a different planet. Other explanations fail to be parsimonious by requiring us to assume the existence of entities we've never seen (aliens, God, whatever).

>>17425
So you admit that you conflate two totally different events, determined by different processes? Good. That just shows how little you know about the subject. A planet or a star is not a cell and physics is not molecular biology. You extrapolate "evidence" from a separate field and apply it to another. It is like saying that because you can knit a sweater then you can build a car engine.

>>17426
So you admit that you cannot offer a better explanation.

Youtube  >>17425
Uumm, sweetie, I have some bad news for you.

>>17426
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your main objection seems to be that you find it unbelievable that a very organized system such as a protocell could have emerged spontaneously in a disorganized environment such as the primordial soup. I gave an example of an organized system (the Solar System) that emerged in a disorganized environment (the Solar Nebula). My point is not that a planet is like a cell; it's that local disorder is not by itself sufficient to conclude that local order could arise spontaneously at a later point in time.

>It is like saying that because you can knit a sweater then you can build a car engine.
You seem really sure that cells are more complex than planets. What metric are you using to measure complexity?

>You extrapolate "evidence" from a separate field and apply it to another.
Why is the word "evidence" in quotes? Do you also deny the current theory of the origin of the Earth?

>>17429
>ID: be6f8f

I thought I was talking to ID: 746924. Why do you switch IP? Are you paranoid?

>>17430
I still see you failing to offer an alternative explanation, are you incapable of providing an answer?

>>17430
Probably a schizo.

>>17430
I post from home and from work.

>>17433
Ok, schizo.

>>17434
>Gets proven wrong,
>Can't google a counter-argument,
>Goes full ad hominem.
Still waiting on your alternative theory.

>>17386
That's really interesting! No wonder Darwinism makes no sense.

>>17436
>No wonder Darwinism makes no sense.
In what way does it "make no sense", you seem to be under the impression that an evolutionary novelty disproves an entire theory when acknowledging it as a novelty within the scope is by extension an acknowledgement of the theory.

Perhaps you could offer an alternative explanation with regards to the origins of the species. Something that does "make sense" as you put it.

>>17437
I don't think there's much point in arguing with anyone who refers to evolutionary theory as "Darwinism".

On the subject of it being mathematically impossible for life to self-create on Earth even in billions of years, because of the huge probabilities against:

You're forgetting the anthropic bias which is a type of survivorship bias. Earth isn't the only planet that has the conditions to harbor life. There a millions of stars in billions of galaxies over trillions of years of time. So that probability can be solved simply by dividing out all the possible planets that COULD have spontaneously developed life, but didn't for some reason or another. It just so happens that the one that did also developed creatures capable of wondering about. The other planets don't have sapient beings to think about how they don't have life on them.

>>17438
>schizo gets triggered by a word

Take your meds.

>>17436
It is kind of ridiculous that people seriously can believe in evolution when a trait isn't homologous. That's the core thesis. Without it, it all breaks down. Tympanic hearing appearing in several species independently means that natural selection does nothing.

>>17441
It's also ridiculous how people can act like evolution isn't real without offering an alternative explanation for the origins of life when pressed.

>>17441
If your grandfather wins the lottery and your father inherits his fortune, and when he dies you and your siblings inherit his fortune, and so on down the line, that's homology.

If your second cousin (e.g. the grandson of your grandfather's brother) wins the lottery, you get nothing. If you win the lottery, he gets nothing. It can even be the case that you, him, and a different second cousin of yours (e.g. the grandson of your grandfather's sister) all independently win different lotteries and neither of you share your riches with each other and only share it with your descendants.
None of this contradicts homology because homology is the passing down of traits down direct descendant lines.

Homology would only be contradicted if at some point someone's child didn't inherit any money, even though the parents still had several millions when they died.

>>17443
Oh boy...just stop posting your mental gymnastics. If traits are developed independently it means you cannot prove common descent. Non-homologous means that they are not from the same ancestor. Homology, by definition, is about descent from a single ancestor, not several.

File 161788547120.png - (36.61KB , 1429x868 , eardrums.png )

>>17444
You're the one doing mental gymnastics.

>These studies suggested that the tympanic ear appears to have emerged independently at least five times, i.e. in the lines leading to amphibians, turtles, lepidosaurs (lizards and snakes), archosaurs (crocodiles and birds) and mammals.

The statement is pretty clear. The tympanic ear evolved independently in separate lineages. In other words, the earliest ancestor of turtles who had eardrums and the earliest ancestor of humans who had eardrums are not the same, and they each lived after synapsids split off from reptiles.
This is not the same as saying, for example, that five unrelated ancestors of humans developed eardrums and their lines somehow merged, despite presumably being entirely different creatures.

Again, the statement is pretty clear. Now, if you're too stupid to understand it, that's a different story.

>>17445
Nice cope. The study says they’re not homologous. Only the middle ear bone is homologous and that’s true only for the tetrapods. Maybe you should take some time to actually read the study.

>>17446
That does not even apply to all tetrapods according to the study. Anuran ancestors had a tympanic ear while amniotes did not. Therefore there is no descent with modification.

File 161796990826.jpg - (366.50KB , 2400x2400 , 81PTVANdp9L.jpg )

>>17446
>Only the middle ear bone is homologous and that’s true only for the tetrapods.
Are you retarded? You're admitting yourself that some traits are homologous?

Yes, the middle ear bone of all tetrapods is homologous. In other words, there's an common ancestor to all tetrapods from which the middle ear bones originate and from which they were passed down to subsequent generations, which proves evolution happens.

I must admit, refuting your own thesis is a strange rhetorical move.

>Maybe you should take some time to actually read the study.
I would say the same, but in your case I don't think it would make much of a difference. Maybe something like the picture would be more up to your level.

>>17444
What, exactly, are you arguing here? That evolution happens on small scales in individual taxonomic clades but not across them? Are you stupid??

>>17449
When did I say it doesn't happen on a larger scale? For the time being, I'm arguing that it definitely happens on some scale. Do you agree with that or not?

If you agree then I turn the question back on you: exactly what premise of evolutionary theory is it that you dispute?

If you don't agree then you're a moron for not realizing that any homology whatsoever disproves your position. You use words that you don't know the meaning of and you make arguments against your own position without realizing.

>>17447
I noticed that too. There is an inconsistency in the fossil record.

>>17453
And what is that?

File 161889201068.png - (67.72KB , 577x465 , No common ancestor.png )

>>17447

>>17457
Just keep repeating the same point. Maybe if you insist enough reality will change and it will matter in the least.

I have noticed that nobody has been able to provide an alternative theory.

Perhaps these trolls have yet to evolve from goblins.

>>17457
>not suitable as amniote ancestors

In other words: amphibians are not our ancestors and thus evolution is not proven. Good to know!

>>17460
Who the fuck ever said amphibians were ancestors of humans? If humans were descendants of amphibians that would imply humans are themselves amphibians. Humans are amniotes, and amniotes and amphibians have a common tetrapod ancestor, that was neither amniote nor amphibian. How is this so difficult?

>>17460
Kind of ironic that the fossil record lacks proof for the claim that we all have the same ancestor. The labyrinthodonts, according to the study, cannot be traced in any mammals living today because in order to show common descent there has to be ancestral traits present in the organisms alive nowadays. In conclusion the fossils do not support what Darwinists claim is true.

>>17463
So, since a single extinct species that's not an ancestor of mammals apparently disproves common descent, it follows that you think that according to common descent mammals should be descendants of all extinct species. Am I getting this right? So common descent says that mammals are descendants of both Tyrannosaurus rex and Archaefructus.

Yeah, if common descent said something as outlandish as that, it would certainly be disproven with such a finding. It's unfortunate for you that it doesn't say that.

>>17464
Wow, cope much? Labyrinthodonts are supposedly the first vertebrates to walk on land and therefore all tetrapods should have traits that resemble this ancient amphibian. But since they don’t it follows that amphibians are not related to mammals. Unless you have a fossil that show us the opposite then you are just coping.

>>17465
>Labyrinthodonts are supposedly the first vertebrates to walk on land and therefore all tetrapods should have traits that resemble this ancient amphibian.
Ah, almost got me. Naughty, naughty.
Whether it was the first vertebrate to walk on land and whether it's an ancestor of all tetrapods are separate issues. If the first such vertebrate was strictly amphibian rather than a tetrapod ancestor, all it would mean is a) that the amphibian-amniote split occurred when both families were strictly sea-dwelling, and b) that amphibians and amniotes colonized land independently.
If that sounds too convenient, consider that necessarily arthropods also colonized land independently from tetrapods, and so did plants and fungi. It's not like land-dwelling is such a unique trait that it could only happen once in the entire history of life.

But that aside, are you really saying Labyrinthodonts were completely different from any extant tetrapods? At the very least it had a tetrapod body plan with a spinal column and an osseous endoskeleton. How much more alike would it need to be?

>all tetrapods should have traits that resemble this ancient amphibian. But since they don.t it follows that amphibians are not related to mammals.
No, it does not follow. "If two species don't resemble each other more than some unspecified threshold then they're unrelated"? That's nonsense. Plants and animals aren't completely unrelated just because they're almost completely different.

>>17465
>Unless you have a fossil that show us the opposite then you are just coping.
All life is carbon-based and thus related, unless you have a fossil of a none-carbon-based lifeform then you are just coping.

>>17463
Let me summarize:

Darwinist: Look at all these fossils! They all prove that we share a common ancestry. Science wins again!
Non-believer: Actually science says certain traits are not shared and cannot be found today.
Darwinist: Hahahaha, silly! What if I told you that, right now, in this moment, I just IMAGINED several HYPOTHETICAL events that COULD have happened? This proves it all makes sense. I bet you feel pretty stupid right now!? Hahahahaha, science is great.

>>17468
I guess you could say that for evolutionists the abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. Circular logic.

>>17468
Allow me to provide a more accurate summation:


Darwinist: Look at all these fossils! They all prove that we share a common ancestry. Science wins again!

Non-believer: Well actually, science says certain traits are not shared and cannot be found today.

Darwinist: Allow me to expanded on that and explain why your posistion is incorrect.

Non-believer: Cope

Darwinist: I see you refuse to understand, perhaps if you are certain in your beliefs you could posit your theory regarding the origins of life.

Non-believer: ... *furiously googles a different argument*

>>17463
>>17468
>>17469
I'm starting to notice the pattern that every time you idiot(s) are left with no way to reply to the last point made you just start circlejerking each other. Just wanted to let you know all it does is make you look like fools and make your position appear indefensible.
You may continue with your wrist exercises.

>>17470
Nice Reddit spacing, you autist. Must feel bad that even labyrinthodont fossils disprove your fedora fairy tale. Why not tell us more about all your hypothetical and imaginary scenarios that explain the lack of physical evidence? Would love to hear more make-believe.

>>17472
>labyrinthodont fossils disprove your fedora fairy tale
I know you think if you just say it enough it will come true, but it really won't.

>>17472
Also, the level of hypocrisy is pretty impressive. "Lack of physical evidence", yet you retards keep citing scientific papers. I guess the only physical evidence worth counting is that which you can mangle and misinterpret into keeping your cognitive dissonance in check.

By all means, keep doing it. I assure you it's plainly obvious what you're doing.

>>17472
Lol, cope harder.

>>17472
>Why not tell us more about all your hypothetical and imaginary scenarios that explain the lack of physical evidence? Would love to hear more make-believe.
Why not tell us all about your verified and real scenario that explains the origins of life? I would love to hear your palpable explanation.

File 161935371768.jpg - (253.65KB , 829x1067 , Soy and fedora.jpg )

>>17468
When the bombardier beetle is threatened by another bug the beetle has a special method of defending itself and that is to squirt a boiling-hot solution at the enemy out of an aperture in its hind section. The heated liquid scalds its target. Specialized structures called secretory lobes make a very concentrated mixture of two chemicals, hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone. The mixture is sent into a storage chamber called the collecting vesicle. The collecting vesicle is connected to a second compartment called the explosion chamber. The two compartments are kept separate from one another by a duct with a sphincter muscle. Attached to the explosion chamber are a number of small knobs called ectodermal glands. These secrete enzyme catalysts into the explosion chamber. When the beetle feels threatened it squeezes muscles surrounding the storage chamber while simultaneously relaxing the sphincter muscle. This forces the solution of hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone to enter the explosion chamber where it mixes with the enzyme catalysts. The hydrogen peroxide rapidly decomposes into ordinary water and oxygen. The oxygen reacts with the hydroquinone to yield more water and a highly irritating chemical called quinone. These reactions release a large quantity of heat. The temperature of the solution rises to the boiling point and a portion vaporizes into steam. The steam and oxygen gas exert a great deal of pressure inside the explosion chamber. With the sphincter muscle closed, a channel leading outward from the beetle's body provides the only exit for the boiling mixture. Muscles surrounding the channel allow the steam jet to be directed at the source of danger.

How could such a complex biochemical system be gradually produced through Darwinian trial and error? There is no answer to this question at this point because chemically the bombardier beetle would have to study advanced molecular biology in order to get the precise mixture of chemicals without hurting itself.

>>17477

Thank you for proving >>17470 accurate.

>>17477
>We don't know how it happened, therefore it didn't happen.
Very convincing.

>There is no answer to this question at this point because chemically the bombardier beetle would have to study advanced molecular biology
What on earth are you even saying?

>>17479
>we don't know how it happened and therefore it did happen

The absolute state of Darwin fanboys.

>>17480
See: >>17470
This is the point where I ask you to provide an alternative theory and you go away for a few days to google a different argument.

...

Care to state you explanation with regards to the origins of life?

Youtube  >>17480
lol, this

>when you have no evidence and forgot to take your meds

>>17482
I can't help but notice you didn't provide an alternative explanation.

I'm waiting.

>>17480
I know you think if you find a single example of a species with traits that scientists have not yet figured out how they arose it'll somehow disprove all the other evidence they have found of how the traits of other species arose, but it really won't. Even if tomorrow an alien species were to land on the planet with the exact blueprints of how they engineered the bombardier beetle to be the way it is, it would not change what we know about the evolution of other species one iota.

Or maybe all you care about specifically is the origins of the bombardier beetle and nothing else. I don't know. I asked one of you morons point-blank was it is he disputes about evolutionary theory and he never answered the question.

>>17482
>that video

lmao

>>17485
When fedoras throw a temper tantrum because the fossil record doesn’t support their delusions. Labyrinthodont skeletons make them engage in whataboutism.

>>17486
Care to explain the origins of life?

...

Thought not.

>>17486
They can't stand critique, especially how many flaws their theory contains and that the evidence for it being true is extremely meager.

>>17488
I'm still waiting for one of you to offer an alternative theory but it seems you're fumbling in your pants and finding nothing.

So far in this thread no one has answered OP's assertion. What is remarkable is that he gave a thorough walkthrough of how complex protein synthesis is and yet none of the evolutionists have brought forth any good explanations or detailed answers. I would say that the debate is settled.

>>17492
>So far in this thread no one has answered OP's assertion.
His assertion was challenged in the very first post but he could offer no rebuttal and instead decided to change his argument. Something that has occured frequently throughout this thread.

It is hard to claim the debate has been settled when no debate has occured, the deniers are refusing to debate and are instead changing their argument every time they are challanged.

Furthermore not a single denier has been able to posit an alternative theory regarding the origins of life despite repeatedly being asked to provide.

>>17492
They have no arguments, that's why. They can't prove it because they have high school education.

>>17492
>>17493
It's completely irrelevant anyway. Abiogenesis has never been claimed to answer every possible question someone might have about the origin of life.

Abiogenesis: Given that we now know that life is, basically, a chemical process, it must have originally arisen spontaneously via purely physical and chemical means in a fluid environment, from basic chemical compounds that were not part of any living thing.
Some retard: Well, what about compound X right here?
Abiogenesis: I don't know. I'm still fairly new so I don't have a detailed description of the chemical paths that could give way to every known organic compound. Additionally, these are processes that happened billions of years ago at the molecular level and left little or no evidence, so I can only work from first principles and speculation of what the environment might have been like.
Some retard: You don't know, huh? Well, I can't believe something as complex as compound X could arise spontaneously. I think you're wrong.
Abiogenesis: That's an appeal to incredulity. Just because you personally find something unbelievable doesn't mean I'm wrong; if you want to prove me wrong then show me something I've said that doesn't match up with reality. If compound X didn't arise spontaneously then where did it come from?
Some retard: (Not listening anymore) I'm gonna go on the Internet to tell everyone how I disproved abiogenesis, durp-de-durp!

>>17494
Notice, again, how this denier skips over the response to re-enforce the proposition because he has no answers to the rebuttal.

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence, and still incapable of offering an alternative theory.

>>17494
This. All they can muster is 'just because'-arguments. It's like going back to kindergarten where you argue who has the strongest father without providing anything concrete to the discussion. If the opponent has an actual argument with a factual approach, like OP wrote here >>17409, they can always respond "because I said so". Childish mental gymnastics devoid of scientific merit.