Discussion:
The Oparin-Haldane Hypothesis
(too old to reply)
Malcolm McMahon
2017-04-12 15:53:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html

Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory, its an observable fact about which we theorise. Life originated somehow. The default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis. The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility but even the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to prove it.

At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way. Proving that it _did_ arise that way will probably never be possible.
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-12 16:52:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 08:53:09 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory, its an observable fact
about which we theorise. Life originated somehow. The default
hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called the
Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with Darwin. It was
proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis. The experimental
evidence hints at it's plausibility but even the creation of life in the
laboratory would not suffice to prove it.
Exactly. But abiogenesis, itself, is the label given to the
unquestionable _fact_ that at one point in time there was no life, and
subsequently there was.

However it happened.

What upsets the fundamentalists, is that none of the research has
thrown up any need for a magical superbeing to have been involved -
everything is "depressingly" natural.

So it closes more of the gaps where their unevidenced magical
superbeing can hide.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
Proving that it _did_ arise that way will probably never be possible.
Which would require a time machine.

But nobody insists that it happened the various ways that have been
demonstrated - apart from religious fundamentalists putting words in
other people's mouths that were neither meant nor said.

What it _does_ mean is that we understand the chemistry involved in
the transition from non-life to life - and that it doesn't require an
unevidenced magical superbeing, let alone one from somebody else's
religion.
!! Atheist ------------------------------
2017-04-12 18:54:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
It has zip to do with Darwin.
You don't know that and until you can give an exact universally accepted
definition of life and exactly when it begins....you're wrong. You don't
know when in that ill-defined chemical process, life begins/began and so
too you don't know when evolution began.
Andrew
2017-04-13 09:11:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Malcolm McMahon" wrote in message news:e046bdbb-2321-4dc4-a567-***@googlegroups.com...
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called
the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis.
It has zip to do with Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it remains
a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a fantasy.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
but even the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to prove
it.
That's correct, because it would rather prove Creation.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
No way.
Malcolm McMahon
2017-04-13 14:19:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called
the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis.
It has zip to do with Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it remains
a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a fantasy.
Cite such an experiment.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
but even the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to prove
it.
That's correct, because it would rather prove Creation.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
No way.
We shall see, or more likely we'll die before it happens
Andrew
2017-04-13 20:18:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is
called the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with Darwin.
It was proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a fantasy.but
Cite such an experiment.
1. The hypothesis requires that early earth had a reducing atmosphere.
But the facts show that as far down as we dig into the Earth's crust
we find oxidized rock..evidence that the Earth never had a reducing
atmosphere.

2. The "primordial soup" idea is invalidated by the fact that if you had
a *soup of amino acids* it would not produce a single biological
protein..because proteins are formed only in living cells according
to specific instructions from DNA, and within a -mechanism- that
is called "protein synthesis".
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
but even the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to
prove it.
That's correct, because it would rather prove Creation.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
No way.
We shall see,
"Life comes ~only~ from pre-existing life."

That is an established Law of Science.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
or more likely we'll die before it happens
According to the evidence, what happened was -->Creation.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-13 23:13:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called
the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis.
It has zip to do with Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it remains
a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a fantasy.
What evidence would that be? You seem to have no idea what evidence is which is probably why you have never actually offered any. Instead, you get outdated, quote mined, debunked bullshit sometimes from certifiable crazies like nephilimfree.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
but even the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to prove
it.
That's correct, because it would rather prove Creation.
Nothing proves creation. Nothing even hints at creation.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
No way.
WAY.
aaa
2017-04-14 04:11:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The default hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called
the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis.
It has zip to do with Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it remains
a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility
No. All evidence says that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a fantasy.
What evidence would that be? You seem to have no idea what evidence is which is probably why you have never actually offered any. Instead, you get outdated, quote mined, debunked bullshit sometimes from certifiable crazies like nephilimfree.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
but even the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to prove
it.
That's correct, because it would rather prove Creation.
Nothing proves creation. Nothing even hints at creation.
That's only because you are willfully blind and intellectually deceived
by evolution. A beneficial DNA change is the evidence of intelligent
design. The second law of thermodynamics guarantees that abiogenesis is
not possible. They are evidence for God's creation.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
No way.
WAY.
Let Cosby Go-Justice Must Not Enable Sluts
2017-04-13 17:40:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The Oparin-Haldane Hypothesis
Is this the chemical you Americans think Bashar of Syria used to gas his own people? :-)
aaa
2017-04-13 18:26:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory, its an observable fact
about which we theorise. Life originated somehow. The default
hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called the
Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with Darwin. It was
proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis. The experimental
evidence hints at it's plausibility but even the creation of life in
the laboratory would not suffice to prove it.
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that
way. Proving that it _did_ arise that way will probably never be
possible.
Abiogenesis only proves that it's possible for life to arise, but it
does not provide the cause for life to arise. It only suggested the
condition for life to arise, but there is no reason to believe that such
condition will automatically generate life. It only provides the
necessary condition for life to arise. It has not provided the
sufficient condition to guarantee life to arise. It's incomplete. It is
missing God.
Smiler
2017-04-13 20:19:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory, its an observable fact
about which we theorise. Life originated somehow. The default
hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called the
Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with Darwin. It was
proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis. The experimental
evidence hints at it's plausibility but even the creation of life in
the laboratory would not suffice to prove it.
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
Proving that it _did_ arise that way will probably never be possible.
Abiogenesis only proves that it's possible for life to arise, but it
does not provide the cause for life to arise. It only suggested the
condition for life to arise, but there is no reason to believe that such
condition will automatically generate life. It only provides the
necessary condition for life to arise. It has not provided the
sufficient condition to guarantee life to arise. It's incomplete. It is
missing God.
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough time,
life will arise, no god necessary.

If two chemicals can react and the conditions for the reaction are
correct, what's to stop them reacting?
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
Andrew
2017-04-13 20:53:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough
time, life will arise, no god necessary.
One of those "conditions" is a super-intelligent causative Agent.

All living things contain the marks of *intelligence* in the form
of a quaternary digital genetic code, without which there could
be no living thing. Evolution does not produce digital codes. It
will modify them -only- after they have been created. Got it?
raven1
2017-04-13 22:02:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:53:38 -0700, "Andrew"
Post by Andrew
Post by Smiler
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough
time, life will arise, no god necessary.
One of those "conditions" is a super-intelligent causative Agent.
You are claiming knowledge you cannot possibly possess.
Post by Andrew
All living things contain the marks of *intelligence* in the form
of a quaternary digital genetic code, without which there could
be no living thing.
DNA is not a digital code.
Post by Andrew
Evolution does not produce digital codes. It
will modify them -only- after they have been created. Got it?
You're correct in the broad sense that evolution does not produce
life, it modifies it.
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-13 22:39:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 18:02:27 -0400, raven1
Post by raven1
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:53:38 -0700, "Andrew"
Post by Andrew
Post by Smiler
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough
time, life will arise, no god necessary.
One of those "conditions" is a super-intelligent causative Agent.
You are claiming knowledge you cannot possibly possess.
Post by Andrew
All living things contain the marks of *intelligence* in the form
of a quaternary digital genetic code, without which there could
be no living thing.
DNA is not a digital code.
The deliberate liar knows that, because it's been explained over and
over again, only for him to ignore it.. So it is at best, highly
contentious - which is why he does it.
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Evolution does not produce digital codes. It
will modify them -only- after they have been created. Got it?
Nobody ever said it did, apart from dishonest creationists putting
words in other people's mouthe that he wknows were neither said nor
meant,

They're shameless liars. Any normal person would be embarrased if they
resorted to such stupidly transparent lies.
Post by raven1
You're correct in the broad sense that evolution does not produce
life, it modifies it.
The problem is that he pretends abiogenesis never happened, and that
the biochemists researchiung it lied about their results.

He's been given Sidney Fox's research over and over again, but the
closest he came to addressing it was a cut'n'pastefrom a creationist
site whose author never bothered to read it for comprehension, either,

It was headed"Scientist refute Sidney Fox" or something similar, and
included quot6e mining from Fox's own presentation to make it look as
if none of the cases worked, because one of them didn't.
aaa
2017-04-14 03:51:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by raven1
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:53:38 -0700, "Andrew"
Post by Andrew
Post by Smiler
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough
time, life will arise, no god necessary.
One of those "conditions" is a super-intelligent causative Agent.
You are claiming knowledge you cannot possibly possess.
Yet, you are sure that no such knowledge is necessary.
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
All living things contain the marks of *intelligence* in the form
of a quaternary digital genetic code, without which there could
be no living thing.
DNA is not a digital code.
It's a greater digital code. It's a quaternary code that is more
efficient and more powerful than binary code. A binary code is only a
two dimensional system. A quaternary code is a three dimensional system.
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Evolution does not produce digital codes. It
will modify them -only- after they have been created. Got it?
You're correct in the broad sense that evolution does not produce
life, it modifies it.
The modification is a creative process. It's part of creation.
Smiler
2017-04-13 23:51:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Smiler
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough time,
life will arise, no god necessary.
One of those "conditions" is a super-intelligent causative Agent.
No god necessary.
Post by Andrew
All living things contain the marks of *intelligence*
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Post by Andrew
in the form of a quaternary digital genetic code, without which there
could be no living thing.
When did you check everywhere in the universe that there are no living
things without DNA?
Post by Andrew
Evolution does not produce digital codes.
Neither does your supposed god character.
Post by Andrew
It will modify them -only- after they have been formed.
CIFY.
Post by Andrew
Got it?
That you're a moron, yes.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-13 21:15:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory, its an observable fact
about which we theorise. Life originated somehow. The default
hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called the
Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with Darwin. It was
proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis. The experimental
evidence hints at it's plausibility but even the creation of life in
the laboratory would not suffice to prove it.
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
Proving that it _did_ arise that way will probably never be possible.
Abiogenesis only proves that it's possible for life to arise, but it
does not provide the cause for life to arise. It only suggested the
condition for life to arise, but there is no reason to believe that such
condition will automatically generate life. It only provides the
necessary condition for life to arise. It has not provided the
sufficient condition to guarantee life to arise. It's incomplete. It is
missing God.
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough time,
life will arise, no god necessary.
If two chemicals can react and the conditions for the reaction are
correct, what's to stop them reacting?
The loonie has been given this on several occasions but ignored it
every time...

The link is to an easy to follow presentation by the late Sidney Fox
on the formation of proto-cells in the lab using simple, natural
processes.

They metabolise, reproduce, self-organise and respond to
environmental stimuli. In other words, they satisfy the textbook
criteria for life.

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

The following is an abstract for a paper authored by Fox and his team
concerning their subsequent research into these proto-cells, with my
capitalising for emphasis...

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00700418

Experimental retracement of the origins of a protocell

Sidney W. Fox, Peter R. Bahn, Klaus Dose, Kaoru Harada, Laura Hsu,
Yoshio Ishima, John Jungck, Jean Kendrick, Gottfried Krampitz,
James C. Lacey Jr., Koichiro Matsuno, Paul Melius, Mavis
Middlebrook, Tadayoshi Nakashima, Aristotel Pappelis,Alexander Pol,
Duane L. Rohlfing, Allen Vegotsky, Thomas V. Waehneldt, H. Wax, Bi
Yu

[me: Note how few of the team doing this ground-breaking work were
American. Most of them were from overseas, doing post graduate and
post-doctoral work in the US. This has been the state of US science
for a long time]

Abstract

Although Oparin used coacervate droplets from two or more types of
polymer to model the first cell, he hypothesized homacervation from
protein, consistent with Pasteur and Darwin. Herrera made two amino
acids and numerous cell-like structures (“sulfobes”) in the
laboratory, which probably arose from intermediate polymers. Our
experiments have conformed with a homoacervation of thermal
proteinoid, in which amino acid sequences are determined by the
reacting amino acids themselves. All proteinoids that have been
tested assemble themselves alone in water to protocells. The
protocells have characteristics of life defined by Webster's
Dictionary: metabolism, growth, reproduction and response to stimuli
in the environment. THE PROTOCELLS ARE ABLE ALSO TO EVOLVE TO MORE
MODERN CELLS INCLUDING THE INITIATION OF A NUCLEIC ACID CODING
SYSTEM [my emphasis].

Note. Sidney Fox's work was in the 1950s. Alfonso Herrera's was in the
late 1930s. Both Aleksandr Oparin and J.B.S.Haldane had laid down the
theoretical groundwork in the 1920s.

So none of this is particularly new.
aaa
2017-04-14 04:03:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory, its an observable fact
about which we theorise. Life originated somehow. The default
hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called the
Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with Darwin. It was
proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis. The experimental
evidence hints at it's plausibility but even the creation of life in
the laboratory would not suffice to prove it.
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
Proving that it _did_ arise that way will probably never be possible.
Abiogenesis only proves that it's possible for life to arise, but it
does not provide the cause for life to arise. It only suggested the
condition for life to arise, but there is no reason to believe that such
condition will automatically generate life. It only provides the
necessary condition for life to arise. It has not provided the
sufficient condition to guarantee life to arise. It's incomplete. It is
missing God.
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough time,
life will arise, no god necessary.
There is no reason to believe that. A necessary condition is not a
sufficient condition.
Post by Smiler
If two chemicals can react and the conditions for the reaction are
correct, what's to stop them reacting?
The second law of thermodynamics dictates that all chemical reactions in
nature only result in an increase of entropy. Biochemical reaction in
life results in a decrease of entropy by increasing the entropy of the
natural environment instead. Such process does not exist and can not
happen in a lifeless natural environment. It can only happen in life.
The lifeless natural environment is not capable to provide life with
such entropy reducing process to enable life to arise.
Smiler
2017-04-15 01:16:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory, its an observable fact
about which we theorise. Life originated somehow. The default
hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called the
Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with Darwin. It was
proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis. The experimental
evidence hints at it's plausibility but even the creation of life in
the laboratory would not suffice to prove it.
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
Proving that it _did_ arise that way will probably never be possible.
Abiogenesis only proves that it's possible for life to arise, but it
does not provide the cause for life to arise. It only suggested the
condition for life to arise, but there is no reason to believe that
such condition will automatically generate life. It only provides the
necessary condition for life to arise. It has not provided the
sufficient condition to guarantee life to arise. It's incomplete. It
is missing God.
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough time,
life will arise, no god necessary.
There is no reason to believe that. A necessary condition is not a
sufficient condition.
WTF do you mean by that?
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
If two chemicals can react and the conditions for the reaction are
correct, what's to stop them reacting?
The second law of thermodynamics dictates that all chemical reactions in
nature only result in an increase of entropy.
Bullshit. How does photosynthesis result in an increase of entropy?
Post by aaa
Biochemical reaction in
life results in a decrease of entropy by increasing the entropy of the
natural environment instead.
Photosynthesis is a biochemical reaction. Where is the increase in the
entropy of the natural environment?
Post by aaa
Such process does not exist and can not
happen in a lifeless natural environment.
Your peer reviewed scientific evidence for that is what?
Post by aaa
It can only happen in life.
Merely your unevidenced assertion.
Post by aaa
The lifeless natural environment is not capable to provide life with
such entropy reducing process to enable life to arise.
Your peer reviewed scientific evidence for that is what?
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
aaa
2017-04-15 04:38:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Malcolm McMahon
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory, its an observable fact
about which we theorise. Life originated somehow. The default
hypothesis to which the scientific community leans is called the
Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has zip to do with Darwin. It was
proposed in the '20s. And it remains a hypothesis. The experimental
evidence hints at it's plausibility but even the creation of life in
the laboratory would not suffice to prove it.
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise that way.
Proving that it _did_ arise that way will probably never be possible.
Abiogenesis only proves that it's possible for life to arise, but it
does not provide the cause for life to arise. It only suggested the
condition for life to arise, but there is no reason to believe that
such condition will automatically generate life. It only provides the
necessary condition for life to arise. It has not provided the
sufficient condition to guarantee life to arise. It's incomplete. It
is missing God.
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough time,
life will arise, no god necessary.
There is no reason to believe that. A necessary condition is not a
sufficient condition.
WTF do you mean by that?
Huh? Isn't that something taught in your high school math class?
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
If two chemicals can react and the conditions for the reaction are
correct, what's to stop them reacting?
The second law of thermodynamics dictates that all chemical reactions in
nature only result in an increase of entropy.
Bullshit. How does photosynthesis result in an increase of entropy?
Post by aaa
Biochemical reaction in
life results in a decrease of entropy by increasing the entropy of the
natural environment instead.
Photosynthesis is a biochemical reaction. Where is the increase in the
entropy of the natural environment?
The increase of entropy in the natural environment for the
photosynthesis process is in the form of water vapor and infrared radiation.

Plant life is a very efficient water cooling system that is greatly more
effective than any man-made refrigerators. It does not just passively
evaporates water to export entropy. It can also consume energy by
converting it into sugar in the process. As the result, a giant tree in
the middle of desert will always have a lower temperature than the
surrounding desert.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Such process does not exist and can not
happen in a lifeless natural environment.
Your peer reviewed scientific evidence for that is what?
I'm open for all scientific reviews from anyone. Where is your
scientific evidence to prove me wrong?
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
It can only happen in life.
Merely your unevidenced assertion.
Except you can't prove me wrong.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
The lifeless natural environment is not capable to provide life with
such entropy reducing process to enable life to arise.
Your peer reviewed scientific evidence for that is what?
That evidence is the fact that none of you can prove me wrong.
Loading...