"It’s time to rethink how we study life’s origins.
It emerged far earlier, and far quicker,
than we once thought possible"
(No shit?
Really?
Hey thanks!)
Aeon
"Here’s a story you might have read before in a popular science book or seen in a documentary. It’s the one about early Earth as a lifeless, volcanic hellscape."
"When our planet was newly formed, the story goes, the surface was a barren wasteland of sharp rocks, strewn with lava flows from erupting volcanoes. The air was an unbreathable fume of gases. There was little or no liquid water. Just as things were starting to settle down, a barrage of meteorites tens of kilometres across came pummelling down from space, obliterating entire landscapes and sending vast plumes of debris high into the sky. This barren world persisted for hundreds of millions of years. Finally, the environment settled down enough that oceans could form, and the conditions were finally right for microscopic life to emerge."
"That’s the story palaeontologists and geologists told for many decades. But a raft of evidence suggests it is completely wrong."
(And we are gonna just hammer em
to death with it.)
"Humans are very prone to theorise wildly when there’s no evidence, and then to become extremely attached to their speculations. That same tendency – becoming over-attached to ideas that have only tenuous support – has also bedevilled research into the origins of life. Every journalist who has written about the origins of life has a few horror stories about bad-tempered researchers unwilling to tolerate dissent from their treasured ideas."
(Because it is a cult that refuses to believe the evidence right in front of them.
And? As far as:
"Humans are very prone to theorise wildly when there’s no evidence, and then to become extremely attached to their speculations.'
is concerned?"
Romans 12:2
Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.)
"Whereas many researchers once
assumed it took
a chance event
within a very long timescale
for Earth’s biosphere to emerge,
that increasingly looks untenable. "
(Really?
Never knew.)
"By constructing family trees of the oldest and most divergent forms of life, phylogeneticists have tried to push back to the last universal common ancestor (LUCA). This is the most recent population of
(Theorized) organisms from which every single living thing today is descended. It is the great-great-etc grandmother of all of us, from bacteria to mosses to scarlet macaws.
(Then why are we the only ones
to ponder our own existence?
Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.)
"Estimating the date of LUCA is fraught with uncertainties, but in the past decade phylogeneticists have started to narrow it down.'
"What’s more, their reconstruction of LUCA’s genome
suggested it was pretty complex,
with a genome
that encoded around
2,600 proteins.
It also seems to have lived in a complex ecosystem.
In particular,
it appears to have had
a primitive immune system,
which implies it had to defend itself
from some of its microbial neighbours
2600 proteins?
They all encoded themselves?
That is multiplying enties
on a large scale.
The likelihood of that having happened?
If you factor it all out?
Well?
It's a miracle if thats what happened.
Cause the laws of probability say:
No-go sherlock.
Try again homies.
ENCODING
REQUIRES
A
CODER
is a much more simple
explanation.
As in:
Isaiah 28:10
10 For precept must be upon precept,
precept upon precept;
line upon line,
line upon line;
here a little,
and there a little:
Lines of computer code:
"a primitive immune system,
which implies it...
(Knew it was going
to have to)
defend itself
from some of its microbial neighbours"
That right there alone?
Is to big of a hurdle to overcome.
And renders anything else
that comes behind it
completely irrelevant.
See:
Isaiah 28:10
For precept must be upon precept,
precept upon precept;
line upon line,
line upon line;
Cause if this kinda thinking is a compter code?
"What’s more, their reconstruction of LUCA’s genome suggested it was pretty complex, with a genome that encoded around 2,600 proteins. It also seems to have lived in a complex ecosystem. In particular, it appears to have had a primitive immune system, which implies it had to defend itself from some of its microbial neighbours"
Its gotta "bug" in it from the very start that isnt being addressed.
Bad logic will never give you good science.
And thinking some primitive organism knew in advance it neededto have an immune system?
Is just HORRIBLE logic.)
"These details highlight a point that is not always obvious: LUCA does not represent the origin of life. It is just the most recent ancestor shared by all modern organisms. It’s possible that life had existed long before LUCA – beginning early in the Hadean."
How about you just explain the evolution
of the cell membrane and how it knew
(in advance once again)
what parts of the cell to let in
and what parts of the cell
to keep out.
Just give us that.
ANYBODY.
Nobody can.
These people cant even explain the cell membrane
and they want you to believe them about everything else
that came after it?
You got a bug in your code that needs acknowledged.
PERIOD.)
"These strands of evidence amount to a complete rewriting of the early history of life on Earth."
(They will never admit it to themselves.)
"The most immediate implication is that
our ideas cannot rely
on the power of chance at all."
(The genetic code in DNA
just gives it away yo.
Life here
wasnt the result of,
in fact can not be
the result of chance.)
"There have been a great many hypotheses about the origins of life that relied on a coincidence: say, a one-in-a-billion collision between two biological molecules in the primordial soup. But if life really formed within 0.1 billion years of the planet’s birth, ideas like this are absolutely untenable. There just wasn’t time."
(The Intelligent Design critics have been saying that for years already. Looks like theyre finally making inroads.)
"Take the RNA World, one of the leading hypotheses of life’s origins since the 1980s. The idea is that the first life did not contain the smorgasbord of organic chemicals that modern cells do. Instead, life was based entirely on RNA: a close cousin of the more familiar DNA, of which our genomes are made. RNA is appealing because it can carry genetic information, like DNA,
but it can also control
the rates of chemical reactions –
(They never tell you
by how much
it can do so.
And it is for a reason.
It is a very small amount.)
"something that is more usually done by protein-based enzymes. This adaptability, the argument goes, makes RNA the ideal molecule to kickstart life."
(Well it kinda needs the proteins
and the DNA
or the entire continuum
(RNA, DNA and proteins
that all need each other to work)
never works to start with.
That is something else
these cult members leave out
as it doesn't conform to their
faith-based belief system.
As in it is not based of the
evidence we see.
A complete dismantling of
The RNA World Hypothesis
Can be found:
Friday, April 19, 2024
"They must find processes that work
quickly and efficiently
to generate complexity
and life-like systems"
(Random chance
would 100% be the enemy of:
"Quick"
"Efficient"
"generated complexity"
Period.
And nothing else matters
('tallica fans :-)
This
"computer code"
(keeping with our current metaphor)
is buggy AF.)
"However, a close examination of the RNA World scenario reveals gaping holes."
(Yeah, no kiddin yo.
It aint just RNA World.
Its everything this cult
tries to convince you you should believe
in spite of overwhelming evidences to the contrary.
Yeah no thx.)
"An RNA molecule is essentially a chain, and there are huge numbers of possible RNAs, depending on the sequence of links in the chain. Only a fraction of these RNAs actually make proteins. It’s not obvious how those ‘good’ RNAs are supposed to have formed:
(Cause they didn't?
Cause their creator encoded them?)
"why didn’t conditions on the young Earth just create a random mix of RNAs?"
(Good point, thank you :-)
"And, remember,
we can’t rely on the power of chance
and large numbers:
it all happened too quickly."
"researchers now largely agree
that they must find processes that work
quickly and efficiently
to generate complexity"
(They are opposites
you bunch of goobers.
Get it through your heads!)
"But what does that mean in practice? There are various ideas. One prominent school of thought is that life formed in alkaline vents on the sea floor, where the flow of hot water and chemicals created a cradle that incubated life. Others have highlighted the potential of volcanic vents, meteorite impact craters, geothermal ponds, and tidal zones:
anywhere that has a flow
of energy and chemicals."
(EXACTLY 0%
OF ANYOF ALL OF THAT?
GIVES YOU
ANY INFORMATION.
LET A LONE
3.2 BILLION CHARACTER CODES
WORTH OF INFORMATION.
Did I mention this code is buggy AF?)
"The reality is that we are dealing with a huge number of intersecting questions. What was the environment in which the first life emerged? What was that first life made of and how did it work? Was the first life a simplified version of something we can observe today, or was it something radically different – either in composition or mechanism, or both – that was then supplanted by more familiar systems?
"I believe that the most promising thing to have happened in origins-of-life research in recent years has been a growing willingness to accept uncertainty and reject dogma."
(Not seein it yo.)
"Just as there was no direct evidence that the Hadean was a hellscape, there has been very little hard evidence for any of the competing scenarios for life’s origins. Researchers devised elaborate stories with multiple steps, found experimental evidence that supported one or two of those stages, and declared the problem solved."
("Group think" just like a cult would do.
Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Cohesiveness, or the desire for cohesiveness, in a group may produce a tendency among its members to agree at all costs. This causes the group to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation.
Kinda like the Sethian view of Genesis 6
but I digress.)
"What origins research needs is open-mindedness and a willingness to disagree constructively
(Good luck deprogramming em.
Aint gonna happen.
If hard evidence rights in front of them
wont do the trick?
Then I dont think nothing will.
Same goes for evangelical leaders s
till supporting Trump.
"The Cult has to be correct!"
Seems to be the mantra
for both of em.)
"A small group of people,
a lack of hard evidence
and a great many intersecting questions:
that’s a recipe
for dogmatic ideas
and angry disagreements."
(At least somebody is admitting it.
The
Whole article
mentioned
information
(The genetic code that
every cell
of everything
that has ever existed
the only place
we know of
that life has
has had one:
Genetic Code
Every Cell)
everywhere we have ever seen any
has always been
the result of a sentient intellect.
and?
It's source
And?
the method
by which this information
that had to be the result of
a sentient intellect
imputed itself into the cell
is mentioned exactly...
Wanna take a guess?
Yeah...
Exactly 0 times.
These people know
they are selling lies.
Have fun with that.
JUDE 13
Raging waves of the sea,
foaming out their own shame;
"A small group of people,
a lack of hard evidence
and a great many intersecting questions:
that’s a recipe for dogmatic ideas
and angry disagreements."
wandering stars,
to whom is reserved
the blackness of darkness
for ever.
No comments:
Post a Comment