Brian Miller vs. Jeremy England, Round 2

_{News
May 20, 2020

Intelligent Design, Origin Of Life

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design
Origin Of Life}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Round 1 was at Inference Review: A Sizzling Exchange On The Origin Of Life

England rightly states that the fluctuation theorems allow for the possibility that some mechanism could drive matter to both lower entropy and higher energy (higher free energy), thus potentially solving the problem of the origin of life, at least in theory. In contrast, I addressed the likelihood that, given the practical constraints, realistic natural processes on the early earth could generate a minimally complex cell. In that context, England indirectly affirmed the main points of my argument and thus reinforced the conclusion that an undirected origin of life might be possible in principle, but it is completely implausible in practice.
Brian Miller, “On the Origin of Life, Here Is My Response to Jeremy England” at Evolution News and Science Today

Origin of life is more fun when it is a genuine discussion rather than a speculation based on a chance finding.

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips – origin of life What we do and don’t know about the origin of life.

Comments

ET: Name some of those scientists and their projects that relate to macroevolution. Or admit that you just make stuff up. I was talking about the origin of life I believe. Either way you can look up thousands and thousands of references in any good university level textbook on evolution. Evolutionary biologists still don’t even know what makes an organism what it is. They have no idea how blind and mindless processes could have produced regulatory networks. The origin of meiosis is still well beyond what we can test. Maybe. What do you think makes an organism what it is? There isn’t even a blind and mindless mechanism that can produce eukaryotes starting from given populations of prokaryotes. Maybe. How do you think it happened? Your side doesn’t have a capable mechanism, which is strange given it is a mechanistic theory Maybe. How do you think it all occurred? And yet that evidence has been presented and you don’t have anything to account for it. That says it all, really. It's really poor evidence at best. And there is nothing one would expect from living beings engaged in complicated biological constructions. Clearly your aren’t in any position to assess the evidence Maybe.JVL_{May 22, 2020
May
05
May
22
22
2020
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

Martin_r: you must be joking … what evidence is very very clear ? :))) please give me a few examples… The evidence for unguided processes being sufficient to develop life as we observe it after an as yet undetermined beginning. I can recommend a good textbook on evolution. i put the same question to Seversky (at least 1000x). He never answers. So i will put the same question to you as well. WHAT IS YOUR EDUCATION ? Why do you care? What difference would it make? Why don’t we see new species just popping into existence? We see new species arising but from established existing species. They don't just 'pop' into existence without clear precursors.JVL_{May 22, 2020
May
05
May
22
22
2020
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

JVL "When? How did that happen? Is it still happening? Why don’t we see new species just popping into existence?" Why don’t we see new species just popping into existence? Why don’t we see new species just popping into existence? Why don’t we see new species just popping into existence? YOU ASKING ME THAT QUESTION ???? YOU WHO BELIEVE THAT NEW SPECIES CAN EVOLVE FROM SCRATCH ????? LET ME ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTION ? Why don’t we see new species just popping into existence?martin_r_{May 22, 2020
May
05
May
22
22
2020
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

JVL "There is no evidence (in my opinion) for the intervention of an intelligent agent." i put the same question to Seversky (at least 1000x). He never answers. So i will put the same question to you as well. WHAT IS YOUR EDUCATION ?martin_r_{May 22, 2020
May
05
May
22
22
2020
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

JVL:
There is no evidence (in my opinion) for the intervention of an intelligent agent.
And yet that evidence has been presented and you don't have anything to account for it. That says it all, really. Clearly your aren't in any position to assess the evidenceET_{May 22, 2020
May
05
May
22
22
2020
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

JVL:
That is your opinion and literally thousands and thousands of scientists working in the pertinent fields disagree with you.
Name some of those scientists and their projects that relate to macroevolution. Or admit that you just make stuff up. Evolutionary biologists still don't even know what makes an organism what it is. They have no idea how blind and mindless processes could have produced regulatory networks. The origin of meiosis is still well beyond what we can test. There isn't even a blind and mindless mechanism that can produce eukaryotes starting from given populations of prokaryotes. Your side doesn't have a capable mechanism, which is strange given it is a mechanistic theoryET_{May 22, 2020
May
05
May
22
22
2020
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

JVL @26 " I agree that after a certain stage the evidence is very, very clear." you must be joking ... what evidence is very very clear ? :))) please give me a few examples...martin_r_{May 22, 2020
May
05
May
22
22
2020
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

JVL @26 i have deleted my previous post mentioning F Crick. i have overloooked that you were asking for some statement from OOL area. However, even F Crick statement nicely demonstrates how Darwinists think and 'know' ... they don't know a thing... they only mis-interpret the evidence - they were doing it for 150 years.... and with every new discovery, they have to review and correct themselves ...martin_r_{May 22, 2020
May
05
May
22
22
2020
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

Martin_r: Francis Crick: “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. ” Was he talking about the origin or life or stuff after that? I agree that after a certain stage the evidence is very, very clear. EDIT: I see now you or someone else deleted your comment for some reason. I'll leave my response though.JVL_{May 22, 2020
May
05
May
22
22
2020
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: To synthesize an aaRS from heritable memory requires the heritable memory, does it not, JVL? I don't know, I haven't studied such systems. Have you ever heard of Karl Popper? You are not merely waiting to see if any research pans out; that is a fabrication you tell yourself and hope others will assume it along with you. By denying documented scientific facts and incontrovertible reasoning, you are creating a non-falsifiable position for your preferred conclusion. It is no longer possible to subject your conclusion to a test its validity, thereby establishing it as pseudo-science. You can maintain the integrity of your proposition (that life began by a purely natural process) but you cannot do so by denying science and reason in an effort to shield it from the strength of opposing propositions — which is exactly what you are doing. Yes, I do know who Karl Popper was. Look, I can see you fervently believe you have the right approach to this whole issue and you may be right. I'm saying I don't know for sure. I also know that literally thousands of working scientists who have a lot more knowledge and experience than I do disagree with you OR aren't sure enough for them to spend years of their lives checking to see if there is a possible way for the system to have arisen via unguided processes. I do not believe that they are all deluded or ignoring the data. There must be a reason they are continuing to work on the issue. I find that kind of behaviour telling. Also, since I do not see any good evidence for even the presence of an intelligent agent with the necessary abilities and technology around (at . . . what time did all this happen?) then my assumption is that everything came about via natural, unguided processes. Okay. So, assuming a continuum of primary function (self-replication), you then believe that there was once a point in time that a chemical organization existed on earth that could successfully replicate itself both as a dynamic (non-DNA/RNA/aaRS-mediated) replicator and as a semiotic (DNA/RNA/aaRS-mediated) replicator? Is that correct? I'm not sure because a) I haven't studied semiotics and b) I'm not familiar with the most up-to-date proposals for unguided development.JVL_{May 22, 2020
May
05
May
22
22
2020
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

**deleted***martin_r_{May 22, 2020
May
05
May
22
22
2020
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

Marfin: Did Lee Cronin in his latest debate with Dr James Tour not say it was a natural process and he is really close to discovering not the basics of how it works but actually doing it in a lab. Look at the debate on line and tell me he is not confident he knows. Yes he did; I heard that interview. I don't believe him any more than you do. But I'd be happy to be proved wrong. Also nature and popular media make statements about warm ponds , early life , first life , now why, are they making it up or are they repeating what they have heard scientists say , I have no idea where they get their copy from; I just gloss over anything that isn't said by an actual researcher or highly knowledgable and experienced science reporter. You should too. Dawkins never overtly says ” we dont have a clue” he say maybe it could be a warm pond, maybe it could be panspermia, but we know its a natural process , now that is a lie as we don`t know it a natural process. He's just one guy and that's not even his area of research. So don't listen to him, no big deal. Ok so you believe it not ID its a natural process, now show why you dont just believe or have blind faith cite the evidence that leads you to believe life can come from non life ,and replicating living cells can be built up by a slow step by step process on the early earth. I think some plausible pathways are being proposed. I see no evidence for any intelligent outside influence (no labs, no crafts, no energy sources, no living quarters, no documentation, no refuse piles, nothing) and I think the system we have is too kludgy and too haphazard to be a product of design. Also, after we get past the first basic replicator the process of development is pretty straightforward. As one evolutionist put it “we dont believe in evolution because of the evidence we do so because the alternative of special creation is unthinkable”. Not my opinion. There is no evidence (in my opinion) for the intervention of an intelligent agent.JVL_{May 22, 2020
May
05
May
22
22
2020
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

. JVL at #10
I don’t know.
To synthesize an aaRS from heritable memory requires the heritable memory, does it not, JVL? Of course it does. Do we know how the aaRS is synthesized from memory? Of course we do. Does it require the memory and the constraints necessary to actualize that memory? Of course it does; which was the logical impetus behind Crick’s famous adapter hypothesis. That hypothesis, and the logic behind it, were confirmed decades ago and the documentation of this is found in every advanced biology textbook on the surface of the planet. None of these things are even in question JVL, none of them. Likewise, is there any doubt whatsoever that there was once a time on Earth when no aaRS had ever been synthesized from heritable memory? Of course there isn’t. Is there any doubt whatsoever that aaRS are now synthesized from heritable memory? Of course not; it is the basis of modern biology. Is there any doubt whatsoever that to go from a time when no aaRS had ever being synthesized from memory, to a time when aaRS are synthesized from memory, requires that there be a point time when the first ever aaRS was synthesized from memory? How can anyone honestly say that they “do not know” the answer to that question, as well as the questions that preceded it? They can’t. Furthermore, the question I asked had nothing whatsoever to do with knowing (or not knowing) how life on Earth began. So, saying “I don’t know” followed by “no one knows how life began” is effectively a non-sequitur. Not knowing the latter does not alter the former. Regardless of whether or not the OoL was natural or artificial, we still know that aaRS are synthesized from heritable memory in a system requiring a set of constraints necessary to actualize the memory. We know that there was a time in Earth’s history when no aaRS had ever been synthesized from memory, and thus by extension, we also know that there had to be a point in time when the first ever aaRS was so synthesized. There is no other viable scenario that can be coherent with these known facts. So simply saying “I don’t know” is a non-answer in light of the fact that what we need to know in order to answer the question is either a) established science or b) incontrovertible logic. “I don’t know” is merely a refusal to address the question in earnest.
Nor do I know if your scenario is the one that actually occurred.
What scenario? There is no “my” scenario, JVL. A process that did not exist in the past, exists today. So there had to be a time when it began to exist. If that process can only function as it does because of the roles that object A and object B play in the process, then the roles that object A and object B play in the process had to exist when it began to function. You are simply choosing to ignore that fact because acknowledging it has a negative impact your preferred conclusion -- which is exactly what I said previously. You actively deny the strength of the opposing position in order to protect your own position from scrutiny, and you accomplish this by denying documented scientific facts and incontrovertible logical reasoning.
No one knows how life began on Earth, no one is pretending to KNOW.
Irrelevant to the question.
There are various hypotheses and I am happy to let the research continue to see if any of them pan out.
Have you ever heard of Karl Popper? You are not merely waiting to see if any research pans out; that is a fabrication you tell yourself and hope others will assume it along with you. By denying documented scientific facts and incontrovertible reasoning, you are creating a non-falsifiable position for your preferred conclusion. It is no longer possible to subject your conclusion to a test its validity, thereby establishing it as pseudo-science. You can maintain the integrity of your proposition (that life began by a purely natural process) but you cannot do so by denying science and reason in an effort to shield it from the strength of opposing propositions --- which is exactly what you are doing. It is as plain as the nose on your face JVL.
Personally I think it was a purely mechanistic process but I admit that is just a belief.
Okay. So, assuming a continuum of primary function (self-replication), you then believe that there was once a point in time that a chemical organization existed on earth that could successfully replicate itself both as a dynamic (non-DNA/RNA/aaRS-mediated) replicator and as a semiotic (DNA/RNA/aaRS-mediated) replicator? Is that correct?Upright BiPed_{May 22, 2020
May
05
May
22
22
2020
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT}

JVL- Did Lee Cronin in his latest debate with Dr James Tour not say it was a natural process and he is really close to discovering not the basics of how it works but actually doing it in a lab. Look at the debate on line and tell me he is not confident he knows. Also nature and popular media make statements about warm ponds , early life , first life , now why, are they making it up or are they repeating what they have heard scientists say , Dawkins never overtly says " we dont have a clue" he say maybe it could be a warm pond, maybe it could be panspermia, but we know its a natural process , now that is a lie as we don`t know it a natural process. Ok so you believe it not ID its a natural process, now show why you dont just believe or have blind faith cite the evidence that leads you to believe life can come from non life ,and replicating living cells can be built up by a slow step by step process on the early earth. If you dont cite the evidence I will assume blind faith. As one evolutionist put it "we dont believe in evolution because of the evidence we do so because the alternative of special creation is unthinkable".Marfin_{May 22, 2020
May
05
May
22
22
2020
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT}

BobRyan: JVL @ 7 mentions intellectual honesty, which does not exist among Darwinists. Intellectual honesty requires one to admit that macro-evolution is not a valid scientific theory. That is your opinion and literally thousands and thousands of scientists working in the pertinent fields disagree with you. Without something being witnessed and replicated, a hypothesis must remain a hypothesis. So do you believe in black holes? The Big Bang? How old do you think the solar system is? Were there really dinosaurs since no one has ever actually seen one.JVL_{May 22, 2020
May
05
May
22
22
2020
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT}

Martin_r: I debated lots of lay atheists… 99.99% of them think that the OOL-question is solved! This is the result of Darwinian propaganda across the World. Lots of ID proponents say stupid things too. You can't blame the working scientists if people mis-interpret their work. Read what they've actually written. so, JVL, you admit that you are a believer too …. like we are… I would say there are some significant differences in the way we arrive at our positions but I do admit everything is just speculation at this point. The only difference between you an me is, that in 21st century, after all the discoveries, you still believe in some crazy absurd darwinian theory, and I believe that all the sophisticated species we can see on our planet, were created by a mastermind – Creator/Designer/Engineer/God. When? How did that happen? Is it still happening? Why don't we see new species just popping into existence?JVL_{May 22, 2020
May
05
May
22
22
2020
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT}

Marfin: But they are pretending to know at least to the media and general public at large, and thats the problem I don't think that's true at all: show me the actual statement of a person doing research in the area where they say "we know . . . ". If scientist were honest enough to admit just like you did above, that their pronouncements on how they know so much about how life began naturally and by some random process that this is just their beliefs and have no basis in fact , But . . . Dr Dawkins has stated, clearly, that life on earth could have been started via transpermia. Of course that does push the problem back to another planet somewhere. Honestly, I think you are just responding to popular media stories instead of paying attention to what the scientists are actually saying. Why are you doing that? Both ID and naturalistic OOL theories are belief systems, it just comes down to which ones is the most reasonable, has the best circumstantial evidence and explains best the facts we know about life. For me ID wins this hands down. Okay. For me it's the other way.JVL_{May 22, 2020
May
05
May
22
22
2020
02:28 AM
2
02
28
AM
PDT}

why is it, that life as we know it arose only once ? and then never again ?
Perhaps it did arise more than once, but the later versions were out-competed.Bob O'H_{May 22, 2020
May
05
May
22
22
2020
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT}

in regards to OOL, i have a simple question: why is it, that life as we know it arose only once ? and then never again ? why photosynthesis arose only once, and then never again ... why all these miracles always happened only once, in deep past ?martin_r_{May 22, 2020
May
05
May
22
22
2020
12:16 AM
12
12
16
AM
PDT}

BobRyan @14 Bob, lets don't forget, that Darwinian-scientists as well as Darwinian laymen believe in miracles. In their World of random mutations - everything is possible... a miracle after miracle after miracle... e.g. Placenta, such a complex organ - still nobody knows how exactly it works, can according to evolutionary theory arise 100 times repeatedly and independently in various lineages .... i always used to say, that most miracles happen in biology.... here is an article on Placenta (how complex organs can evolve repeatedly), but actually, YOU WON'T LEARN HOW COMPLEX ORGANS CAN EVOLVE REPEATEDLY :))))))))) it is like in some mental hospital.... https://theconversation.com/using-the-placenta-to-understand-how-complex-organs-evolve-70107martin_r_{May 22, 2020
May
05
May
22
22
2020
12:11 AM
12
12
11
AM
PDT}

JVL @ 7 mentions intellectual honesty, which does not exist among Darwinists. Intellectual honesty requires one to admit that macro-evolution is not a valid scientific theory. Without something being witnessed and replicated, a hypothesis must remain a hypothesis. That is the difference between a scientific theory and a work of science-fiction. Without God, there can be origin of life. Without God, there can be no laws to govern the universe. Chaos can only create chaos.BobRyan_{May 22, 2020
May
05
May
22
22
2020
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PDT}

JVL @10 " but I admit that is just a belief." so, JVL, you admit that you are a believer too .... like we are... The only difference between you an me is, that in 21st century, after all the discoveries, you still believe in some crazy absurd darwinian theory, and I believe that all the sophisticated species we can see on our planet, were created by a mastermind - Creator/Designer/Engineer/God. So what is the difference between you and me? Between my faith and your faith ? I am an engineer, i know what i see, these crazy Darwinian biologists are trying to trick the whole world to believe what is obviously false AND CRAZY ABSURD!!! ... i think i am dreaming... it is like in some mental hospital .... again, i am an engineer, i know what i see .... e.g. i see sophisticated autonomous self-navigating flying systems with a GPS-level navigation skills, but, these systems do not require 33 GPS satellites on orbit ... And then comes a darwinian biologist along with his crazy absurd theory which claims that autonomous self-navigating flying systems can self-design, and no engineer(s) are needed ????? This crazy absurd darwinian theory ignores pretty everything what engineers have learned in last millions of years (yes, even a caveman was an engineer). I can't believe this is happening in 21st century ... there really must be a global outbreak of some serious mental disease ....martin_r_{May 22, 2020
May
05
May
22
22
2020
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PDT}

Marfin @11 your response to JVL "But they are pretending to know at least to the media and general public at large" EXACTLY!!! e.g. from time to time i visit Natural History Museum Vienna ... there is still an exposition on the origin of life - showing Urey-Miller experiment!!!! (i suspect that Vienna is not some rare exception). I just could not believe my eyes. I debated lots of lay atheists... 99.99% of them think that the OOL-question is solved! This is the result of Darwinian propaganda across the World. Lay atheists have no idea how desperate the situation with OOL-research is... Lay atheists are parroting Dawkins and other Darwinian clowns ...martin_r_{May 21, 2020
May
05
May
21
21
2020
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT}

JVL- But they are pretending to know at least to the media and general public at large, and thats the problem. If scientist were honest enough to admit just like you did above, that their pronouncements on how they know so much about how life began naturally and by some random process that this is just their beliefs and have no basis in fact , science in this field might progress, and I for one would be much happier . Both ID and naturalistic OOL theories are belief systems, it just comes down to which ones is the most reasonable, has the best circumstantial evidence and explains best the facts we know about life. For me ID wins this hands down.Marfin_{May 21, 2020
May
05
May
21
21
2020
11:34 PM
11
11
34
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: At the point in earth’s history when the first ever aaRS was synthesized from memory, how many of the other aaRS had to be in place? I don't know. Nor do I know if your scenario is the one that actually occurred. No one knows how life began on Earth, no one is pretending to KNOW. There are various hypotheses and I am happy to let the research continue to see if any of them pan out. Personally I think it was a purely mechanistic process but I admit that is just a belief.JVL_{May 21, 2020
May
05
May
21
21
2020
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT}

.
JVI: If you’re going to argue against a position then have the decency and intellectual honesty to argue against the actual position and not some caricature version of the position.
A most interesting comment coming from you JVL. Truly it is. So you think ID proponents should argue against the endlessly unknown and unfalsifiable simple precursor proposition (made repeatedly by people like yourself) by pointing out its obvious flaws? Perhaps something like asking its proponents to address the physical and logical entailments of their beliefs? And what is it that you do when something like that happens, JVL?
UB: Surely you grasp that the system would have to change from one system to the other if the system that is found in the cell today is deemed to be too complex to have arisen spontaneously, so another simpler system is speculated to have been the original replicator. JVL: Why should I grasp that? Who has deemed it to have been too complex? Now you’re delving into opinion and not science.
This "decency and intellectual honesty" thing you speak so highly of -- is it a virtue that happens to go both ways? Would it have been a demonstration of "decency and intellectual honesty" on your part to have genuinely addressed the question I was asking you, particularly given the fact that it was specifically about your position against ID. I was asking you a very logical question; by that I mean, it is a question that your position cannot logically avoid. Yet, you did just exactly that. Here is what I asked:
Assuming a continuum of primary function (self-replication), you then believe that there was once a point in time that a chemical organization existed on earth that could successfully replicate itself both as a non-DNA/RNA/aaRS-mediated replicator and as a DNA/RNA/aaRS-mediated replicator? Is that correct?
I think that you actually addressing that question would have been a great demonstration of this "decency and intellectual honesty"virtue you seem to want others to follow. But now I have an additional question on that subject: Given that you clearly refused to address the question (i.e. after three direct attempts, your answer to it appears nowhere on the thread), how much more of a demonstration of this "decency and intellectual honesty" is it to come right back and still be pushing the same position, one which you've already refused to defend? Is that the decent and intellectually honest thing to do, JVL? And when you come back here again tomorrow, won't you still be doing the same thing? I mean, surely nothing has changed, has it? Your opponents can ask you questions that are logically entailed by your position, which you then avoid in order to deny them the strength of their position, while simultaneously protecting your position, right? So … isn't it true that nothing has changed? Or, perhaps you would just rather show the superiority of your position by answering a different question instead. Here's one: As you now know, the set of aaRS are the molecular constraints in the cell that establish the genetic code. They are fundamentally required for the gene system to begin to function. They are also complex proteins which are synthesized inside the cell from memory. And it is undeniable that there was once a time when no aaRS had ever been synthesized. At the point in earth’s history when the first ever aaRS was synthesized from memory, how many of the other aaRS had to be in place? What does physical reality and logic tell you JVL?Upright BiPed_{May 21, 2020
May
05
May
21
21
2020
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

JVL:
“Darwinists” do not believe cells arose without quite a few precursors.
And there isn't any evidence for those alleged precursors. There isn't any evidence for a RNA world.ET_{May 21, 2020
May
05
May
21
21
2020
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

Martin_r: i don’t know, it seems that these guys believe that some miracle will happen … or i don’t know… they really expect, that thousands of cell’s parts suddenly start to work in concert, just so, by itself … :))))))) Darwinists do really believe in miracles!!! "Darwinists" do not believe cells arose without quite a few precursors. If you're going to argue against a position then have the decency and intellectual honesty to argue against the actual position and not some caricature version of the position. What you are doing is equivalent to me just saying your position is "God did it" which I trust you would not find fair or true.JVL_{May 21, 2020
May
05
May
21
21
2020
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

Jawa let me add the following: these Darwinists like Croonin or Szostak, perfectly understand how complex and sophisticated the cell is ... but they keep trying and wasting time and other people money ... i don't know, it seems that these guys believe that some miracle will happen ... or i don't know... they really expect, that thousands of cell's parts suddenly start to work in concert, just so, by itself ... :))))))) Darwinists do really believe in miracles!!!martin_r_{May 21, 2020
May
05
May
21
21
2020
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

Jawa "How close are Dr Lee Cronin and Dr Jack Szostak" how close can they be ? They are unable to create even the simplest cell ... even if they are forced to ... even if they have all the cell's components pre-made and securely stored in their lab-freezers (so it does not degrade), even if they could use all their fancy lab tools.... they are unable to assemble a simplest cell so it works... Lay Darwinists have no idea how desperate the situation is. So how on Earth, do you expect them to create a cell by chance, with no human involvement ? :))) These Darwinists just wasting time and money, in 21st century we already know, that a cell is too sophisticated,.... this can't be done by some unguided process ... there must be some outbreak of mental illness among Darwinian OOL-researchers... some kind of virus... they already know that this can't be done, but Darwinian scientists love to waste other people money .... easy money....grant money ... no results needed, no responsibility for what they do... just more and more money and no results.... you and me, we both could be OOL-researchers too... the result would be exactly the same ... In worst case scenario, we both will retract our OOL-research papers, like Nobel laureate Jack Szostak did few years ago: RetractionWatch.com: "”Definitely embarrassing:” Nobel Laureate retracts non-reproducible paper in Nature journal" https://retractionwatch.com/2017/12/05/definitely-embarrassing-nobel-laureate-retracts-non-reproducible-paper-nature-journal/ PS: Jawa, of course, we keep the grant money, just retract the papers ...martin_r_{May 21, 2020
May
05
May
21
21
2020
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply