Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
How are useless proteins floating in the imaginary primordial soup "selected"?Oops, did it again. All totally false and demonstrative of no basic understanding of this material whatsoever.
There is nothing random about any of it. Selection by physical law is the opposite of random. Do water molecules come in random shapes? Nope.
Do stars come in random shapes? Nope.
Are animals just random? Fins and gills on land animals, white haired beats in the tropics? Random numbers of arms and legs? No.
So your big explanation is that it was magic. Which of course, is not an explanation at all, but is instead you giving up.
www.cbsnews.com
They are not necessarily aircraft. Remember, we don't know what they are.they are aircraft
By physical laws. Stable structures persist, unstable structures do not. It's really not that complicated, that's what I am trying to tell you.How are useless proteins floating in the imaginary primordial soup "selected"?
Understood, but they're in the air, and they're flying loops around our military aircraft. They also supposedly go underwater, so I get you there. And obviously, if they have that tech, they can go in space. So they have unlimited domain regardless of substance. No reason to think they can't go through solid matter too.They are not necessarily aircraft. Remember, we don't know what they are.
See, gotta stop you right there. You can't really say that. You have already loaded the discussion with a dubious premise.Understood, but they're in the air, and they're flying loops around our military aircraft.
Then you missed the point by about 100 miles. Many are just passive objects. The spheroidal or ellipsoidal shape is what we would expect from an object at high altitude that has pressurized gas inside. That's a good indication they are NOT designed "aircraft" of any kind, as a designed aircraft would not change shape under its own pressure at 30,000 feet. Others are just optical illusions.So yeah, they're not aircraft, they're everything-craft. Good point!
abcnews.go.com
I guess you're not listening to the Navy pilots as they describe things that are buzzing around them, and making maneuvers that are physically impossible with our current technology.
Here's a sample:
Please watch the whole thing before you comment.
Excuse you. You did not provide anything close to conclusive evidence of this claim. Practically none, really.So it's not passive objects or air clutter.
Are you implying that Earth only has life because we haven’t found other life forms right winger? Read this and get back with me. The Big and the Small — Wait But WhyThe whole universe has to use the same Periodic Chart
Same elements, same elementary compounds
Setting up conditions for sustainable life is the exception, not the rule
waitbutwhy.com
One last time.No, see, that's where you stray from the path. They didn't evolve "perfectly". The systems may have evolved other ways. And did, when you look at two animals. Which is perfect? The bladder lung of a Gar, or the lungs of a lungfish?
The system isn't "perfect", it just works. If it did not, it would not persist. There were many more failed models than successful ones. But we don't see those, because they failed.
Replication is not really a mystery at all. A hydrocarbon splits, the two pieces map a version of the missing piece onto itself from available materials, and you have replication. Very easy to replicate in the lab (for the experts, not for me). Then, a more complex organic molecule does the same. Keep scaling it up it up with longer molecules, and you eventually get DNA replication.
You say things like the quote above... your first instinct should be to wonder if the people who have dedicated their lives to studying of this, oh just maybe, thought of that. A while ago. Then look up what they have to say.
No, see, that's where you stray from the path. They didn't evolve "perfectly". The systems may have evolved other ways. And did, when you look at two animals. Which is perfect? The bladder lung of a Gar, or the lungs of a lungfish?
The system isn't "perfect", it just works. If it did not, it would not persist. There were many more failed models than successful ones. But we don't see those, because they failed.
Replication is not really a mystery at all. A hydrocarbon splits, the two pieces map a version of the missing piece onto itself from available materials, and you have replication. Very easy to replicate in the lab (for the experts, not for me). Then, a more complex organic molecule does the same. Keep scaling it up it up with longer molecules, and you eventually get DNA replication.
You say things like the quote above... your first instinct should be to wonder if the people who have dedicated their lives to studying of this, oh just maybe, thought of that. A while ago. Then look up what they have to say.
Nobody says that, except for religious nutters.. You once again argue against your own fantasies.It's so tiring to listen to the Ego tell us that we have all the answers and we can explain Creation. We HAVE to have the answers because human reason is the most AWESOME, POWERFUL force in the Universe
Boooooringggg
So I and the global scientific community don't get it, but you do. Doesn't that make you feel a bit embarrassed of yourself? It should.You really don't get it! At all!!
