Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
39,273
Reaction score
4,856
Points
1,130
I know, right?

“Man will never map the human genome”.

“How could we ever demonstrate/duplicate, let alone observe, such a thing in the lab”?
It's as if atheists like Hollie are lobotomized zombies or something. . . .

You're not merely comparing apples to oranges, but elephants to mosquitoes. The human genome exists! Mapping it was a matter of technological development.

What don't you understand about abiogenesis being the formation of life from nonliving organic material up from the most fundamental, precursor-molecular level by strictly natural means in raw nature?

Prebiotic organic precursors are pristinely segregated and manipulatively combined by intelligence in laboratories. That's not abiogenesis, you 'tard.
It's as though your tender sensibilities are offended when your nonsense claims are addressed as nonsense claims. Yes, the human genome exists. Nothing magical or supernatural about it. The technical achievement to map and to understand the chemistry and biology of DNA was a technical achievement.

How strange that magic and supernaturalism played no part in that science achievement.

Let's have the angry, religious extremist calculate the total number of chemical interactions occurring over billions of years and ''what are the odds'' that combinations of chemical interactions will eventually be just right to produce the conditions, in the right environmental conditions, to produce life.

Let's also have the angry religionist calculate the total number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,906
Reaction score
1,143
Points
170
Scientists have proposed various external sources of energy that may have triggered these reactions, including lightning and radiation.
Where did these external sources of energy come from? I asked where did all the energy in the universe that it ever needs come from and there were no answers.

Let's face it. Science does not back up evolution.
 
OP
abu afak

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
3,710
Reaction score
1,049
Points
315
Where did these external sources of energy come from? I asked where did all the energy in the universe that it ever needs come from and there were no answers.
Same energy they mentioned/used. Lightning and radiation.

Let's face it. Science does not back up evolution.
Let's face it: Science not only backs/IS evolution, it crucially makes a mockery of Genesis.
 
Last edited:

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
81,020
Reaction score
7,813
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Google proteins; they come in two flavors, animal and plant.
Google research protein fragments being constructed by other chemicals as precursors of life. You know, since you are in a thread about that topic.
Those aren't proteins. Those are chains of organic molecules that mimic proteins or so they believe.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,906
Reaction score
1,143
Points
170
Where did these external sources of energy come from? I asked where did all the energy in the universe that it ever needs come from and there were no answers.
Same energy they mentioned/used. Lightning and radiation.

Let's face it. Science does not back up evolution.
Let's face it: Science not only backs/IS evolution, it crucially makes a mockery of Genesis.
You were discussing formation of amino acids (really need proteins to build a cell) and then had lightening and radiation activity from nothing. Where did the energy for lightening and radiation come from?

Science does not back up your evolution because your explanation is too lacking. OTOH, God created light or the EMS first. He separated it into day and night to signify time. Evolution doesn't have any of this nor any explanation. It's a fairy tale until you are able to explain.
 
Last edited:

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
39,273
Reaction score
4,856
Points
1,130
Where did these external sources of energy come from? I asked where did all the energy in the universe that it ever needs come from and there were no answers.
Same energy they mentioned/used. Lightning and radiation.

Let's face it. Science does not back up evolution.
Let's face it: Science not only backs/IS evolution, it crucially makes a mockery of Genesis.
You were discussing formation of amino acids (really need proteins to build a cell) and then had lightening and radiation activity from nothing. Where did the energy for lightening and radiation come from?

Science does not back up your evolution because your explanation is too lacking. OTOH, God created light or the EMS first. He separated it into day and night to signify time. Evolution doesn't have any of this nor any explanation. It's a fairy tale until you are able to explain.
It is a shame that science doesn't have supernaturalism or the ''... because I say so'' argument used by ID'iot creationers.

"The gawds did it'' is so convenient.
 

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,970
Reaction score
876
Points
140
It is a shame that science doesn't have supernaturalism or the ''... because I say so'' argument used by ID'iot creationers.

"The gawds did it'' is so convenient.
Behold the scientism-of-the-gaps fallacy: science did it!

Laughing Finger Smiley.jpg
 

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,970
Reaction score
876
Points
140
If there is an intelligent definition of god, it would be that the earth and cosmos is god, though when H. sapiens anthropomorphizes it, H. sapiens loses it. The ‘hands’ on a clock is the pathology.
Meanwhile back to reality: the Universe (your god) began to exist in the finite past.
 

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,970
Reaction score
876
Points
140
To help replicate Several Billion years of chemical combinations and conditions... any extant combos are fair to use.
The infinite amount of conditions over that period and every thinkable condition/combination is fair to try.

Especially those that we are all made up of and ingest to live.

And there are many molecular tendencies. As simple as bonding (O2) or the formation of Crystals, etc, etc.

And there similarly are naturally occurring more complex molecules that have tendencies to organize in certain ways in the presence of others and other conditions. Erath 3.5 Bil yrs ago (first known life) was very different than today.

To reproduce early earth conditions which no longer exist, it's perfectly fair to do so in a lab.
And that's what Miller-Urey did, and did successfully.

Wiki: The classic 1952 Miller–Urey experiment and similar research demonstrated that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early Earth. Scientists have proposed various external sources of energy that may have triggered these reactions, including lightning and radiation. Other approaches ("metabolism-first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems on the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.[20]

This is well more coherent (and justified by the fossil record) than an Impossible/Laughable singular Genesis creation event, or a blundering trial-and-error 3 billion year (ID-not/Engineered-not) version of that goofy myth.

And let's be clear, you are a [specific religion] nut trying to justify scientifically any god, to be able to hold onto yours.
Of course, you have NO evidence, no one ever has, and your are going nowhere with your wittle philosophical clap trap version of God of the Gaps/the GodDidIt Fallacy. (aka Argument from Ignorance)
Laying aside your imbecilic notion that biochemistry is abiogenesis, your fantasy that we are somehow closer today to achieving that which is manifestly impossible (i.e., demonstrating/observing abiogenesis in the lab or anywhere else), indeed, your delusion that we are any closer today to explaining how the mere chemistry of nature arranged the prebiotic, organic precursors of life to produce anything more than a dead-end pile of organic gobbledygook than we were 70 years ago, your failure to answer my question regarding the origin of the self-replicating catalytic amyloids (peptide enzymes), your failure to answer my questions regarding the origin and identity of the even more complex compounds that produced them, your false and boorish ad hominem, your feloniously abject contention that the Miller-Urey experiments reproduced early-earth conditions. . . .

(By the way, a warrant for your arrest has been issued for the latter, and I'm about to serve it.)

Well, since you want to discuss Miller-Urey, let's start here. As I need not repeat myself, the following is copied-and-pasted from my (Michael Rawlings', a.k.a., Ringtone's) article "Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism".

The underlying hypothesis of Miller-Urey has been falsified for years. Also, the experiment’s conditions were shown to be incongruent and the results, negative. The reasons for this are legion and complex, yet textbooks continue to relate this experiment with the same sort of fanfare in the above as if it were still something more than a historical footnote. An avalanche of innumerable Internet sites—most of them that of atheist know-nothings—continue to tout it as being something that still matters along with theory that is years, even decades, behind current science.​
For example, it doesn’t appear that . . . [abu afak's] source knows that the Earth’s atmosphere was oxygen-rich much earlier than he supposes, generally more oxidizing than reducing—necessary for life, but not friendly to the formation of amino acids. In other words, the actual conditions were considerably more hostile to the prospects of abiogenesis than those of the Miller-Urey experiments. The primordial soup keeps getting driven deeper and deeper into the ocean, where, once again, another battery of problematic conditions confound the imbecilic notion of chemical evolution. . . .​
. . . What was actually produced in the published Miller-Urey experiment of 1953 were 5 amino acids (3 of the 20 fundamentals of life) and the molecular constituents of others. The dominant material produced in the experiment was an insoluble, carcinogenic mixture of tar—large compounds of toxic melanoids, a common end product in organic reactions. However, it was recently discovered that the published experiment actually entailed the production of 14 amino acids (6 of the 20 fundamentals of life) and 5 amines in various concentrations. In 1952, the technology needed to detect the other trace amounts of organic material was not available. But the unpublished Miller-Urey experiments conducted over the next several years show that a modified version of Miller’s original apparatus featuring a volcanic-like, spark discharge system, which increased air flow with a tapering glass aspirator, produced 22 amino acids (9 of the fundamentals of life) and the same 5 amines.​

Question, abu afak: what of ultimate significance, precisely, did the Miller-Urey experiments falsify relative to their underlying hypothesis?
 

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,970
Reaction score
876
Points
140
Well self replication and the different possibilities that can go wrong or right would be the only logical reason for life to begin. If you could replicate the same thing over and over again then it would be kind of boring. Things in the process have to go wrong to make it interesting. Still it doesn't matter as people still need a reason to not kill one another.
May I ask, Kilroy, and this is not a criticism, what exactly is your point? I'm genuinely interested in what you may be getting at. Thanks.
 
OP
abu afak

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
3,710
Reaction score
1,049
Points
315
To help replicate Several Billion years of chemical combinations and conditions... any extant combos are fair to use.
The infinite amount of conditions over that period and every thinkable condition/combination is fair to try.

Especially those that we are all made up of and ingest to live.

And there are many molecular tendencies. As simple as bonding (O2) or the formation of Crystals, etc, etc.

And there similarly are naturally occurring more complex molecules that have tendencies to organize in certain ways in the presence of others and other conditions. Erath 3.5 Bil yrs ago (first known life) was very different than today.

To reproduce early earth conditions which no longer exist, it's perfectly fair to do so in a lab.
And that's what Miller-Urey did, and did successfully.

Wiki: The classic 1952 Miller–Urey experiment and similar research demonstrated that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early Earth. Scientists have proposed various external sources of energy that may have triggered these reactions, including lightning and radiation. Other approaches ("metabolism-first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems on the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.[20]

This is well more coherent (and justified by the fossil record) than an Impossible/Laughable singular Genesis creation event, or a blundering trial-and-error 3 billion year (ID-not/Engineered-not) version of that goofy myth.

And let's be clear, you are a [specific religion] nut trying to justify scientifically any god, to be able to hold onto yours.
Of course, you have NO evidence, no one ever has, and your are going nowhere with your wittle philosophical clap trap version of God of the Gaps/the GodDidIt Fallacy. (aka Argument from Ignorance)
Laying aside your imbecilic notion that biochemistry is abiogenesis, your fantasy that we are somehow closer today to achieving that which is manifestly impossible (i.e., demonstrating/observing abiogenesis in the lab or anywhere else), indeed, your delusion that we are any closer today to explaining how the mere chemistry of nature arranged the prebiotic, organic precursors of life to produce anything more than a dead-end pile of organic gobbledygook than we were 70 years ago, your failure to answer my question regarding the origin of the self-replicating catalytic amyloids (peptide enzymes), your failure to answer my questions regarding the origin and identity of the even more complex compounds that produced them, your false and boorish ad hominem, your feloniously abject contention that the Miller-Urey experiments reproduced early-earth conditions. . . .

(By the way, a warrant for your arrest has been issued for the latter, and I'm about to serve it.)

Well, since you want to discuss Miller-Urey, let's start here. As I need not repeat myself, the following is copied-and-pasted from my (Michael Rawlings', a.k.a., Ringtone's) article "Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism".

The underlying hypothesis of Miller-Urey has been falsified for years. Also, the experiment’s conditions were shown to be incongruent and the results, negative. The reasons for this are legion and complex, yet textbooks continue to relate this experiment with the same sort of fanfare in the above as if it were still something more than a historical footnote. An avalanche of innumerable Internet sites—most of them that of atheist know-nothings—continue to tout it as being something that still matters along with theory that is years, even decades, behind current science.​
For example, it doesn’t appear that . . . [abu afak's] source knows that the Earth’s atmosphere was oxygen-rich much earlier than he supposes, generally more oxidizing than reducing—necessary for life, but not friendly to the formation of amino acids. In other words, the actual conditions were considerably more hostile to the prospects of abiogenesis than those of the Miller-Urey experiments. The primordial soup keeps getting driven deeper and deeper into the ocean, where, once again, another battery of problematic conditions confound the imbecilic notion of chemical evolution. . . .​
. . . What was actually produced in the published Miller-Urey experiment of 1953 were 5 amino acids (3 of the 20 fundamentals of life) and the molecular constituents of others. The dominant material produced in the experiment was an insoluble, carcinogenic mixture of tar—large compounds of toxic melanoids, a common end product in organic reactions. However, it was recently discovered that the published experiment actually entailed the production of 14 amino acids (6 of the 20 fundamentals of life) and 5 amines in various concentrations. In 1952, the technology needed to detect the other trace amounts of organic material was not available. But the unpublished Miller-Urey experiments conducted over the next several years show that a modified version of Miller’s original apparatus featuring a volcanic-like, spark discharge system, which increased air flow with a tapering glass aspirator, produced 22 amino acids (9 of the fundamentals of life) and the same 5 amines.​

Question, abu afak: what of ultimate significance, precisely, did the Miller-Urey experiments falsify relative to their underlying hypothesis?
You keep citing/SPAMMING your own Idiotic essay.
(and been LAUGHED off many boards)

You have nothing to say and still NO EVIDENCE of god.
Just the usual, if unbelievable wordy.. God of the Gaps.
You're an OCD clown.
Just the usual religious nut bag.

`

`
`
 

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,970
Reaction score
876
Points
140
You keep citing/SPAMMING your own Idiotic essay.
(and been LAUGHED off many boards)

You have nothing to say and still NO EVIDENCE of god.
Just the usual, if unbelievable wordy.. God of the Gaps.
You're an OCD clown.
Just the usual religious nut bag.
What boards would those be?

So you don't want to discuss Miller-Urey after all? It's your thread. You raised the issue, not I.

Question, abu afak: what of ultimate significance, precisely, did the Miller-Urey experiments falsify relative to their underlying hypothesis?
 
Last edited:
OP
abu afak

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
3,710
Reaction score
1,049
Points
315
Question, abu afak: what of ultimate significance, precisely, did the Miller-Urey experiments falsify relative to their underlying hypothesis?
Fallacious non sequitur
They showed something was perhaps more possible than thought with the condition/materials at the time.

Is there any evidence for any god?
Is your god Insta-god more likely than the juxtaposition of existing materials/non-organic long chain molecules?
No.


`
 

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,970
Reaction score
876
Points
140
Fallacious non sequitur
They showed something was perhaps more possible than thought with the condition/materials at the time.

Is there any evidence for any god?
Is your god Insta-god more likely than the juxtaposition of existing materials/non-organic long chain molecules?
No.
I don't know why you're asking a question to which you already know the answer. You know I hold that abiogenesis is impossible from previous discussions. What you don't know is why.

As for your allegation that my question is a non sequitur, you raised the Miller-Urey experiments, not I, and to say that the most significant discovery of these experiments has no bearing on the matter is ridiculous!

Actually, what the experiments showed is that any attempt to retain even the most basic organic precursors in the laboratory experiments of abiogenetic research, they must be systematically removed from the synthesizing medium, but that's only of marginal significance relative to the falsification of the experiments' underlying hypothesis. In that wise, what was falsified?

(By the way, fallacious non sequitur is redundant. Non sequiturs are inherently fallacious.)
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
39,273
Reaction score
4,856
Points
1,130

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
39,273
Reaction score
4,856
Points
1,130
Fallacious non sequitur
They showed something was perhaps more possible than thought with the condition/materials at the time.

Is there any evidence for any god?
Is your god Insta-god more likely than the juxtaposition of existing materials/non-organic long chain molecules?
No.
I don't know why you're asking a question to which you already know the answer. You know I hold that abiogenesis is impossible from previous discussions. What you don't know is why.

As for your allegation that my question is a non sequitur, you raised the Miller-Urey experiments, not I, and to say that the most significant discovery of these experiments has no bearing on the matter is ridiculous!

Actually, what the experiments showed is that any attempt to retain even the most basic organic precursors in the laboratory experiments of abiogenetic research, they must be systematically removed from the synthesizing medium, but that's only of marginal significance relative to the falsification of the experiments' underlying hypothesis. In that wise, what was falsified?

(By the way, fallacious non sequitur is redundant. Non sequiturs are inherently fallacious.)
You hold a specious opinion common among religious extremists. What you haven't done is refute the fact of biological evolution. Yes, the evidence for evolution and common descent is overwhelming and the fact of abiogenesis points overwhelmingly to naturally occurring mechanisms.

We're still waiting for that ID'iot creationer ''General Theory of Supernatural Creation''. Offering even the slimmest of evidence for the magic of creation by your gods would be a start. Yet, you offer nothing.
 

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,970
Reaction score
876
Points
140
You hold a specious opinion common among religious extremists. What you haven't done is refute the fact of biological evolution. Yes, the evidence for evolution and common descent is overwhelming and the fact of abiogenesis points overwhelmingly to naturally occurring mechanisms.

We're still waiting for that ID'iot creationer ''General Theory of Supernatural Creation''. Offering even the slimmest of evidence for the magic of creation by your gods would be a start. Yet, you offer nothing.
A chorus of crickets roll their eyes
And dance beneath the cloudy skies.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
39,273
Reaction score
4,856
Points
1,130
You hold a specious opinion common among religious extremists. What you haven't done is refute the fact of biological evolution. Yes, the evidence for evolution and common descent is overwhelming and the fact of abiogenesis points overwhelmingly to naturally occurring mechanisms.

We're still waiting for that ID'iot creationer ''General Theory of Supernatural Creation''. Offering even the slimmest of evidence for the magic of creation by your gods would be a start. Yet, you offer nothing.
A chorus of crickets roll their eyes
And dance beneath the cloudy skies.
The religious extremist slinks away.

Winning!
 

Monk-Eye

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
2,021
Reaction score
445
Points
140
" Non Mutually Exclusive Craziness *

* Trifling False Conclusions A Bout Reductio Ad Absurdum With Out Rig Gore Of Non Necessary Point Of Origin For Current Time Frame *


Timelessness = the eternal now
timeless <=> unaffected by time <=> without end if without time <=> non existent where time is necessary

An origin of expansion for the local universe is supposed , thus the op argument neglects to suppose a state of origin for the local universe .

As a theory , a thing can not be separated from itself , thus ask whether nature exists eternally , and thus ask which elements of nature would not be an image of gawd ?

As sophisticated physical states are necessary for sentience and sapience , frequencies from mind of sentient and sapient beings could set states of potential wells through electromagnetic projection through non local realism .

Obsessions from sophisticated physical states with sentience and sapience could interact with deity gawds , or conceive deity gawds through electromagnetic projection .

A theory for deism as projections of aspirations from collective minds is not deemed non natural by naturalism .

Some claim scientific correlations between peace of mind physical arrangement of environments according to geometry , while others boast to mantra of crafted sigils codex .

My suggestion is to aspire to do good things so that good things will happen , and respect principalities of nature that determine cause and effect , and remember the scenario of ate that occurs in the eighth scene of greed tragedy when a hero succumbs to the exceptional qualities which made their actions heroic .

The strong anthropic principle (SAP), as proposed by John D. Barrow and Frank Tipler, states that the universe is in some sense compelled to eventually have conscious and sapient life emerge within it.

In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for '"reduction to absurdity"'), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for "argument to absurdity"), apagogical arguments, negation introduction or the appeal to extremes, is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction.[1][2] It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion,[3] or to prove a statement by showing that if it were false, then the result would be absurd or impossible.[4][5] Traced back to classical Greek philosophy in Aristotle's Prior Analytics[5] (Greek: ἡ εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον ἀπόδειξις, lit. "demonstration to the impossible", 62b), this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate.[6]

The "absurd" conclusion of a reductio ad absurdum argument can take a range of forms, as these examples show:

  • The Earth cannot be flat; otherwise, we would find people falling off the edge.
  • There is no smallest positive rational number because, if there were, then it could be divided by two to get a smaller one.
The first example argues that denial of the premise would result in a ridiculous conclusion, against the evidence of our senses. The second example is a mathematical proof by contradiction (also known as an indirect proof[7]), which argues that the denial of the premise would result in a logical contradiction (there is a "smallest" number and yet there is a number smaller than it).[8]

* Any Interest To Inquire In Other Stanza *

" Does Nature Include A Facility For Intuition "

* Complexities With Simple Beginnings *
Is it correct to equate timelessness with eternal ?

A fundamental a priori premise ascribes that constructs of nature be self evident .

For something to be intelligible and form complex systems its subsystems would include a basis for order .

Those theories for monism posit a monad as an identity element , an infinitesimal , an irrational number with a geometry , as a basis for order .

An esoteric allusion for an irrational number is a quality of infinitude as an eternal state of being and becoming through some transition , with all comprised emulating the quality ; progeneration is an example of being and becoming through some transition .

* Implicit Capacity For Projection *

I was impressed with embedded information in amyloid conformer ; because , geometry includes projection that could facilitate the means to introspection .

* Mono The Is Them Arguing Form And Function *

Infinitesimal - Wikipedia
In mathematics, infinitesimals are things so small that there is no way to measure them. The insight with exploiting infinitesimals was that entities could still retain certain specific properties, such as angle or slope, even though these entities were quantitatively small.[1] The word infinitesimal comes from a 17th-century Modern Latin coinage infinitesimus, which originally referred to the "infinity-th" item in a sequence. Infinitesimals are a basic ingredient in the procedures of infinitesimal calculus as developed by Leibniz, including the law of continuity and the transcendental law of homogeneity. In common speech, an infinitesimal object is an object that is smaller than any feasible measurement, but not zero in size—or, so small that it cannot be distinguished from zero by any available means. Hence, when used as an adjective, "infinitesimal" means "extremely small". To give it a meaning, it usually must be compared to another infinitesimal object in the same context (as in a derivative). Infinitely many infinitesimals are summed to produce an integral.

Monism - Wikipedia
Monism attributes oneness or singleness (Greek: μόνος) to a concept e.g., existence. Various kinds of monism can be distinguished:

    • Priority monism states that all existing things go back to a source that is distinct from them; e.g., in Neoplatonism everything is derived from The One.[1] In this view only one thing is ontologically basic or prior to everything else.
    • Existence monism posits that, strictly speaking, there exists only a single thing, the Universe, which can only be artificially and arbitrarily divided into many things.[2]
    • Substance monism asserts that a variety of existing things can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance.[3] Substance monism posits that only one kind of stuff exists, although many things may be made up of this stuff, e.g., matter or mind.
" Definitions Of God Insufficient And Usually Pretentious "

* Chemically Unconscious Anxiety *


A theory of natural selection for sentient beings would presume that a probability for success in survival improves with ability and opportunity to select more advantageous options .

An issue of investigation is whether it is at least possible that a propensity exists within inchoate elements of nature for them to assimilate into sophisticated physical states that eventually includes sentience .

The evidence of self replicating protein structures supports a theory that a propensity exists within inchoate elements of nature for those elements to assimilate into sophisticated physical states .

Amyloid and the origin of life: self-replicating catalytic amyloids as prebiotic informational and protometabolic entities
In the encryption process, environmental information is encoded in the three-dimensional structure of the amyloid conformer [27, 28].
The nucleation-dependent replication system is in-put sensitive, chiroselective, and error correcting.


* Projections And Personification Of Natural Reflex *
Those offering creation in full form as a valid explanation over natural processes unbounded by time would do well to consider extraterrestrials as their creator .
 
Last edited:

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
13,084
Reaction score
1,866
Points
245
Location
Virginia
If there is an intelligent definition of god, it would be that the earth and cosmos is god, though when H. sapiens anthropomorphizes it, H. sapiens loses it. The ‘hands’ on a clock is the pathology.
Meanwhile back to reality: the Universe (your god) began to exist in the finite past.
How do you know your God didn't also have a beginning? Maybe is just the last in a long line? Would the universe look any different if that were true?
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top