There is no evidence of Abiogenesis

[SLD]

From another poster on this guys feed in Facebook:

really..? The coded specified information in DNA alone shows us that this was designed by a mind (the only source of complex specified information) But add onto that the incredible nano technology in every living cell and the incredible nano factory needed to make use of the technology in every single cell and you're beyond just intelligence and into something far superior. God. Our creator.

My reply:

Linda Lotcho simplicity is the hallmark of design, not complexity. Your assumptions about design are just not supported.

…

Linda Lotcho again those are just your conclusions. They aren’t supported by any serious scientific evidence. Your approach represents a fundamental lack of imagination. Because you can’t think of a way a cell has evolved it must be god. This argument has been around for hundreds of years regarding various structures and has been repeatedly been disproven. The eye is a classic example. It was an early objection to Darwin but now we have a very good understanding of the evolution and origin of eyes. It’s not designed. Indeed if it were designed, the designer was incompetent. Furthermore, your argument ignores its own premise. If we require a designer the designer also requires a designer. You end up in an infinite loop. If he doesn’t require a designer then why don’t we?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

From another poster on this guys feed in Facebook:

really..? The coded specified information in DNA alone shows us that this was designed by a mind (the only source of complex specified information) But add onto that the incredible nano technology in every living cell and the incredible nano factory needed to make use of the technology in every single cell and you're beyond just intelligence and into something far superior. God. Our creator.

My reply:

Linda Lotcho simplicity is the hallmark of design, not complexity. Your assumptions about design are just not supported.

…

Linda Lotcho again those are just your conclusions. They aren’t supported by any serious scientific evidence. Your approach represents a fundamental lack of imagination. Because you can’t think of a way a cell has evolved it must be god. This argument has been around for hundreds of years regarding various structures and has been repeatedly been disproven. The eye is a classic example. It was an early objection to Darwin but now we have a very good understanding of the evolution and origin of eyes. It’s not designed. Indeed if it were designed, the designer was incompetent. Furthermore, your argument ignores its own premise. If we require a designer the designer also requires a designer. You end up in an infinite loop. If he doesn’t require a designer then why don’t we?

Nicely done. I think there is a basic failing among people like Linda, that being the inability to distinguish between an evidenced claim and an unevidenced claim. And that's because emotions are dominant in many people and they like to believe what feels good, not what is supported by evidence.

 

[blastula]

Samples retrieved by NASA’s OSIRIS-REx from asteroid Bennu contain 14 of our 20 amino acids and all five nucleobases.

NASA’s Asteroid Bennu Sample Reveals Mix of Life’s Ingredients - NASA

Studies of rock and dust from asteroid Bennu delivered to Earth by NASA’s OSIRIS-REx (Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification and

www.nasa.gov

Studies of rock and dust from asteroid Bennu delivered to Earth by NASA’s OSIRIS-REx (Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification and Security–Regolith Explorer) spacecraft have revealed molecules that, on our planet, are key to life, as well as a history of saltwater that could have served as the “broth” for these compounds to interact and combine.

NASA finds key molecules for life in OSIRIS-REx asteroid samples. Here's what that means

"For me, the question is: Why didn't life form on Bennu?"

www.space.com

 

[Swammerdami]

A common argument in the Intelligent Design vs Darwinian Evolution question can be resolved with simple arithmetic.

A gazillion frushillion gargillion mutations were necessary for advanced life to evolve from the earliest white-smoker micropore. And there were about seven bazillion sextillion^* überfartillion opportunities for mutation. Anyone have a calculator?

* - I've multiplied by an extra sextillion after reading that a dysentery sufferer can expel 100 billion Shingella bacteria -- if he's lucky -- in a single diarrhea dumping.

** - This is not to suggest that any human outside the White House descends directly from dysenteric diarrhea.

 

[aupmanyav]

You can get a whole person from dust. Abiogenesis.

"The phrase "you can get a whole person from dust" can be interpreted metaphorically, as it suggests that life can emerge from basic elements and compounds."
DuckChat

 

[DBT]

And 3.5 billion years of evolution later, behold, man exists.

 

[Swammerdami]

My sister has extensively researched our familiy tree, and despite her best efforts, has no hard evidence that we have any ancestors prior to 1538.

Therefore my family were created ex-nihilo by God in the sixteenth century. It's the only possible explanation.

There is another possibility. Instead of ex nihilo creation your family might have emerged ex libro. For example, do any of your ancestors appear to be the Venetians from 1538 described in this novel?

There are relatively few documented instances of ex libro creation (exceptions are found in Inkheart by Cornelia Funke or in Pet or Bitter by Akwaeke Emezi) but there are many undocumented instances. For example, one of my direct ancestors began existence as a character -- never mind which one -- in Oxford's Comedy of Errors.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

And 3.5 billion years of evolution later, behold, man exists.

Not all that impressed tbh.

 

[bilby]

And 3.5 billion years of evolution later, behold, man exists.

Not all that impressed tbh.

Me either. Their A24 CNG buses are underpowered rubbish.