Why do people deny evolution?

"I see no reason to consider you an authority on any subject."

I am not saying I am and that is a good thing. So I won't hide behind any PhD or other crap. I need solid arguments which I gave.

Sorry, ARN is the French acronym.

An hypothesis, even fragile like the RNA World idea, is better than none.

Panspermia offers far more "loteries" and a longer time scale. How many planets or other potentially life-harboring objects are flying around in this galaxy alone?

Nevertheless, the two questions are totally different.

human DNA only contains 20 , of which 4 are not produced by the body and must be ingested.
As far as the first spark of life on this planet, I think everyone here has said that creation and evolution are two different things.
Im not as generous to you bcause the only reason many of us refute the supernatural "creation story" is that , there is NO WAY we can disprove that story. All science can do is ngage in various experiments in the assmbly of the living state. Even when we assemble a living organic shemical mass we will have NO ide in hell that its the correct one.
It gives you IDers a place to rise above us mere scientists, because you seem to KNOW that you are right, (yet you too have no way of proving your religiou belief).
Science may nver reproduce life , but so what. evolution is a theory and a fact, and it too MUST be approached from a naturalistic base bcause otherwise, ed have no where else to go. Once something suprnatural or "Intelligent" interferes, its all over as far as the research . I say that bcauae there rally IS NO reserch being carried out by ID or Creation "cientists", because everything they do is debate with incredulity or try to refute what science is finding 9without te IDers ever coming up with anything that approaches a theory). They tried once with irreducible complexity, but this was shown to be chemically incomplete and the examples used were able to be traced further back to life using gaseous and salt diffusion states instead of enzymes kinetics (clotting is immaterial in a marine micro-organismal state, )

what you don't seem to get is the concept of statistics and independent random events.

To calculate those probabilities you have to multiply the single probabilities.

A probablity here is always between 0 and 1, So , multiplying means it gets much lesser then one, and the longer the time is, the more you have to multiply, and the more you have to multiply, how smaller the changes get. In other words, how longer the timeline , the closer to '0' it all gets.
They spout there nonsense that if there is enough time 'life' can develop. It's just mathematically exactly the reverse!
Gee, biologist really don't understand math or statistics for that matter.

I don't think you understand math or biology either, to be honest.

I studied statistics in college. Your explanation doesn't sound familiar. I somewhat remember the bell curve concerning normal distribution.

Proteins are molecular machines that have functionality. I know of only one simple one in a study by Yale but typically none have less than 300. I would be interested if there are functional simpler ones so I’ll poke around a bit.

Still, you would expect a life form based on such simple proteins would be easy to build in the lab. You would be guaranteed a Nobel, even though it did take some intelligent input.

So far, only one.

Small proteins are technically called peptides. There's a whole bunch of them.

It's possible to create a simple (known) lifeform in a lab. It would cost a lot of money but it can be done. Eg a virus or a very simple bacteria. But that's not the point. That's the END RESULT of a theoretical process of abiogenesis. I suppose you want the evolving RNA-protein soup itself in a lab... That may take some time though. It'd be a huge scientific achievement, I'd say.

Potentially, billions.

OK, Fair enough, potential.

Although they are narrowing down the potential candidates more all the time. One of the new candidates is the requirement for a moon like ours, in mass, orbital distance, etc. It’s no longer just enough to be in the 'Goldilocks Zone', have liquid water, etc. The requirements for life are getting tighter all the time. Personally, I can’t believe it happened by accident even on this most improbably perfect planet.

Wanna place any bets on whether they find life signs in that subterranean lake they found on Mars?

Hes all screwed up and thinks hes o to something. Besides, with what we know now it also is a ure thing that several sites on molecules occur by the movement or swictching off or on of multiple genes (as well as movement of the genetic "bubble wrap".
Hoow? it appears as a simple organic chem response as a tropism to chemical environments.
It is beginning to appear that the origin of life had something to do with assmbly of amphoteric ions (like iron and phosphorus) and response to cations that assemble into fatty acids and other forms.(These are things that occur without effort in nature in a puddle).

I don't believe in life on Mars... Apologies to Ray Bradbury and David Bowie.

"goldilock zones" is an old chestnut. I believe we are seeing possibilitis for life with just liquid and Eh/pH conitions that are reducing. Chemicals really dont matter . Ive seen some pictures from a prebublishing symposium that make the "helical" crystalline forms of molecules(THAT look like they grew and split into what appears to be dendritic -like structures), and these are associated with a probable biotic "Iron schmutz". Was this format of the development of a cells nucleus and ultimately the mitochondria defined by the only way that these chemicals could combine? We have many minerals that are bound by defined axes (like Boulangerite or some of these newer (recently discovered) minerals that are isolated and unique to deep coal mine fire crystals, or even stuff like Rutile ) .

Well, when you throw in the ‘Iron schmutz' factor, I guess anything can happen.

You not only didn't give any solid argument, you gave no argument at all. You must made a statement from authority, and did not even offer a plausible basis for that statement.

I know that evolution happens, I seen it for myself! I had a couple of bread rolls from the Serbian bakery that I had forgotten about. I took them out and put them in the green bin, for recycling, because they had evolved into a different and dangerous species.

That's one way of getting into denial mode.

it probably(!) was a very small and short college.