@Herald,
Herald wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:but here's something that is possible - random chemical reactions in the oceans over a billion years finally resulted in a molecule that copied itself.
Where have you proved that 1) random chemical reactions can create bio-code at all 2) such reactions can change subsequently the bio-code from PNA (green algae) to DNA (higher organisms) (in order to preserve the green algae just in case?! - how does that happen without any intelligence) 3) why such random chemical reactions are not observed anywhere else in the Solar System, the Galaxy, and the Universe.
BTW, the second law of thermodynamics is claiming just the opposite:
the total amount of disorder always increases with the time, so if your
random chemical reactions have been chaos in the ocean from the very beginning how have they succeeded to end up with a beautifully synthesized and with the ability to replicate bio-code - this is in absolute contradiction with the Second Law of Thermodynamics - can you prove that this is possible: to arrange a bio-code from ground zero to a beautifully structured entity with ability to process actively chemical elements from the environment in its benefit, and also to replicate ... against the laws of physics?
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of the whole system will increase, not that no part of the system can experience an increase in order. The mechanism is simple to understand. When creatures reproduce, some tiny fraction of the genetic errors will result in an improvement, and beneficial traits will tend to propagate through the gene pool. The process would have been initiated by a simple molecule that copied itself, and over time it would have picked up more and more improvement by the mechanism of error and natural selection, eventually resulting in the diverse life forms we see on the Earth today.
Herald wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Under the influence of mutation and natural selection, this eventually produced green algae, as well as other things.
Can you write down with math formulas into a formal model all the processes engaged with the casual statement 'under the influence of mutation and natural selection, this eventually produced'?
Some people can and do. Not being in the field, I cannot. However, this is still a debatable assertion and your question serves mainly as a battering ram so that you can avoid debating specific assertions. The specific assertion is that reproducing lines of creatures slowly drift towards greater functionality because of the tendency of favorable genetic accidents to spread through the population and unfavorable traits to be weeded out over time. This is a perfectly understandable assertion. If you have no capacity to suggest a reason why this is unlikely, then you lose the argument. You cannot prevail by insisting that every assertion whatever be accompanied by a thorough study right here on the message board.
Herald wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:And that's what evolutionary biologists do.
Don't make a fool of yourself ... that you have not understood the statement: 'Evolution can't explain' means 'the scientists (not only evolutionary biologists) dealing with evolution' cannot start explaining anything without constructing the formal model in the first place ... with the properly validated assumptions.
They do, but the fundamental concepts of evolution can also be debated, in this case, that some genetic accidents result in improvements and that in favorable traits tend to spread whereas unfavorable traits tend to die out in populations over time. That is the crux of the theory of evolution and you need to offer a reason why it is implausible or else shut up. Mainly, so far, you have simply fled a debate on the subject. Scientific theories should have a formal basis, but broad statements of principle can be debated as to indications that they make sense or don't. I can also hang aroung you screeching "show me a study" any time you say anything.
Herald wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:You didn't answer the question which was whether you have another theory that meets that standard.
There have been a large number of other theories 'meeting the standard' (whatever this might mean for a theory without assumptions), and some of them not entirely bad - only my theory is missing.
I don't have any intentions to make any new theories (especially in a field that is none of my business) - all I want is to find the truth, and the truth starts with the formulation, assigning the probability values, belief revision, verification & validation of the assumptions of the formal model (scientific theory in this case). If this does not concern me as a human and as a part of the 7.3 BN population on a planet with constraint resources and nothing like it within a radius of several light years - I would not even read such theories.
So, it is your claim that you have no belief whatever about the origin of life on Earth? And, am I correct in suggesting that based on your assertions here, you would find the Bible to be a complete crock since nothing in it is ever justified logically with evidence on a formal basis?
