Science Law - Life Comes From Life

[leroy]

[


You mean like I did here back in September? Hopefully, you will not run from it this time.

You mean the article on the “metabolism first hypothesis”?

https://sandwalk.blogspot.mx/2009/05/metabolism-first-and-origin-of-life.html


As far as I can remember I showed you why the model fails, and you seemed to have accepted my critique.

Let me ask you a simple yes or no question.
Do you affirm that the model described in the article is better that “jesus did it”?

 

[leroy]

The lie is that you cornered me and that I changed my answer. Beyond that, you are making the claim, you provide the links to demonstrate you are right. Claims made without evidence can and will be dismissed. Now, you can cite where that happened or apologize for lying.

You are the one who is accusing me for being a liar; therefore you are the one who has to prove it.

 

[leroy]

Oh I am following the conversation, just not your transparent attempts at misdirection.

As you made it obvious in your last post, no you are no following, the conversation.

 

[Sparhafoc]

The lie is that you cornered me and that I changed my answer. Beyond that, you are making the claim, you provide the links to demonstrate you are right. Claims made without evidence can and will be dismissed. Now, you can cite where that happened or apologize for lying.

You are the one who is accusing me for being a liar; therefore you are the one who has to prove it.

Easy: the thing you claimed to be true doesn't actually exist.

You claimed that he_who_is_nobody changed his argument because you cornered him.

But this didn't happen.

Of course, the actual burden is with you when you make the claim, and because you can't show the alleged situation, then there's no reason to lend it credulity. Further, as we are all well versed in LEROYism, and as we know you routinely lie through your teeth, then unfortunately the benefit of the doubt is no longer granted to you.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Oh I am following the conversation, just not your transparent attempts at misdirection.

As you made it obvious in your last post, no you are no following, the conversation.

As your deranged punctuation shows; you're just evading addressing the content I've produced.

Of course, if anyone else in this conversation were to be asked whether or not I am following the conversation, they'd undoubtedly agree that you are being evasive, tossing out distractions, and doing all you can to obfuscate.

That's what makes you such a fucking LEROY.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Look at that, dandan/leroy mindlessly responded three times spending less than five minutes between each post. Again, how pathetic can one person get? In his mindless rush, he forgot all the places that he needs to cite or apologize for lying.

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]

Exactly, I never said that I can prove that Jesus did it,

When did I say prove anything? I have only ever asked you to defend it like you said you would. Again, you can either cite me saying that or apologize for lying.

[...]

And the same is true with most of the links that HWN provides, he usually misrepresents what I actually said, this is why he doesn’t like to quote my actual words.

Again, you can cite me doing this or apologize for lying. Everyone can see that this example does not support your claim.

Now, an honest person would take the high road and admit to their mistakes, but dandan/leroy has already demonstrated that he is less than honest.

[


You mean like I did here back in September? Hopefully, you will not run from it this time.

You mean the article on the “metabolism first hypothesis”?

https://sandwalk.blogspot.mx/2009/05/metabolism-first-and-origin-of-life.html

No, not exactly. I mean the one I linked to (strange how the link was dropped from your reply), in which Rumraket explained how metabolism first was not falsified in full, only in part. If only you would follow the posts I keep linking you to.

As far as I can remember I showed you why the model fails, and you seemed to have accepted my critique.

Here is a perfect example of why one should not solely rely on their memory, but should also check and confirm that what they remember is correct. Thanks for demonstrating another point you have made several times is false.

I put forward the metabolism first hypothesis, than you posted that it was falsified, to which I than put up a host of other hypotheses, and you whined about it. However, at that same time, Rumraket explained how metabolism first was not completely falsified, to which, all you offered was incongruity as a rebuttal.

Let me ask you a simple yes or no question.
Do you affirm that the model described in the article is better that “jesus did it”?

Yes, because there is actual evidence behind the current model. Does this mean you are going to start defending JesusDidIt? I cannot wait. However, my money is on you running, again.

The lie is that you cornered me and that I changed my answer. Beyond that, you are making the claim, you provide the links to demonstrate you are right. Claims made without evidence can and will be dismissed. Now, you can cite where that happened or apologize for lying.

You are the one who is accusing me for being a liar; therefore you are the one who has to prove it.

Dandan/Leroy, did you not claim that you cornered me and that I changed my answer because of that? Yes, that was you making that claim. Now, you can cite where that happened or apologize for lying.

 

[leroy]

leroy wrote:
As far as I can remember I showed you why the model fails, and you seemed to have accepted my critique.

Here is a perfect example of why one should not solely rely on their memory, but should also check and confirm that what they remember is correct. Thanks for demonstrating another point you have made several times is false.

I put forward the metabolism first hypothesis, than you posted that it was falsified, to which I than put up a host of other hypotheses, and you whined about it. However, at that same time, Rumraket explained how metabolism first was not completely falsified, to which, all you offered was incongruity as a rebuttal.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

One wonders why you are still unwilling to quote the actual words, Rum´s answer was irrelevant and does nothing to counter the arguments that falsify metabolism first hypothesis.


The reason why I would argue that Jesus is a better hypothesis is because atleast “Jesus” has not been falsified, I would say that any hypothesis that has not been falsified is by definition better that any falsified hypothesis (feel free to ether agree or disagree)

Yes you did provided a bunch of hypothesis and I keep asking you to select your favorite hypothesis so that I can address it.

Anyway these are all minor details, the good news is that we don’t disagree on mayor points which are that life coming from none life implies low entropy coming from high entropy and that it contradicts statistical thermodynamics. We also agree on that there is no known natural mechanism that would organize amino acids in the order and pattern required to create life.(there is no knwon natural mechanism that woudl solve this entropy problem)

Our only point of disagreement is on whether if these points are mayor challenges for natural abiogenesis or not, up to this point I honestly haven seen any good reason as for why we should dismiss these points as irrelevant and unchallenging.

 

[Rumraket]

One wonders why you are still unwilling to quote the actual words, Rum´s answer was irrelevant and does nothing to counter the arguments that falsify metabolism first hypothesis.

False. It completely refutes the claim that metabolism-first hypotheses have been falsified, by showing that the work only applied to a specific version.

The reason why I would argue that Jesus is a better hypothesis is because atleast “Jesus” has not been falsified, I would say that any hypothesis that has not been falsified is by definition better that any falsified hypothesis (feel free to ether agree or disagree)

" Jesus" is not a hypothesis. It doesn't make any predictions, it has zero explanatory power, it merely accounts for observations in an ad-hoc fashion. No matter what we observed you would simply be able to declare "oh, so it's works like that? Well that's what Jesus wanted so he created it like that with god-magic".

In reality you have no idea what any god wants, even if we suppose there is one.

Yes you did provided a bunch of hypothesis and I keep asking you to select your favorite hypothesis so that I can address it.

You can't address anything as it is obvious you don't have any formal education in anything even remotely related to what is being discussed here. You are just here to "evangelize", and you don't even care if you have to lie or pretend to know something that you obviously don't.

Anyway these are all minor details, the good news is that we don’t disagree on mayor points which are that life coming from none life implies low entropy coming from high entropy

No, it doesn't imply that at all.

and that it contradicts statistical thermodynamics.

No, it doesn't.

we also agree on that there is no known natural mechanism that would organize amino acids in the order and pattern required to create life.

Just because such a process isn't currently known doesn't mean there isn't one.

(there is no knwon natural mechanism that woudl solve this entropy problem)

There is still no entropy problem. As has been explained to you like a hundred times.

Our only point of disagreement

We literally disagree on every single statement you've made. Everything you say is demonstrably wrong.

is on whether if these points are mayor challenges for natural abiogenesis or not, up to this point I honestly haven seen any good reason as for why we should dismiss these points as irrelevant and unchallenging.

At this point we haven't seen any reason why we should accept any of your points as relevant or challenging.

Now all that said, I want to return to the topic of you keeping up this discussion even though you have been shown wrong over and over again. Why do you want to keep arguing about a topic you are not educated to understand, and you clearly demonstrate that you aren't with every sentence you write? Have you no shame? Do you not care that you are making a fool of yourself with every post? Is that what people do in your circle of friends, or in your family, do you just open your mouthes and start babbling for the hell of it even though you honestly don't know anything? Do you pretend to know a lot about being a mechanic, or engineer, or a doctor, or a pilot, too? What is it about this particular subject that makes it so you think it is okay that you pretend to know anything about it?

And a related question, why does your belief in God, and your belief that God created the first life, also demand that the non-divine origin of life be impossible? Could it not technically be possible that God created the first life, or mandkind, and yet it is ALSO possible that life could originate through the basic laws of physics and chemistry? Why does it have to be so if A is possible, B must be impossible? Or if B is possible, A must be impossible? Have you even thought about that before? Does it say anywhere in the bible that a natural origin of life is impossible? Since it clearly doesn't actually say that, then why are you so desperate to conclude it?

 

[borrofburi]

we also agree on that there is no known natural mechanism that would organize amino acids in the order and pattern required to create life.

Just because such a process isn't currently known doesn't mean there isn't one.

Moreover there doesn't even (necessarily) need to be such a process. If you look at a (chemical) solution it's fair to say "there's probably some sort of process that causes these chemicals to bond like this so reliably on such short time scales" or if you look at a crystal it's fair to say "there's probably some sort of process that results in this grid-like pattern we see form everywhere all the time", but if you look at a (chemical) mixture it is not fair to say that there must be some sort of process that results in that mixture arrangement.

All that is necessary for life to kick off is a single replicator that is capable of changing over time. Once. That's all. We're not talking about a modern E. coli reliably popping up fully formed, we're talking the simplest possible replicator that is capable of replicating so long as it is not restricted to its copies being identical to the original. This is very probably a very simple chain of atoms that really is comparatively unlikely to form compared to a crystal (given that crystals are so likely to form it's downright reliable on a timescale that humans can comprehend). But unlike a crystal, the initial replicator doesn't have to reliably form on a short timescale, it only had to form once during a timescale that is downright incomprehensible for humans to understand except by symbolic abstraction (i.e., numbers).

We have no reason to rule out the possibility that creating an initial replicator is more like a mixture than a solution or a crystal, especially since, unlike crystals that we see reliably form all the time everywhere, the replicator only has to happen once.

 

[leroy]

False. It completely refutes the claim that metabolism-first hypotheses have been falsified, by showing that the work only applied to a specific version.

wrong, but also irrelevant, the point is that at least some abiogenesis models have been falsified. The next thing is just an opinion models that have not been falsified are better than those that have been.

feel free to ether agree or disagree with this opinion, it is not an important part of the thread anyway.

Anyway these are all minor details, the good news is that we don’t disagree on mayor points which are that life coming from none life implies low entropy coming from high entropy

No, it doesn't imply that at all.

yes, the organic soup (or whatever you believe the precursor of life was) had higher entropy than life, and I bet that you don't have the balls to unambiguously affirm the oposite.

not to mention that this is a reply to HWN, who agrees with this point.

Just because such a process isn't currently known doesn't mean there isn't one.

sure, but the burden proof is on you.

creationists can also say that radiometric decay occurred at a faster rate in the past due to a mechanism that is currently unknown. but I bet that you would not accept that as an argument against the reliability of radiometric dating

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Look at that. Look at what was ignored, again!

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]

Exactly, I never said that I can prove that Jesus did it,

When did I say prove anything? I have only ever asked you to defend it like you said you would. Again, you can either cite me saying that or apologize for lying.

[...]

And the same is true with most of the links that HWN provides, he usually misrepresents what I actually said, this is why he doesn’t like to quote my actual words.

Again, you can cite me doing this or apologize for lying. Everyone can see that this example does not support your claim.

Now, an honest person would take the high road and admit to their mistakes, but dandan/leroy has already demonstrated that he is less than honest.

Here is a perfect example of why one should not solely rely on their memory, but should also check and confirm that what they remember is correct. Thanks for demonstrating another point you have made several times is false.

I put forward the metabolism first hypothesis, than you posted that it was falsified, to which I than put up a host of other hypotheses, and you whined about it. However, at that same time, Rumraket explained how metabolism first was not completely falsified, to which, all you offered was incongruity as a rebuttal.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

One wonders why you are still unwilling to quote the actual words, Rum´s answer was irrelevant and does nothing to counter the arguments that falsify metabolism first hypothesis.

I went back and put all the links I provided back into your quote. By doing so, I once again expose just how dishonest you are acting and your unwillingness to actually engage with evidence provided for you. Feel free to keep running from it; tis all you can do after all.

The reason why I would argue that Jesus is a better hypothesis is because atleast “Jesus” has not been falsified, I would say that any hypothesis that has not been falsified is by definition better that any falsified hypothesis (feel free to ether agree or disagree)

As anyone can plainly read from Rumraket, Metabolism first has not been falsified as a whole. That means, it has not been falsified and actually has supporting evidence for it, whereas JesusDidIt, much like fairies did it, only has not been falsified. Beyond that, is that really the only way you can defend JesusDidIt? The same way one can defend fairies?

:lol:

Yes you did provided a bunch of hypothesis and I keep asking you to select your favorite hypothesis so that I can address it.

I keep providing it, and you keep running from it.

Anyway these are all minor details, the good news is that we don’t disagree on mayor points which are that life coming from none life implies low entropy coming from high entropy and that it contradicts statistical thermodynamics.

Which you already admitted is not a problem. Did you really think that I am as forgetful as you?

We also agree on that there is no known natural mechanism that would organize amino acids in the order and pattern required to create life.(there is no knwon natural mechanism that woudl solve this entropy problem)

Again, you already admitted that this was not a problem. Beyond that, all you are doing is making an argument from ignorance. We do not know, thus JesusDidIt. Again, I honestly was hoping you could defend Jesus better than that after saying that you would do so.

Our only point of disagreement is on whether if these points are mayor challenges for natural abiogenesis or not, up to this point I honestly haven seen any good reason as for why we should dismiss these points as irrelevant and unchallenging.

:facepalm:

You already admitted that this was not major problems. Again, did you think I was as forgetful as you? Honestly, what is the point in repeating a falsehood, one that you already admitted to?

not to mention that this is a reply to HWN, who agrees with this point.

Yep, and you also agree that it is actually not a problem. Why you keep bringing it up as if it is is beyond me.

 

[leroy]

I went back and put all the links I provided back into your quote. By doing so, I once again expose just how dishonest you are acting and your unwillingness to actually engage with evidence provided for you. Feel free to keep running from it; tis all you can do after all.]

again, not answering to something that's has already been answered doesn't count as running away.

if you think there is a relevant point that I haven't answered, that you would like me to address, please provide the exact quote by copy/pasting the exact words, (I don't what your stupid links)

Yes you did provided a bunch of hypothesis and I keep asking you to select your favorite hypothesis so that I can address it.

I keep providing it, and you keep running from it.

no, I keep asking you to select a single hypothesis (the one you consider the best) and you keep ignoring my request.

Anyway these are all minor details, the good news is that we don’t disagree on mayor points which are that life coming from none life implies low entropy coming from high entropy and that it contradicts statistical thermodynamics.

Which you already admitted is not a problem. Did you really think that I am as forgetful as you?

why don't you quote my actual words? most people wont look at the links at might have the wrong impression that I somehow admitted that such problem doesn't exist or has been solved.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Note the hypocrisy. I am merely asking for citations of the below happening, whereas dandan/leroy wants me to actually quote things that I have already cited. One would think that if he wants things quoted to him, he would start by providing the quotes he has been repeatedly asked for. Practice what you preach dandan/leroy.

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]

Exactly, I never said that I can prove that Jesus did it,

When did I say prove anything? I have only ever asked you to defend it like you said you would. Again, you can either cite me saying that or apologize for lying.

[...]

And the same is true with most of the links that HWN provides, he usually misrepresents what I actually said, this is why he doesn’t like to quote my actual words.

Again, you can cite me doing this or apologize for lying. Everyone can see that this example does not support your claim.

Now, an honest person would take the high road and admit to their mistakes, but dandan/leroy has already demonstrated that he is less than honest.

I went back and put all the links I provided back into your quote. By doing so, I once again expose just how dishonest you are acting and your unwillingness to actually engage with evidence provided for you. Feel free to keep running from it; tis all you can do after all.]

again, not answering to something that's has already been answered doesn't count as running away.

As I pointed out, and provided a link to, your response was nothing but incredulity. Just because you can write something does not mean you have addressed it. Since your post did not refute anything Rumraket provided, his post still stands as my model (a model that has both evidence and is not falsified).

if you think there is a relevant point that I haven't answered, that you would like me to address, please provide the exact quote by copy/pasting the exact words, (I don't what your stupid links)

Hypocrite. Start practicing what you preach. Until than, the link is here for all to read, and everyone can see that all you can do is run from it.

Yes you did provided a bunch of hypothesis and I keep asking you to select your favorite hypothesis so that I can address it.

I keep providing it, and you keep running from it.

no, I keep asking you to select a single hypothesis (the one you consider the best) and you keep ignoring my request.

As anyone that will click the link I provided (and you actually kept this time!) will see, I have provided one. However, keep running. It is all you can do.

Anyway these are all minor details, the good news is that we don’t disagree on mayor points which are that life coming from none life implies low entropy coming from high entropy and that it contradicts statistical thermodynamics.

Which you already admitted is not a problem. Did you really think that I am as forgetful as you?

why don't you quote my actual words? most people wont look at the links at might have the wrong impression that I somehow admitted that such problem doesn't exist or has been solved.

Hypocrite. Start practicing what you preach. You admitted that this was not an insurmountable problem, which genetically undermines the logical fallacy you are trying to use. It is impossible, therefore JesusDidIt has more power as a rhetorical strategy, than It is unlikely, therefore JesusDidIt.

Now, are you trying to claim that you did not admit this? Tis there for all to see with just one click. Look at that, I can provide the evidence for the claims I make. Will you do the same?

 

[leroy]

Note the hypocrisy. I am merely asking for citations of the below happening, whereas dandan/leroy wants me to actually quote things that I have already cited. One would think that if he wants things quoted to him, he would start by providing the quotes he has been repeatedly asked for. Practice what you preach dandan/leroy.

The reason why I am asking you to quote the actual words is because it is often hard to spot the actual point that you are making. Honestly I don’t have any hidden motives.

And the same is true with most of the links that HWN provides, he usually misrepresents what I actually said, this is why he doesn’t like to quote my actual words.

Again, you can cite me doing this or apologize for lying. Everyone can see that this example does not support your claim.

sure, I will cite you.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Which you already admitted is not a problem. Did you really think that I am as forgetful as you?

anyone reading your comment, without verifying and reading my actual words, might have the wrong impression that I somehow admitted that such problem doesn't exist or has been solved.

As I pointed out, and provided a link to, your response was nothing but incredulity.

Even if true, you can’t accuse from running away, at most you can accuse for not answering to your own personal satisfaction.

Yes you did provided a bunch of hypothesis and I keep asking you to select your favorite hypothesis so that I can address it.

I keep providing it, and you keep running from it.

no, I keep asking you to select a single hypothesis (the one you consider the best) and you keep ignoring my request.

As anyone that will click the link I provided (and you actually kept this time!) will see, I have provided one. However, keep running. It is all you can do.

I admit my mistake, I wrongly assumed that you where quoting the same Wikipedia article once again, if you show that you have provided that link before, in a context where you affirmed that the model described in that link is better than “Jesus did it” I would apologize.

Up to this point everything is irrelevant rubbish, feel free to answer but I won’t answer back.

Hypocrite. Start practicing what you preach. You admitted that this was not an insurmountable problem, which genetically undermines the logical fallacy you are trying to use. It is impossible, therefore JesusDidIt has more power as a rhetorical strategy, than It is unlikely, therefore JesusDidIt.

Now, are you trying to claim that you did not admit this? Tis there for all to see with just one click. Look at that, I can provide the evidence for the claims I make. Will you do the same?

There is a big difference between “there is no problem” and the “problem is not insurmountable”

Sure as you accurately described this time, I agree that the problem is not insurmountable, my position is and has always been that the problem is relevant enough to establish reasonable doubt towards naturalistic models. …. You claimed to disagree with this statement, but you haven’t provided any good reason as for why this problem is minor and unchallenging for naturalistic models.

I would also argue that “Jesus” is a better model than the model described in this paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22221860, for the following reasons.

1 Falsified: this article falsifies, metabolism first hypothesis https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100108101433.htm

Their research demonstrated that the dynamics of molecular compound populations which divide after having reached a critical size do not evolve, since during this process the compounds lose properties which are essential for Darwinian evolution.

The article that you quoted doesn’t provide a solution for this problem.

The implication is that any model that has not been falsified is better than yours; including crazy models like “a fairy did it”

2 Parsimony: your model is based on abstract chemistry (imaginary chemistry) the model makes an additional assumption “that this imaginary chemistry might be applicable to the real world, here we have a tie; because my model also presupposes that a designer might exist. We are both making an additional assumption

3 Explanatory Power: your model has weak explanatory power because even if true it would not explain how life came in to be, and it wouldn’t even solve the “entropy problem” your model if true would explain how complex compounds came from simpler units by a process of selection, but it would not explain how these units arrange in the particular order and pattern required to produce life.

Your model would only solve a small part of the "origin of life problem"

My model if true would fully explain the origin of life and would solve the entropy problem, any intelligent designer (even if not divine) can arrange units in any order and pattern that he wills.

4 Explanatory Scope: Your model lacks a significant amount of explanatory scope, if true it would only partially solve the “origin of life problem” while my model fully solves the “origin of life problem” and many other problems. By postulating the existence of a single intelligent designer, a wide variety of things that currently lack an explanation would be explained.


5 Evidence: even by the admission of the authors of your article, there is no evidence that suggests that the model is true; it is simply a speculative model. While in the case of an intelligent designer there are multiple independent lines of evidence that suggests it´s existence. (the apparent fact that the universe had a beginning and a cause is an example of evidence)
......

So why “Jesus” and not some other God or some other designer like an alien? Well after we agree that design is a the best explanation for the origin of life, can start a new discussion and discuss on which “design hypothesis” is better.

But the short answer would be that “Jesus” is a better explanation than any other design hypothesis in terms of parsimony, explanatory power, explanatory scope etc.



So why “Jesus” and not some other God or some other designer like an alien? We after we agree that design is a the best explanation for the origin of life, can start a new discussion and discuss on which “design hypothesis” is better.

But the short answer would be that “Jesus” is a better explanation than any other design hypothesis in terms of parsimony, explanatory power, explanatory scope etc.


You can ether answer or ignore all the rubbish, all I am interested is in you

1 Justifying your claim that the “entropy problem” is not significant enough to posit reasonable doubt

2 Showing that the hypothesis in the paper that you quoted is better (according to some objective standard) than “Jesus”

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Note the hypocrisy. I am merely asking for citations of the below happening, whereas dandan/leroy wants me to actually quote things that I have already cited. One would think that if he wants things quoted to him, he would start by providing the quotes he has been repeatedly asked for. Practice what you preach dandan/leroy.

The reason why I am asking you to quote the actual words is because it is often hard to spot the actual point that you are making. Honestly I don’t have any hidden motives.

You do know how to read, right? That means you should have no problem opening up a link and reading what is presented to you. However, I will point out that it is nice to see you practicing what you preach. It only took me asking you three or four times and shaming you into it. However, kudos for finally acting like an adult.

And the same is true with most of the links that HWN provides, he usually misrepresents what I actually said, this is why he doesn’t like to quote my actual words.

Again, you can cite me doing this or apologize for lying. Everyone can see that this example does not support your claim.

sure, I will cite you.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Which you already admitted is not a problem. Did you really think that I am as forgetful as you?

anyone reading your comment, without verifying and reading my actual words, might have the wrong impression that I somehow admitted that such problem doesn't exist or has been solved.

Look at dandan/leroy making mountains out of molehills again.

leroy[/url]"]I am not saying that it is an insurmountable challenge, but it is a challenge that naturalistic hypothesis have to deal with. honest scientists admit that such a challenge exists, and they are trying to find solutions for them

You admitted that this was not an insurmountable problem, which genetically undermines the logical fallacy you are trying to use. It is impossible, therefore JesusDidIt has more power as a rhetorical strategy, than It is unlikely, therefore JesusDidIt. Care to try again, because this does not support your claim, but only strengthens mine. Furthermore, you agreed I am right about this further down in your reply.

Oh, and looks like I gave dandan/leroy to much credit before. He only answered one question after being asked it three or for times. He still missed:

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]

Exactly, I never said that I can prove that Jesus did it,

When did I say prove anything? I have only ever asked you to defend it like you said you would. Again, you can either cite me saying that or apologize for lying.

Shall I hold my breath to see when this one will be answered? You know, you can always be honest and admit that I never said such a thing.

As I pointed out, and provided a link to, your response was nothing but incredulity.

Even if true, you can’t accuse from running away, at most you can accuse for not answering to your own personal satisfaction.

Dandan/Leroy, answering a question inadequately, than repeatedly ignoring when you are asked to address it again is the very definition of running.

Yes you did provided a bunch of hypothesis and I keep asking you to select your favorite hypothesis so that I can address it.

I keep providing it, and you keep running from it.

no, I keep asking you to select a single hypothesis (the one you consider the best) and you keep ignoring my request.

As anyone that will click the link I provided (and you actually kept this time!) will see, I have provided one. However, keep running. It is all you can do.

I admit my mistake, I wrongly assumed that you where quoting the same Wikipedia article once again, if you show that you have provided that link before, in a context where you affirmed that the model described in that link is better than “Jesus did it” I would apologize.

Here, here, and here. Every time you asked. Is this evidence that you do not look at the evidence I provide? Should I also hold my breath on that apology?

Up to this point everything is irrelevant rubbish, feel free to answer but I won’t answer back.

Otherwise known as running.

:lol:

Hypocrite. Start practicing what you preach. You admitted that this was not an insurmountable problem, which genetically undermines the logical fallacy you are trying to use. It is impossible, therefore JesusDidIt has more power as a rhetorical strategy, than It is unlikely, therefore JesusDidIt.

Now, are you trying to claim that you did not admit this? Tis there for all to see with just one click. Look at that, I can provide the evidence for the claims I make. Will you do the same?

There is a big difference between “there is no problem” and the “problem is not insurmountable”

Context is key. You are using this in your argument from ignorance. As I pointed out, admitting that something is not impossible genetically undermines that fallacy.

Sure as you accurately described this time, I agree that the problem is not insurmountable, my position is and has always been that the problem is relevant enough to establish reasonable doubt towards naturalistic models. …. You claimed to disagree with this statement, but you haven’t provided any good reason as for why this problem is minor and unchallenging for naturalistic models.

Yes I have. What do you think abiogenesis is trying to answer?

I would also argue that “Jesus” is a better model than the model described in this paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22221860, for the following reasons.

1 Falsified: this article falsifies, metabolism first hypothesis https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100108101433.htm

Their research demonstrated that the dynamics of molecular compound populations which divide after having reached a critical size do not evolve, since during this process the compounds lose properties which are essential for Darwinian evolution.

The article that you quoted doesn’t provide a solution for this problem.

The implication is that any model that has not been falsified is better than yours; including crazy models like “a fairy did it”

:facepalm:

You tried this already with Rumraket. The article Rumraket provided is done by the same authors discussing a different pathway. In addition, Rumraket also points out that they have published more since this paper. Again, evidence that you do not pay attention to what people tell you. Thus, metabolism first has not been falsified; one pathway was, but not the whole thing.

2 Parsimony: your model is based on abstract chemistry (imaginary chemistry) the model makes an additional assumption “that this imaginary chemistry might be applicable to the real world, here we have a tie; because my model also presupposes that a designer might exist. We are both making an additional assumption

:lol:

Do you really think abstract chemistry is equivalent to magic? First off, we know chemistry is real, when has anyone shown magic to be real? Based on that alone, parsimony defaults to reality (i.e. chemistry and not magic). Beyond that, as Rumraket pointed out, the paper that falsified one pathway for metabolism first is based on this same abstract chemistry. Strange how you can take one of their papers as gospel, yet raise doubts about the other when they use the same methods. You cannot have it both ways. Either their abstract (not imaginary) chemistry is right or it is not.

3 Explanatory Power: your model has weak explanatory power because even if true it would not explain how life came in to be, and it wouldn’t even solve the “entropy problem” your model if true would explain how complex compounds came from simpler units by a process of selection, but it would not explain how these units arrange in the particular order and pattern required to produce life.

Pretending you are right for a moment. your model also has no explanatory power. JesusDidIt is not an explanation, since that can be true for anything we see.

Your model would only solve a small part of the "origin of life problem"

And your model does nothing. It is fairy dust and wishing upon a star. At least mine is based on reality even if you were correct that it has no explanatory power.

My model if true would fully explain the origin of life and would solve the entropy problem, any intelligent designer (even if not divine) can arrange units in any order and pattern that he wills.

Thank you for giving a brilliant rendition as to why your model is un-falsifiable and thus not a model. Once again, you genetically undermine your own argument. Kudos.

4 Explanatory Scope: Your model lacks a significant amount of explanatory scope, if true it would only partially solve the “origin of life problem” while my model fully solves the “origin of life problem” and many other problems. By postulating the existence of a single intelligent designer, a wide variety of things that currently lack an explanation would be explained.

To bad you have no evidence for your admitted un-falsifiable speculation. Thus, mine is better in this case as well. Again, you have nothing but fairy dust and star wishes. Mine is actually based on chemistry and reality.

5 Evidence: even by the admission of the authors of your article, there is no evidence that suggests that the model is true; it is simply a speculative model. While in the case of an intelligent designer there are multiple independent lines of evidence that suggests it´s existence. (the apparent fact that the universe had a beginning and a cause is an example of evidence)

Again, wrong. Chemistry exist, and to paraphrase Rumraket, either these authors are completely wrong, thus there is no falsification for any metabolism first hypothesis or they are right and there are viable patheways. You cannot have it both ways. Beyond that, arguments are not evidence. we have been over this multiple times.

So why “Jesus” and not some other God or some other designer like an alien? Well after we agree that design is a the best explanation for the origin of life, can start a new discussion and discuss on which “design hypothesis” is better.

Why would anyone agree that design is the best? You have done nothing to suggest that it is even in the running. All you keep propping up logical fallacies against real world evidence.

But the short answer would be that “Jesus” is a better explanation than any other design hypothesis in terms of parsimony, explanatory power, explanatory scope etc.

You keep declaring this so, yet keep failing to back it up.

You can ether answer or ignore all the rubbish, all I am interested is in you

1 Justifying your claim that the “entropy problem” is not significant enough to posit reasonable doubt

I already have. Beyond this being nothing more than a argument from ignorance, you genetically undermine your own fallacy as well. It is unlikely, therefore JesusDidIt carries far less rhetorical weight than It is impossible, therefore JesusDidIt. Stop ignoring my answers and you would stop asking questions that have already been answered.

2 Showing that the hypothesis in the paper that you quoted is better (according to some objective standard) than “Jesus”

Again, Rumraket already did that. Again, stop ignoring answers and you will stop asking questions that have already been answered.

 

[leroy]

Here, here, and here. Every time you asked. Is this evidence that you do not look at the evidence I provide? Should I also hold my breath on that apology?

I looked at the third link

eroy wrote:

sure, pick another and explain why is it better than design.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
I did,, the link was in the part you quoted. Are you not reading my posts? What I picked is better, because there is actual evidence for it.

and it lead to the wiki article that you always quote (after some steps because for some reason you are not just unable to quote the exact words, you are also unable to to provide the direct links.


But don’t worry if you affirm that the other 2 links did lead to the article quoted by RUM, then I apologize in advance. I don’t what to make a big deal out of this.

Yes I have. What do you think abiogenesis is trying to answer?

I was expecting you to justify your answer….how do you go from “some scientists created a simulation where “cores” compete with each other” to “therefore abiogenesis took place naturally, ?” and there is no room for reasonable doubt?

leroy wrote:
I would also argue that “Jesus” is a better model than the model described in this paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22221860, for the following reasons.

1 Falsified: this article falsifies, metabolism first hypothesis https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 101433.htm

Their research demonstrated that the dynamics of molecular compound populations which divide after having reached a critical size do not evolve, since during this process the compounds lose properties which are essential for Darwinian evolution.

The article that you quoted doesn’t provide a solution for this problem.

The implication is that any model that has not been falsified is better than yours; including crazy models like “a fairy did it”

You tried this already with Rumraket. The article Rumraket provided is done by the same authors discussing a different pathway. In addition, Rumraket also points out that they have published more since this paper. Again, evidence that you do not pay attention to what people tell you. Thus, metabolism first has not been falsified; one pathway was, but not the whole thing.

this is the problem presented by the article that I quoted:

Their research demonstrated that the dynamics of molecular compound populations which divide after having reached a critical size do not evolve, since during this process the compounds lose properties which are essential for Darwinian evolution

The solution to this problem is nowhere in the paper nor in Rums answer. Care to provide the actual text where the author solves this problem?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Here, here, and here. Every time you asked. Is this evidence that you do not look at the evidence I provide? Should I also hold my breath on that apology?

I looked at the third link

eroy wrote:

sure, pick another and explain why is it better than design.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
I did,, the link was in the part you quoted. Are you not reading my posts? What I picked is better, because there is actual evidence for it.

and it lead to the wiki article that you always quote (after some steps because for some reason you are not just unable to quote the exact words, you are also unable to to provide the direct links.

I took the liberty of adding the links I originally posted back in the quote.

When one clicks on the third link, it leads to a post in which I not only wrote what dandan/leroy quoted, but before that:

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]Beyond that, it turns out that Metabolism First has not been refuted. Thank you Rumraket for enlightening us. The hilarious thing is that you restated it was falsified right under Rumraket's post.

That link links back to the post from Rumraket that dandan/leroy keeps running from. Thus, we have dandan/leroy having to read past this, and quote something else. How dishonest can one person get?

But don’t worry if you affirm that the other 2 links did lead to the article quoted by RUM, then I apologize in advance. I don’t what to make a big deal out of this.

Says the guy that just went out of his way to misrepresent me in the above. Again, how dishonest can one person get?

However, speaking of dishonesty and running, dandan/leroy, how about trying to spin this to your favor?

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]

Exactly, I never said that I can prove that Jesus did it,

When did I say prove anything? I have only ever asked you to defend it like you said you would. Again, you can either cite me saying that or apologize for lying.

Still waiting for you to even acknowledge this. Care to act honest for once in your life or would you rather keep running? You are so good at running after all.

Yes I have. What do you think abiogenesis is trying to answer?

I was expecting you to justify your answer….how do you go from “some scientists created a simulation where “cores” compete with each other” to “therefore abiogenesis took place naturally, ?” and there is no room for reasonable doubt?

Why should I, or anyone, care what you expect? You have proven yourself dishonest time and time again. However, the field of abiogenesis is a field that is dedicated to answering this question. The fact that scientists are actually studying it and showing that it is possible is enough for a normal person not to have reasonable doubt. Beyond the dishonesty you are displaying in the above post, you have also admitted that you would deny evidence if it suited you. Thus, your own actions rule you out as being a judge of what is reasonable.

You tried this already with Rumraket. The article Rumraket provided is done by the same authors discussing a different pathway. In addition, Rumraket also points out that they have published more since this paper. Again, evidence that you do not pay attention to what people tell you. Thus, metabolism first has not been falsified; one pathway was, but not the whole thing.

this is the problem presented by the article that I quoted:

Their research demonstrated that the dynamics of molecular compound populations which divide after having reached a critical size do not evolve, since during this process the compounds lose properties which are essential for Darwinian evolution

The solution to this problem is nowhere in the paper nor in Rums answer. Care to provide the actual text where the author solves this problem?

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]
:facepalm:

You tried this already with Rumraket. The article Rumraket provided is done by the same authors discussing a different pathway. In addition, Rumraket also points out that they have published more since this paper. Again, evidence that you do not pay attention to what people tell you. Thus, metabolism first has not been falsified; one pathway was, but not the whole thing.

[Emphasis added.]

:docpalm:

If only you would read my post, than you would stop asking questions that were already answered. However, what else should I expect from one that acts so dishonestly.

And to nip this early and because I know you ignored it:

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]Do you really think abstract chemistry is equivalent to magic? First off, we know chemistry is real, when has anyone shown magic to be real? Based on that alone, parsimony defaults to reality (i.e. chemistry and not magic). Beyond that, as Rumraket pointed out, the paper that falsified one pathway for metabolism first is based on this same abstract chemistry. Strange how you can take one of their papers as gospel, yet raise doubts about the other when they use the same methods. You cannot have it both ways. Either their abstract (not imaginary) chemistry is right or it is not.

[Emphasis added.]

 

[Rumraket]

this is the problem presented by the article that I quoted:

Their research demonstrated that the dynamics of molecular compound populations which divide after having reached a critical size do not evolve, since during this process the compounds lose properties which are essential for Darwinian evolution

And as I pointed out to you, you seem to be very selective about what kind of simulation work you believe and how strongly you believe it.

The article you link is to a study that shows that SOME types of pre-biological metabolic networks can't evolve. But it is a computer simulation of SOME types of pre-biological metabolic networks.

But simply because this work implies that SOME types of pre-biological metabolic networks can't evolve*, you believe it with extremely strong conviction and you believe it applies to ALL types of metabolism first scenarios.

Then I point out to you that the same authors of the study you linked, again using computer simulations, show that OTHER types of pre-biological metabolic networks CAN evolve.

Then suddenly you are COMPLETELY incredulous and you reject their results as being nothing but speculative computer simulations.

Thank you for so succinctly demonstrating that you have a strong emotional bias and a double standard.

* In fact the authors themselves never say they have falsified metabolism-first (and the article you linke doesn't say this either), they merely say in their paper that their work constrains the types of scenarios envisioned.

If you look in the actual paper that the popular press-article that you found, refers to, you find it actuall says this already in the fucking abstract:

Lack of evolvability in self-sustaining autocatalytic networks constraints metabolism-first scenarios for the origin of life
Vera Vasas, Eörs Szathmáry, Mauro Santos
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jan 2010, 107 (4) 1470-1475; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0912628107

Abstract
A basic property of life is its capacity to experience Darwinian evolution. The replicator concept is at the core of genetics-first theories of the origin of life, which suggest that self-replicating oligonucleotides or their similar ancestors may have been the first “living” systems and may have led to the evolution of an RNA world. But problems with the nonenzymatic synthesis of biopolymers and the origin of template replication have spurred the alternative metabolism-first scenario, where self-reproducing and evolving proto-metabolic networks are assumed to have predated self-replicating genes. Recent theoretical work shows that “compositional genomes” (i.e., the counts of different molecular species in an assembly) are able to propagate compositional information and can provide a setup on which natural selection acts. Accordingly, if we stick to the notion of replicator as an entity that passes on its structure largely intact in successive replications, those macromolecular aggregates could be dubbed “ensemble replicators” (composomes) and quite different from the more familiar genes and memes. In sharp contrast with template-dependent replication dynamics, we demonstrate here that replication of compositional information is so inaccurate that fitter compositional genomes cannot be maintained by selection and, therefore, the system lacks evolvability (i.e., it cannot substantially depart from the asymptotic steady-state solution already built-in in the dynamical equations). We conclude that this fundamental limitation of ensemble replicators cautions against metabolism-first theories of the origin of life, although ancient metabolic systems could have provided a stable habitat within which polymer replicators later evolved.

So in the simplest way I can express it, what they're saying in this paper is that their computer simulations show that the first metabolic networks could not have evolved into cells, because under the assumptions of the simulation, a metabolic network alone can't reliably pass on information. BUT, a metabolic network could still have been the first stage in the origin of life, though it would have been a metabolic network that synthesizes genetic polymers (which might be RNA), and these genetic polymers would then be capable of evolving into cells. So even in this work, they are still saying metabolism would have preceded genetics and cells, the metabolism just could not have been evolving in the way later genetic polymers could.

In their later work that I linked you several times before, they show that a type of metabolism, if it is partitioned into what they call "cores" (which we could envision to be small lipid vesicles, for example), still has some degree of evolvability as there can be a more reliable method of passing on information from one "core" to the next, whether through horizontal transfer of contents, division or fusion of cores and so on.

In conclusion, everything you thought you knew was wrong, and you have a deep bias that influences how much weight to give to certain pieces of news you read on the internet. If you can somehow fit it into your already existing worldview in a way you think supports it, you believe it very very strongly and you believe it applies universally(even thought it is just some theoretical computer simulation work). But if computer simulation work somehow contradicts your already existing worldview, you very very strongly mistrust and disbelieve it.

Hypocrite.

 

[leroy]

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Here, here, and here. Every time you asked. Is this evidence that you do not look at the evidence I provide? Should I also hold my breath on that apology?





I looked at the third link

eroy wrote:

sure, pick another and explain why is it better than design.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:
I did,, the link was in the part you quoted. Are you not reading my posts? What I picked is better, because there is actual evidence for it.


and it lead to the wiki article that you always quote (after some steps because for some reason you are not just unable to quote the exact words, you are also unable to to provide the direct links.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
leroy wrote:
Exactly, I never said that I can prove that Jesus did it,


When did I say prove anything? I have only ever asked you to defend it like you said you would. Again, you can either cite me saying that or apologize for lying.

Beyond the dishonesty you are displaying in the above post, you have also admitted that you would deny evidence if it suited you. Thus, your own actions rule you out as being a judge of what is reasonable.

Really? do you really what to have this type of childish conversation?

I am in a very hard position because if y refuse to answer to all that irrelevant rubbish you will accuse for running away, but if I answer and expose your lies (one again) I will open the door for an other 30 pages of an irrelevant discussion on irrelevant rubbish. Honestly what should I do?

So I will tell you what of all the irrelevant points that you claim I am ignoring, lying, or misrepresenting, select 1 (just 1) select your best example of be being dishonest and I will address that for 1 last time.

with irrelevant rubbish I mean> anything that is not related with you showing that natural abiogenesis is true beyond reasonable doubt or with you showing that your model(https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-7-1) is better than mine.

I of course affirm the oposite and am willing to share the burden proof.

/////////////////

he_who_is_nobody wrote
The fact that scientists are actually studying it and showing that it is possible is enough for a normal person not to have reasonable doubt.

again justify your answer, you are just asserting that natural abiogenesis is true beyond reasonable doubt, but you haven't justified your claim. all you are saying is> is true, because it has been shown to be true.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:


You tried this already with Rumraket. The article Rumraket provided is done by the same authors discussing a different pathway. In addition, Rumraket also points out that they have published more since this paper. Again, evidence that you do not pay attention to what people tell you. Thus, metabolism first has not been falsified; one pathway was, but not the whole thing.

once again you are just affirming that the point has been answered, please quote the exact portion of "your paper" that solves the problem presented in the other paper, so far your answer is> Rumraket says so therefore it most be true.


as I said before the article doesn't even try to solve the problem presented in "my article" your article explicitly explains that it is trying to solve 3 specific problems

Here we restricted ourselves to three issues: (i) the probability of the nucleation of reflexively autocatalytic networks, as questioned e.g. by Lifson [26], (ii) the side reaction problem, as raised by Orgel [41] and Szathmáry [28], and (iii) the question of Darwinian evolvability of autocatalytic polymer sets

,https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-7-1

none of these problems represents the problem presented in my article.

well it is obvious that you wont provide any new contribution, so lets go to the second point.

leroy wrote:
2 Parsimony: your model is based on abstract chemistry (imaginary chemistry) the model makes an additional assumption “that this imaginary chemistry might be applicable to the real world, here we have a tie; because my model also presupposes that a designer might exist. We are both making an additional assumption

he_who_is_nobody wrote:


Do you really think abstract chemistry is equivalent to magic? First off, we know chemistry is real, when has anyone shown magic to be real? Based on that alone, parsimony defaults to reality (i.e. chemistry and not magic). Beyond that, as Rumraket pointed out, the paper that falsified one pathway for metabolism first is based on this same abstract chemistry. Strange how you can take one of their papers as gospel, yet raise doubts about the other when they use the same methods. You cannot have it both ways. Either their abstract (not imaginary) chemistry is right or it is not.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Do you really think abstract chemistry is equivalent to magic? First off, we know chemistry is real, when has anyone shown magic to be real? Based on that alone, parsimony defaults to reality (i.e. chemistry and not magic). Beyond that, as Rumraket pointed out, the paper that falsified one pathway for metabolism first is based on this same abstract chemistry. Strange how you can take one of their papers as gospel, yet raise doubts about the other when they use the same methods. You cannot have it both ways. Either their abstract (not imaginary) chemistry is right or it is not.

1 I am not making a big deal out of the fact that the model is based on abstract chemistry, I am just pointing out to the fact the use os abstract chemistry rather than real chemistry makes your model intisicly less parsimonious than a model that uses real chemistry.

2 we are talking hypotheticsl chemistry vs a hypothetical designer, we know that chemistry exists and we know that intelligent designers exist, but we don't know if the particular chemistry that you need is real, in the same way we don't know if the particular intelligent designer that I need is real, this is why I am calling it a tie.

3 The validity of the use of abstract chemistry depends on the context and how you use it. there is a big difference between

A) A model is true beyond reasonable doubt because it has been shown to be true with abstract chemistry. (you)

and

B) A model is wrong because even with abstract chemistry the model fails to succeed (me)

do you see the difference?

 

[leroy]

And as I pointed out to you, you seem to be very selective about what kind of simulation work you believe and how strongly you believe it

The validity of the use of abstract chemistry depends on the context and how you use it. there is a big difference between

A) A model is true beyond reasonable doubt because it has been shown to be true with abstract chemistry. (you)

and

B) A model is wrong because even with abstract chemistry the model fails to succeed (me)

do you see the difference?


plus the fact that I am in no way asserting that the wrong or fallacious just because it is based on abstract chemistry, I am simply pointing out the fact that the model is intrinsically less parsimonious than a model that would use real chemistry. (I even admitted that ID has the same problem)

The article you link is to a study that shows that SOME types of pre-biological metabolic networks can't evolve. But it is a computer simulation of SOME types of pre-biological metabolic networks.

the article that I linked, provides a constrain towards MF models, what you have to do is show that your article provides a way to avoid that constrain.

the point that I am making is that your article doesn't even try to solve that problem.