I agree that evolution describes how life advances, but given that DNA...

That assumes a very specific type of first life which we absolutely don't know. Abiogenesis lacks strong evidence, not improbable.

 

My point is that the time scales would be vastly different. Random mutation of genes within living organisms would be much quicker than a random association of elements, into molecules, into macromolecules that replicate, into living systems

 

Argument from incredulity
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot Personally understand how it could happen.

The fallacy is an Argument from Ignorance and an informal fallacy.

Contents

• 1 Alternate names
• 2 Form
• 3 Explanation
• 4 Examples
  • 4.1 Creationism
  • 4.2 Science
  • 4.3 Personal incredulity
  • 4.4 General incredulity
  • etc

​

• • +

 

Exactly

 

You did not answer my questions.

Your arguments are all various types of the argument from incredulity. Why do you think making fallacious arguments will get you anywhere?

 

Actually, carbon based life accelerates entropy over time. A single high energy photon from the sun is changed into about 10 very low energy photons which are emitted as infrared radiation. Planet Earth is the only planet in our solar system that does this.

 

You researched that all by yourself? Shame that you're wrong. I don't say evolution isn't happening, just that the current understanding doesn't seem reasonable. I also suggested that multiverses could explain the inconsistencies.

So. Maybe it's multiverses or panspermia or who knows what. We're just speculating here.

 

Well, you're certainly speculating here.

 

Wow, two erroneous references to the argument from incredulity! What are the odds that such would occur in this universe in such a short time?

As for your questions, you didn't make an argument, just asked scattershot questions. Rather than guess at your intentions, I made an argument of my own based on your questions.

 

There's an echo in here.

 

I didn't research all by myself, I innately/logically understand your Fallacy, (after a decade of having debates with the weak-minded creationists) and sought an official Format to post it.

And I didn't say you disagreed with evolution, merely pointed out Exactly your fallacious stance: Argument from Incredulity.
One need not deny Evo to make your logical Bumble.
(tho your incredulity casts doubt on your claimed support for/understanding of evolution)
+

 

Didn't mean to cast aspersions on your religion, old chap. Thought we were discussing science here. If your years of debates have left you with the notion that evolution has been fully explained, and that all questions as to when DNA evolved and how it did so have been answered, there's nothing else to say.

 

1. I don't have a religion.

2. You're not capable of discussing science.. I am.

3. I see you're trying another Fallacy/Strawman: that I/someone is claiming everything has been explained.

4. If you don't think there's been enough time For evo (by a factor of 7000/25,000 or more) then you don't Really believe it!
IOW you're a stealth creationist who'd prefer 'aliens'/panspermia.
Of Course, the universe isn't old enough for that either. Not even a tiny fraction of "100 Trillion years."

5. LOFL

 

Associations of elements into molecules happen all the time, its everywhere in the natural world around us. Scientists have seen the building blocks of abiogenesis formed in the lab like amino acids, nucleotides, simple RNA, and replicating proteinoids under conditions they think is a lot like the early earth. Plus we find amino acids on asteroids indicating them making them isn't that hard in other conditions. The flaws with this is that we still don't complete understand the environment of the early earth which makes it hard for an experiment to solidly prove anything.

My guess is that if abiogenesis is true maybe the building blocks of life were concentrated in an area, and a chemical reaction happened that formed super-simple replicating structures with some sort of RNA that had an effect on its features. I just don't know for certain if any of our theories for or against abiogenesis has any weight until we gather more evidence.

 

even if a piece of RNA , a very complex molecule, where able to randomly appear, it's still could do nothing

 

Ah, my mistake. Your certainty that you had all the answers sounded so dogmatic that I was confused.

<snicker>Sure. Let me know when you're about to start.

Well it seemed like you were asserting that I was wrong without providing contrary evidence. And since I've said several times that we're speculating about evolution and the likelihood that DNA evolved in the billion years after Earth cooled, your contention that the logical fallacies apply is pretty silly. It could turn out that panspermia is actually correct, in which case I'd be correct that DNA didn't evolve in a billion years.

Are you typing with your nose? I find the pattern of typos to be inexplicable.

I have a hard time with the current state of knowledge on the subject since nobody has shown how DNA evolved, therefore reasonable alternate theories, such as panspermia, are valid for debate.

League of Foot Lickers? Everybody has a fetish these days.

 

Evolution is blithely unconcerned with the precise method by which living things came to be, whether that is abiogenesis, panspermia, creationist poofing, or some other method as yet unconceived.

 

From your link:

"However, the most important part of the second law of thermodynamics is that it only applies to a closed system "

- that it only applies to a closed system _

Which is a total lie.

Which is a total ignorance.

You have chosen to base your only life on the total lie and the total ignorance.


The 2nd beginning of Thermodynamics reads:

Heat always flows from a hotter body to a colder body in a spontaneous process.

Where do you see closed?

Where do you see system?

What does make you think that the words Heat always flows from a hotter body to a colder body in a spontaneous process can be understood without 5-6 years of harsh training?

 

Troll someone else;I'm all booked up for the rest of the year.

 

So you and evolution are chums? Did he tell you he isn't interested while tossing back a beer?

 

What other reply one can expect from a a hater?

When faced with facts

or questions

the haters

reserve to hatred.

 

I'm not trying to prove that evolution is impossible. But if the point of life is to reproduce, it's hard to beat viruses. And since chaos is the state of being the universe prefers, building more and more complicated life forms seems to be going against the flow.

Ahem. Scientists are also perplexed by the seeming contradiction:

“Scientists have often been baffled by the existence of spontaneous order in the universe. The laws of thermodynamics seem to dictate the opposite, that nature should inexorably degenerate toward a state of greater disorder, greater entropy. Yet all around us we see magnificent structures—galaxies, cells, ecosystems, human beings—that have all somehow managed to assemble themselves.”

 

There is difference.

You are an atheist.

I had been an atheist for whatever was the reason for a half of my life.

I was not an enraged hater.

You don't sound like an enraged hater.

You are replying to the ones, enraged haters.

You asked questions.

That is no, no in the theory of evolution.

 

Those are not scientists but philosophers.

There is a big difference between the 2.

 

Why not tell wikipedia and "SYNC – the Emerging Science of Spontaneous Order" author Steven Strogatz that he's got it wrong? He's under the impression that it was scientists who were "baffled".