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

The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution

 

We already know how long it took. It took about a billion years. Just because you think it should take longer, doesn't make it so. That's why I get my science from actual scientists.

 

Molecules don't form randomly, they form because of chemical bonds in the right environment, an in experiments we have observed them form in early earth conditions, but there is still a lot of debate on that matter from many angles. Obviously abiogenesis would need some sort of chemical reaction on the RNA with other things present, not just the RNA, or maybe it didn't start with RNA, we really don't know how the origin of life started.

 

Nope. You think it took a billion years, but if panspermia is the source of DNA then it may be billions of years older than that. Try to keep an open mind when the facts aren’t known.

 

You’re so smug about a process that we understand so poorly. Evolution is how life advances, but that begs the question: what is life? We don’t have a clue as to what life is or how to create it.

 

Since there is no reason to believe that panspermia is even a thing until we find proof of extra-terrestrial life, then the safe assumption is that life was created and evolved on Earth.

 

I'm not the one conflating the origin of life with evolution.

 

that is absolutely random. Carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, sulfur, water, etc., all randomly bumping into each other with the proper enthalpy and free energy of reaction to cause a bond to form

 

Neither am I. So who do you mean? The mouse in your pocket?

What you are incapable of understanding, apparently, is that without life, there's no evolution. Yet you act like we understand evolution when we have no clue as to what life is.

 

Chemicals are not random, they operate according to chemical and atomic forces of attraction. Under certain conditions they forms amino acids and nucleotides very freely as studies have shown. Also we find them on asteroids indicating that the conditions of their formation are relatively common in the universe.

 

Nonsense. Many times hypotheses are started by the absence of something that scientists expected to find. In this case, it's the complexity of DNA and the lack of enough time for it to evolve that has led to theories about panspermia.

 

What you are incapable of understanding, apparently, is that it is not necessary to know the origin of life in order to understand the mechanisms within evolution.

 

True, abiogenesis isn't necessary to understand to explain evolution just that life began and after that natural selection and the pressures on species to adapt is key to Evolution itself. Now poking at it with its problems will not destroy the validity of the Theory of Evolution on a better provable explanation will which can be challenged by scientists and prove to be its successor theory.

 

Apologies double post my bad.

 

They are random encounters

 

If you get him to PF, no problem.

Otherwise it may be futile.

It has been quite widely understood that animated matter does not follow laws of inanimate matter.

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

is a total lie made up by the baffled scientists?

 

The problem here is that somehow you would have to identify and define random, randomness.

As soon as you do it is not random anymore.

 

Except most scientists don't subscribe to panspermia.

 

Are you seriously arguing that the number of scientists who accept a hypothesis determines how valid it is?

 

Uh... yes, that's exactly how it works.

 

Oh, my! That is chortle worthy. No. Science is not a popularity contest. Practically every discovery made overturns a consensus.

 

You have a mistaken view of science. You see, there is no ultimate authority on science. No tribunal or congress that decides what is valid and what is not. The reason why one theory is celebrated and the other rejected is because of consensus. Let me enlighten you on how it works. A scientist has a hypothesis, makes some observations and/or experiments and finally comes up with a theory. The scientist then publishes the results. Other scientists than go over the results and try to duplicate the observations and/or experiments. If the scientists agree with the results, they will then cite that paper in their work. If not, then they will write rebuttal papers that are reviewed by other scientists. Also, there will be forums, conferences and meetings in which both sides produce evidence to support their papers. Eventually, one side or another will gain more and more supporters and a scientific consensus is reached. Of course this doesn't mean that their are not those that disagree. It just means that most scientists agree or disagree with the theory.

You are right in saying that science is not a popularity contest because, one, scientist don't normally choose a side based on popularity, they choose it because it makes the most sense. Two, it is not a contest as there are no winners or losers because even when a theory is disproved, it provides valuable insight to the workings of the universe.

You are also right in saying that practically every discovery made, overturns a consensus. Again, this is how it works. Kind of like how you can't clean something without making something else dirty or you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs (ignoring egg substitute or course). Sometimes, though the new theory is added without getting rid of the old theories, like how Relativity didn't replace Newtonian physics for simple calculations.

Disclaimer: I am not a scientist and it has been several decades since I've actually been in a science class, so I apologize if the above example is too simplistic or I have left out steps.

 

Again, you've missed the point. You claim that panspermia isn't correct because most scientists don't accept it. And you think that's a valid critique.

Every discovery that overturns a consensus by definition starts out with most scientists not accepting it.

How's that?

 

So, you start the thread with panspermia speculation, elevate panspermia to a scientific hypothesis and now claim panspermia is a scientific theory. Cute trick.

 

When you get to nitpicking it means you have nothing substantive to add.

I speculated about several things. As for panspermia, it's referred to as a hypothesis and theory in the same article. So evidently its status is evolving.