>>16529
Someone asked you how you know about the conditions for light speed 900 trillion miles away and you got proven wrong. You just want to change the subject.

>>16515
>I wonder why autists think that the "laws" of physics apply everywhere in the universe when there is no way to verify it. Only assumptions.

That's actually how it is. Physicists assume all conditions around this part of the universe applies to everywhere else. There is no proof it is true.

>>16515
>>16537
scientists postulate based on previous findings, and continuously test their theories.
if their theory is disproven, they find a new theory.
if it's found later that light acts differently billions of light years away, science will change.
as it stands now, most experiments confirm the speed of light in a vacuum is accurate, enough to control satellites orbiting in very meticulous orbits.
that is proof that it's true.
you're still acting like science is dogmatic, like you're just fully retarded and have a 10 year old's understanding.

>>16536
Conflating round trip speed with one-way is a sign of scientism and isn't really wise.

>>16540
you're not giving an argument for your claim.

>>16536
there's no reason currently to suspect otherwise.
when there is a reason to suspect otherwise, science will change.
again, not dogmatic.

>>16540
He's the kind of autist that think science as a term encompass a self-evident mechanism that's rational and independent of external factors. It's trial and error and nothing more. Engineering, physics and other disciplines are made by humans, not science. It's like when you talk about natural selection. The term is meaningless. It's just when animals die. It doesn't produce anything or is some universal law found anywhere. It's laughable sophistry.

>>16482
It's quite common for autistic people to enter psychosis because they see no correspondence between their experience and the world around them.

File 174763865726.jpg - (11.16KB , 236x230 , 174036616953.jpg )

>>16543
you're doing that retarded thing where you pretend basic concepts stop existing if you define them vaguely enough.
science is a process, or a toolkit, not a faith.
it's the most effective process to find out what's "real" among tangible and intangible based on evidence and circumstances.

engineering, physics, bio, yes, they're all made by humans.
that's the point.
WE built them using the scientific method because it works better than guessing, superstition, or whatever retarded take you're pushing.

calling natural selection "just when animals die" is like calling evolution "just random stuff happening."
it's reductionist screeching.
natural selection explains why some traits stick around and others don't.
it's exactly what you'd expect if biology was governed by any kind of feedback loop.

you don't have to like the terms, but calling them meaningless while you live in a world built entirely on their outcomes?
nigger, you're literally arguing on something built on it.
that's the definition of sophistry.

>>16547
>because they see no correspondence between their experience and the world around them
whatever the fuck that’s supposed to mean.
this nigger read one article and filled in the rest with anime villain monologues and tumblr poetry.

there is an overlap, but it's not some mystical, magical, evil power causing it.
it's them feeling shunned by the dickheads of society like yourself, which causes anxiety, burnout, and even disassociation.
meanwhile, proud brain worm haver RFK is making announcements that they'll never write a poem, never pay taxes (woe is them), etc and it's just compounding it.
the best thing that can happen to autism is RFK getting a disease from his shit creek swim and becoming completely incapacitated.

>>16543
This. It is circular logic.

>>16547
They don't trust their own judgment and lose their grip.

File 174765362816.jpg - (102.52KB , 1200x599 , oh my science.jpg )

>>16548
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01620-3
>The long-term evolution experiment (LTEE) has become a cornerstone in evolutionary biology that researchers continue to mine for insights. During their 75,000 generations of growth, the bacteria have made huge gains in their fitness — how fast they grow relative to other bacteria — and evolved some surprising traits.

https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/JB.00831-15
>The LTEE isolation of Cit+ mutants has become a textbook example of the power of long-term evolution to generate new species. But, based on our results, E. coli arrives at the same solution to access citrate in days versus years, as originally shown by Hall. In either case, genes involved in the process maintain their same function but show expanded expression by deregulation. Because of this, we argue that this is not speciation any more than is the case with any other regulatory mutant of E. coli.
>No new genetic information (novel gene function) evolved.

Natural selection is a catch phrase at this point. It gets regurgitated ad nauseam by terminally online Aspergers victims.

>>16551
cool, so you found a paper where scientists disagreed on the classification of a mutation, and decided based solely on this isolated incident of scientists having trouble deciding on one single classification that it means the whole concept of natural selection is a meme.
i'm quite sure the scientists who wrote that paper would wholeheartedly agree with your assessment.

did i call you a retard yet? just wanna be sure.

you're quoting a paper that literally shows bacteria evolving new traits under pressure, and then crying "but it's not speciation" like that means evolution didn't happen.

what is this weird fucking cope, dude?
does your faith seriously hinge on evolution being true or not?
is your faith that shaky that you have to start lying and twisting scientific papers to suit your need?

you're not even doing it well. you just look retarded in general.

also wild that you're screaming about "no new information" when gene regulation changes are LITERALLY information.
what, does it only count for you if it takes flight, glows in the dark and plays mp3s?

natural selection gets "regurgitated" a lot because it gets PROVEN a lot. if it wasn't, you would hear about it the same way you hear about witchcraft -- during halloween and by edgy teens without a real personality.

stop quoting scientific papers you obviously don't understand, you dumb fuck.

>>16551
Don't bother. He's too autistic to understand that if there is no material (new genes) created then that debunks the claim about evolution through mutations.

>>16552
I think you need to calm down and stop sperging. It says there, quite literally: no new information. You have no proof for your fedora slogans.

>>16553
oh wait, i get it now. i get why you're too retarded to understand lmao.
holy elementary school drop-out.

alright, listen closely, i'll try to dumb this down for you as much as i can.

the paper states in a very scientific way that, at one time, they were considering a very specific strain of e. coli as a different species of bacteria altogether, that it evolved enough to be different.

not:
>we show why it wasn't evolved
>we show no new traits appeared

but simply:
>we don't think it changed enough to call it a new species on paper

the paper, again, very clearly states that they found the mutations (aka the evolution) of the bacteria didn't change it quite enough to consider it an entirely new species.

this very specific piece of bacteria is, therefore, the same species as the one that was considered one step back IN EVOLUTION from itself at the time, but there are still different EVOLUTIONARY species before it that it EVOLVED from, and other species of bacteria that EVOLVED from it as well.

quoting the paper:
>"Potentiation/actualization MUTATIONS (NOT X-MEN SHIT, ACTUAL EVOLUTION) occurred within as few as 12 generations, and refinement MUTATIONS (AGAIN, EVOLUTION) occurred within 100 generations."

TEXTBOOK ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION.
>genes changed expression
>bacteria gained a functional trait it didn't have before
>bacteria survived in an environment that would've previously killed it
>bacteria passed that trait down.

that's evolution, you smooth brain monkey.

SPECIATION is simply a naming line that humans draw on a map.

understand?

>hurrr but paper said no new information and--
and you and your circlejerk buddy fucking misunderstood it, you fucking retard. good job.

>>16554
Nice mental gymnastics, sperglord.

https://bio.libretexts.org/Courses/Lumen_Learning/Biology_for_Non_Majors_I_(Lumen)/09%3A_DNA_Structure_and_Replication/9.04%3A_Genetic_Information
>9.4: Genetic Information
>The genetic information of an organism is stored in DNA molecules.

If you want to redefine what genetic information means then maybe you should talk to the whole scientific community and propose they change it, lmao.

>no new genetic information
>no new hereditary DNA
>no addition to an already existing code
>no 1 + 1 = 2

>>16555
>posts a beginner-level biology page
>thinks he unlocked the deepest lore
>"genetic information is stored in DNA!"
yes. no shit.
nobody said it wasn't.

now, go back and read the paper (if you can) that you tried to use earlier:

quote:
>amplified citT and dctA loci followed by DNA rearrangements consistent with promoter capture events for citT
>Potentiation/actualization mutations occurred within as few as 12 generations
>Citrate utilization was confirmed... and quantified by mass spectrometry
>Cit+ mutants gained a phenotype not present in wild-type E. coli

>gene expression changed
>new functional trait appeared
>adaptation

changing how genes are used is literally the mechanism of evolution.

your OWN FUCKING SOURCE even says:
>The information stored in the DNA molecule must be translated, or expressed
and you just ignored that part.
you saw "DNA = info" and stopped reading like a goldfish hitting the glass of its fishbowl.

this is a either PBS Kids-tier misunderstanding stapled coupled with extreme smug arrogance and retardation, or just trolling and shitposting in general.
either way, you're citing papers and articles and shit from people who fully believe evolution is real and base their studies on it.

>>16556
If no new genetic information is created then you have, by default, reached a dead end in your evolutionary trajectory. Your autistic interpretation of what constitutes evolution has zero weight behind it. You can't go from unicellular to multicellular if you can't generate new genetic information.

https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/scientists-discover-organism-that-hasnt-evolved-in-more-than-2-billion-years
>Scientists discover organism that hasn’t evolved in more than 2 billion years

Just stop posting.

File 174767694693.png - (62.77KB , 1179x492 , brave_98cVbvKAHY.png )

>>16557
the article you posted that you obviously didn't read says the following:

>Research actually provides further support for Darwin, UCLA professor says

the environment that the organism lives in hasn't changed in 2 billion years.
all they require is sulfate and nitrate to live.
there is no reason for it to evolve to its environment, because its environment
hasn't
fucking
changed.

why would the bacteria need to evolve, dumbass?
to what end?

>>16557

>“The rule of biology is not to evolve unless the physical or biological environment changes, which is consistent with Darwin,” said Schopf, who also is director of UCLA’s Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life. The environment in which these microorganisms live has remained essentially unchanged for 3 billion years, he said.

>“These microorganisms are well-adapted to their simple, very stable physical and biological environment,” he said. “If they were in an environment that did not change but they nevertheless evolved, that would have shown that our understanding of Darwinian evolution was seriously flawed.”

And this article disproves evolution?

>>16558
You do realize that mutations occur regardless if the environment changes or not, right? There are different mutations like somatic and germ-line. Somatic mutation arises once in every million cell divisions, and so hundreds of millions of somatic mutations must arise in each person. Many somatic mutations have no obvious effect on the phenotype of the organism, because the function of the mutant cell, even the cell itself, is replaced by that of normal cells. However, cells with a somatic mutation that stimulates cell division can increase in number and spread. This type of mutation can give rise to cells with a selective advantage and is the basis for all cancers. But germ-line mutation can be passed to future generations, producing individual organisms that carry the mutation in all their somatic and germ-line cells. When we speak of mutations in multi-cellular organisms we’re usually talking about germ-line mutations. In single-cell organisms there is no distinction between germ-line and somatic mutations, because cell division results in new individuals.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459274/
>Spontaneous mutations occur at a rate of 1 in 10^5 to 10^8

Typical mutation rates for bacterial genes range from about 1 to 100 mutations per 10 000 000 000 cells.

File 174768811352.jpg - (54.40KB , 686x386 , hq720.jpg )

>>16561
>posts article saying organism hasn't evolved in 2 billion years
>article literally says it's because the environment hasn't changed
>"erm ackshually mutations still happen"

no shit, retard.
mutations happen all the time.
without selection pressure, they don't stick and general revert (or attempt to revert) back.
no pressure = no adaptation = no evolution.

and now you're just spamming AI-generated biology trivia because you can't admit you misunderstood your own source.

try reading next time instead of prompting ChatGPT for backup, faggot.

>>16564
So if a unicellular organism is unable to generate new genetic information this proves evolution is real? I guess ignorance is bliss.

>>16565
>So if a unicellular organism is unable to generate new genetic information this proves evolution is real? I guess ignorance is bliss.
>checkmate atheist

no, dumbass, the point is it had no reason to evolve so it didn't.
the theory of evolution is about adaptation to an environment.
if adaptation isn't achieved yet (and the species doesn't die out), mutations happen.
gene duplications, insertions, deletions, all the shit in the evolutionary toolbox happen until adaptation is achieved
when it's achieved, if the environment doesn't change, further adaptation (evolution) is no longer necessary.

IF THE ENVIRONMENT DOES NOT CHANGE, EVOLUTION DOES NOT *NEED* TO HAPPEN, THEREFORE IT DOES NOT HAPPEN.
not because it can't
not because evolution isn't real
but because it's already exactly what it needs to be to optimally survive in its environment.

you're mistaking stability for some kind of failure.

you've been repeating this "no new info" line it's going to suddenly sprout a new meaning, and i'm going to be like "ohhh damn, you know what? you're right" because you're too retarded to understand the very child-like way i'm explaining this to you.

>>16567

Anon appears to misunderstand evolution, seeing it as a process working toward an ultimate goal or perfection. In reality, evolution has no end goal... it's simply the result of organisms adapting to their environments through natural selection.

>>16567
Mutations occur even if the environment doesn't change which you cannot refute (and they still do not conjure new genetic information). Also, "adaptation" depends on survival. How do you objectively measure it? How is fitness quantified? There are no objective scenarios in nature that can be shown to work as catalysts. You have no arguments.

>>16569
Natural selection is synonymous with survival of the fittest. It just means that the fittest individuals (defined as the ones that leave the most offspring) will leave most offspring.
It's a tautology that is spouted by lowbrow mouthbreathers as if it contains profound philosophical insight into a mechanism innate in nature.

>>16568
you're literally saying what i already mentioned, you dumb fuck.
congratulations on finally catching up, now just tweak this retarded sentence a bit:
>In reality, evolution has no end goal... it's simply the result of organisms adapting to their environments through natural selection.

hmmm let me think...
if evolution is the result of organisms adapting to their environments...
and "adapting" is an action with a goal...
and you can't have the concept of "adapted" without recognizing a change toward a result...

gosh, i guess we'll never know.

you're such a fucking retard, it's getting harder and harder to dumb this shit down enough to where you might be able to understand it.

look at the article that mentioned one species that didn't change for billions of years.
why didn't it change, anon?
maybe because it was adapted?
maybe because it reached the end goal?

if your argument is "you can't have an end goal while still potentially having other goals ahead", say it.

i feel like i'm in a boss fight in a special ed video game, and you're King Retard whose special move is "semantics that he doesn't understand."

>>16569
>mutations occur even if the environment doesn't change
correct.
mutations can be random. they happen all the time. the system isn't perfect.
what i said was that without selection pressure, they don't lead to adaptation.
mutations *alone* aren't evolution, but they are a part of evolution, and selection is what sorts them.

>they still do not conjure new genetic information
and there it is, the centerpiece of retardation.
i guess insertions, duplications, inversions, promoter shifts, and regulatory rewiring doesn't exist.
>but no new gene appeared
does a new book occur every time a writer makes a new chapter?
new arrangement begets new expression, begets a new outcome.
that's literally "new info", you moron.

>adaptation depends on survival
mostly right, but survival isn't the only factor. reproductive success is the actual metric.
a trait that makes you live longer but not reproduce is worthless.
meanwhile, some adaptations reduce lifespan but boost mating.
see: peacocks, and pretty much every male insect ever.

>how do you objectively measure it?
we do.
we literally do.
fitness = number of viable offspring
lab experiments, field studies, allele frequency tracking.

>how is fitness quantified?
see above.
want a number?
count the babies.
the end.
you're asking "what is weight?" in a gym while people are deadlifting in front of you, and you don't even lift.

>there are no objective scenarios in nature that work as catalysts
cool opinion.
here's reality:
- antibiotic resistance
- climate shifts
- new predators
- resource scarcity

there's documented cases across thousands of studies.
you thinking that nature's too subjective doesn’t erase them

you're asking questions that’ve been answered for decades and pretending they're still some kind of mystery.
i've already addressed 90% of this in earlier posts.
you're literally just restating my points like you discovered them and trying to correct me with them, except you don't even understand what you're saying.
good job, fucktard.

File 174775783288.png - (295.48KB , 1426x1198 , based on faith.png )

>>16572
>insertions, duplications, inversions, promoter shifts, and regulatory rewiring

Existing genetic information being used. In other words: not...new...genetic...information. It's obvious you don't understand if there is no new genetic information then you can't go from unicellular to multicellular.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0022519377900443
>Pic related

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15321723/
>Proteins employ a wide variety of folds to perform their biological functions. How are these folds first acquired?
>Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10(77), adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.

This paper is just a technical way of saying that new enzyme folds are impossible to produce by natural selection. This experiment set out to measure the sensitivity to destabilization of proteins. When proteins are destabilized they lose function and if they lose their function they cannot continue to exist, which means further transformation or conversion into other proteins become impossible. This loss of function gives a measure of the rarity of stable functional folds. You could say that you need a miracle to produce a self-replicating cell out of nothing.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.191159298
>This study provides a quantitative assessment of the number of sequences compatible with a given fold and implicates previously unidentified residues needed to form a functional active site.
>Our estimate of the low frequency of protein catalysts in sequence space indicates that it will not be possible to isolate enzymes from unbiased random libraries in a single step. The required library sizes far exceed what is currently accessible by experiment, even with in vitro methods

This study determined that you cannot prove evolution experimentally because the amount of trials you would need is beyond anything that is remotely possible.

What you fail to grasp is that the cells translational system is highly dependent on accurately made proteins and a faulty translational system is by default a biochemical paradox in evolutionary terms. It is an impossible task: in order to develop a more accurate translational system is has to translate more accurately. Each imperfect cycle introduces further errors and the cyclical nature of self-replication in the cell means that imperfections lead to autodestruction so it isn't feasible whatsoever. What would be the selective force behind the evolution of the extremely complex translation system before there were functional proteins? Nothing.

>>16573
goddamn you're stupid. alright, here we go again:

>insertions, duplications, promoter changes
>>not new information
ah yes, the "remixing letters makes the same book" argument.
tell that to every single protein family that diverged from a common ancestor.
wrong, and retarded.

>you can't evolve from unicellular to multicellular without brand new genes
except we have dozens of papers showing exactly how it happened.
cell adhesion, signaling, differentiation — all incremental changes and stages.

sponges and volvocine algae called. they want their fossils back.

>pic related, 1977 paper
cool, you found a 50-year-old fossil that's been cited overwhelmingly more in refutations than confirmations, especially in modern citations where scientists have much more solid data to work with.

here's a short list (there are many more):
https://journals.biologists.com/bio/article/13/10/bio061720/362245/The-evolution-of-multicellularity-and-cell
http://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/febs.15299
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8830517/
https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/50/4/1849/6523801

next you're gonna quote a geology paper from the 1800's, right?

>1 in 10(77) odds for protein folds
yes. in random sequence space, evolution builds, not guesses.
you don't start with chaos and hope for perfection, you start with a function and refine it.
that's literally how antibodies evolve inside your body right now.

>translation system couldn't evolve, it's a paradox
lol damn, again with this bullshit... you think the first translation system needed to look like a modern ribosome?
it didn't.
we have experimental evidence of primitive ribozymes that could bind amino acids
the system improved gradually, just like everything else in nature that doesn't have a

>you need a miracle for a cell to exist
if you define "miracle" as chemical evolution over a billion years in countless environments, then sure.

it's not going to happen like a biblical miracle.
god in the analogues of the bible is reckless (kill everyone and everything).
god in reality is methodical, deliberate and patient.

File 174776345533.png - (12.52KB , 1144x225 , guesswork.png )

>>16574
>diverged
>common ancestor

Wow...lol.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20255/
>A conclusion that two (or more) genes or proteins are homologous is a conjecture, not an experimental fact. We would be able to know for a fact that genes are homologous only if we could directly explore their common ancestor and all intermediate forms. Since there is no fossil record of these extinct forms, a decision on homology between genes has to be made on the basis of the similarity between them, the only observable variable that can be expressed numerically and correlated with probability

For example, a stretch of DNA from a ribosomal RNA gene is forty bases long in humans and fifty-four bases long in orangutans. The sequences on either side match up perfectly. How do we know what bases correspond between the two species, how do we decide how many substitutions have occurred, when obviously some have been inserted and deleted as well? The problem is that we cannot tell which DNA sequence alignment is right, and the one we choose will contain implicit information about what evolutionary events have occurred, which will in turn affect the amount of similarity we tally. How similar is this stretch of DNA between human and orangutan? There may be eight differences or eleven differences, depending on how we decide the bases correspond to each other across the species—and that is, of course, assuming that a one-base gap is also equivalent to a five-base gap and to a base substitution. This is the fundamental problem of homology in biology: What is the precisely corresponding sequences in the other species? The answer is that no one knows. You don't have genetic remains that have been preserved for millions of years, as with all the empty hominid skeletons in Africa, you have no case. It's guesswork and not solid proof.

>>16571

There is no goal to evolution, it's an ongoing process.

>>16575
>homology is just a guess without fossil DNA
>alignment isn't perfect so it's not proof

you don't need ancient DNA to see shared origin
we use conserved sequences, structure, and phylogenetic trees, not blind guessing
a 99% match doesn't vanish because you can't decide if the gap is 3 bases or 5.
this is basic comparative genomics, not witchcraft.

you're confusing uncertainty in the fine print with absence of evidence.
it's not.
you're misunderstanding of how evolutionary models work, and trying to eek out a win by nitpicking formatting conventions and semantics.

in other words, you're coping.

File 174780109176.gif - (120.00KB , 600x487 , 1395256383163.gif )

>>16578
>you don't need ancient DNA to see shared origin

You do, actually.

>99% match doesn't vanish

There is no 99% match. It's simply a made up construct.

>basic comparative genomics

Which you clearly trust blindly without knowing how it works.

>>16575
It's quite interesting that if you develop an analytical method based on physical evidence but can dismiss the burden of proof whenever it pleases you it sounds more like you're playing Dungeons and Dragons. Just ascribe some numerical values on a dice the multitude of all the possible outcomes in the world and throw them around. Supreme autistic hubris combined with intense larping.

>>16573
>What would be the selective force

this
darwin btfo!

>>16579
>you do need ancient DNA to see shared origin
no, you don't.
homology is inferred from living data, like conserved sequences, gene trees, synteny, etc.
we build models from comparison, not time travel.
you thinking we need fossil genomes is like saying we can't know who built the pyramids unless we find their google tracking information.

>there is no 99% match, it's made up
lol. lmao even.
to try to prove your point, you're using scientific papers written by people who wholeheartedly would call you retarded and disagree with everything you're saying.
you're just denying reality.

we've sequenced full genomes.
as a matter of fact, one of the people who lead the project was a Christian, Francis Collins.
you know, one of the longest-serving NIH directors?
look up the Human Genome Project.

human-chimp orthologs are a ~98.8% match.
you're denying published numbers because they hurt your feelings, break your brain, and question your faith.

>you trust comparative genomics blindly
no, i trust what's repeatedly verified across scientific disciplines.
YOU trust blind faith, because you have to.

either way, evolution still exists whether you're able to cope with it or not.


>>16580
oh look, "light speed" denier bro is back to ride the coattails of others who haven't admitted they're wrong yet.

File 17478238332.jpg - (64.86KB , 500x640 , butthurt.jpg )

>>16582
>appeal to authority
>stating that something is true makes it true

File 174782823856.jpg - (301.98KB , 1326x1181 , 1709482622223.jpg )

>appeal to authority
that's not an appeal to authority, you retard.
did i say "you have to believe it because this guy does"? no.
i said he's the guy helped produce the data you're denying.
i brought him up to show that belief in evolution isn't a faith system like you claimed.
it's fully compatible with your faith, but you're too fragile to accept that.

you don't reject the science because of reason, you rejected it because you're a prideful little snowflake.
it's about you clinging to young earth creationist nonsense that collapses under a 5th grade science education.

>stating that something is true makes it true
yea bro, because i didn't mention any match rates, or genome sequencing, or the actual methodologies behind homology inference.
totally just made it all up, right?

i'll give you one more chance to say some obvious bait shit.

>>16581
i love that the third source says you need intelligent design to incrementally build proteins lol

>>16585
>this paper says you need intelligent design to build proteins lol

it says in this particular experiment, they aren't expecting a working enzyme to pop out of pure random chance, since that could take billions of years to do.
they're saying need guided, step-by-step strategies in lab experiments, (aka smart planning, aka "intelligent design"), not divine intervention.

"intelligent design" here means human researchers using their brains, not god sprinkling magic on amino acids.

good try though.

>>16583
he's not too bright, unfortunately

>>16585
that's the reality of rare, functional proteins
you could only produce them if agency is involved

(RULE #3 VIOLATION)

>he's not too bright, unfortunately
lmao
>that's the reality of rare, functional proteins
>you could only produce them if agency is involved
lmao again. wrong, and good job ignoring what i said.

>(RULE #3 VIOLATION)
hahahahahaha

>>16587
In order to show how anything as complex as a cell would arise out of nothing you would first have to prove how ribose, phosphate, purines and pyrimidines formed. These in turn would produce nucleotides in a very low yield, complicated further by the presence of a much larger amount of various nucleotide analogues. Then you would have to show how the nucleotides and their analogues in turn would fuse into polymers (2'5'-, 3'5'- and 5'5'-phosphodiester linkages, variable numbers of phosphates between the sugars, D- and L- stereoisomers of the sugars, α- and β-monomers of the glycosidic bond and assorted modifications of the sugars, phosphates and bases). After that you would have to show how an impartial self-replication mechanism would arise out of this mess that disregards the compositional differences in all of these components. DNA sequences that code for proteins need to convey, in addition to the protein-coding information, several different signals at the same time. These parallel codes include binding sequences for regulatory and structural proteins, signals for splicing, and RNA secondary structure. Basically, it's impossible when there is no selective force to begin with.

>>16590
cool, now you're confusing abiogenesis with modern cellular function.
show me who claimed a fully-formed, DNA-based cell popped into existence overnight again?

the early earth had billions of years of chemical activity, across countless environments, including hydrothermal vents, tidal pools, volcanic regions, meteorite impacts to make this happen.
it had so many dice it could roll, and it rolled the fuck out of them, constantly.
for BILLIONS OF FUCKING YEARS.

if you're calling it finally hitting a 7, an 11, a yahtzee, or whatever the fuck you want to use here a "miracle", you're an idiot.
the only thing you need is time, variation, and chemistry, and the early earth had far more than enough of all three.

>you'd need to prove how ribose, phosphate, purines, pyrimidines formed
okay, bet.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19444213/
RNA with simple sunlight, common molecules, and wet/dry cycles.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4568310/
yet another path to the same end.

you are 15 years behind with your retarded young earth creationist propaganda.

>nucleotide analogues would ruin it
early self-replicating systems likely didn't use modern nucleotides, dumbass.
they used simpler polymers (like [probably] RNA precursors), and natural selection eventually favored the stable and functional ones.

>too many stereoisomers and linkages
yes, early chemistry was messy
but selection works even at the molecular level. once a single, replicating system had an edge (even a small one), it would start to dominate.
selection is feedback, not perfection

>you need complex DNA regulation
modern DNA is complex because it had billions of years to roll dice and add modifiers.
the earliest replicators didn't even use DNA.
they probably used RNA, or even simpler precursors.
there's no reason to believe the early earth, with its billions of dice rolls, wouldn't have come up with the same results since it had the same ingredients.
it's the "room filled with monkeys and typewriters writing shakespeare" scenario, except there's a steady new flow of monkeys and typewriters any time one of them dies or the typewriters break.

>there was no selective force to begin with
lmao wrong. dead wrong.
the moment anything could make more of itself (even imperfectly), natural selection kicks in.
even in a pool of junk, the molecule that replicates better starts taking over, with zero "intelligence" needed.

>>16590
you can tell that this thread has a lot of deus ex machina rhetoric

>muh time
empirically debunked

the source about bacteria not evolving for billions of years

>muh randomness
experimentally debunked

the source about E. coli that never generate new genetic information disproves gould's theory of contingency

in total this thread is mostly autistic sperging and logical

>>16592
the irony is the people doing the autistic sperging are the ones railing against autists as though they're lepers.

>>16592
Yeah, I know. Like listening to a broken record made of inconsistency.

>>16570
very accurate