It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

There's not enough time in the world for mutations to create new proteins

page: 18
21
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2023 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: quintessentone
The god factor will always be there for some, that is why I said that they will go to their graves saying anything else is faked and lies created by satan.

They are religious, they are not looking for any other answer, they turn to science, like in this thread, because it kinda supports the conclusion they want to arrive at.



posted on Oct, 14 2023 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: quintessentone
The god factor will always be there for some, that is why I said that they will go to their graves saying anything else is faked and lies created by satan.

They are religious, they are not looking for any other answer, they turn to science, like in this thread, because it kinda supports the conclusion they want to arrive at.


Is it really all due to unconscious bias though? I mean we really don't know anything, in truth.



posted on Oct, 14 2023 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
Superfast and Water-Insensitive Polymerization on α-Amino Acid N-Carboxyanhydrides to Prepare Polypeptides Using Tetraalkylammonium Carboxylate as the Initiator


I can't read the whole paper because it's behind a paywall, but from what I can see is that they essentially pass the thermodynamic burden to the presence of the NCA's, which allow the reaction to forego with catalysis by Tetraalkylammonium Carboxylate and Tetrahydrofuran while pumping the solution with CO2. This passes the question to how NCAs could form naturally, because in a lab they are formed by phosgenation, a toxic process that would kill any developing life. 



Polymerization of beta-amino acids in aqueous solution


Another paywall and not enough details in the abstract to make a comment



Seems like, given the right circumstances, they can.


Yeah i already said that if the ph is super low in the aqueous solution it can favor polymerization. The thing is that any change like this will make life inviable. So any organic polymer will be denatured, for example, in an acidic solution that would be conducive for polymerization. When I say polymerization in water I am referring to plain water without any catalysts, the reason this is a huge hit for abiogenesis is because it requires extreme lab-like conditions to make polymerization thermodynamically favorable. These same extreme conditions are toxic to life, such as high acidity or phosgenation.



ETA: Also, who says it had to have happened in water?


All organisms require water.



posted on Oct, 14 2023 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: quintessentone
I don't think it is unconscious at all. You would have to actively seek out things that fit the preconceived conclusion and reject what doesn't.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see the OP claiming that "it is well-known science that amino acids don't polymerize in water" although they can.



posted on Oct, 14 2023 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: quintessentone
I don't think it is unconscious at all. You would have to actively seek out things that fit the preconceived conclusion and reject what doesn't.



That is exactly what you're doing though


originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: quintessentone
The god factor will always be there for some, that is why I said that they will go to their graves saying anything else is faked and lies created by satan.


Will you go to your grave insisting that random chance did it? I just don't understand how this idea can generate so much zeal



They are religious, they are not looking for any other answer


You are religious, you are not looking for any other answer than evolution and abiogenesis. You patiently await the white coat lords to find a feasible explanation. Wait all your life hoping for a meaningless theory to be proven so you can affirm a hopeless world.



posted on Oct, 14 2023 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

I'll continue to sit on the fence and look at all evidence for and against, as I usually do.



posted on Oct, 14 2023 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You are religious, you are not looking for any other answer than evolution and abiogenesis.

Wrong, I lean towards the simulation theory, which by default involves one or more programmers/creators, but they are not the god, with a capital G, that many religious people claim. Still, I am open to random chance. That is the difference.


Yeah i already said that if the ph is super low in the aqueous solution it can favor polymerization. The thing is that any change like this will make life inviable.

So, just because polymerization happens in one condition doesn't mean what was formed has to stay in that environment.

You need extreme lab-like conditions to test the possibility, you don't necessarily need it for it to have happened. That is what I mean by being "unable to see that the intelligence needed to figure out the "how" doesn't imply intelligence for it to happen."



posted on Oct, 14 2023 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

You need extreme lab-like conditions to test the possibility, you don't necessarily need it for it to have happened. That is what I mean by being "unable to see that the intelligence needed to figure out the "how" doesn't imply intelligence for it to happen."


There's so many more factors even if the polymerization hurdle is surpassed.

In order for it to create biological life they all need to be the same L-orientation, even though L and R amino acids occur approximately equally upon being synthesized. These L-chains then need to be folded properly to allow it to create a functioning enzyme. There needs to be a plethora of these enzymes made, because even the most basic living organisms requires many proteins to be able to self-replicate and survive. So these random polymerization reactions need to hit an astronomically improbable number of dumb luck occurrences. Then you need a cellular membrane, a DNA code to be able to store the data about the enzymes, and so on and so on.

Simulation theory on the other hand makes sense, we are the contrivance of an intelligent being, as is shown by the cellular machinery in all biological things behaving like an engineered microcosm.
edit on 14-10-2023 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2023 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton
Meh, the point is that your accusation missed the mark.

You want to claim there isn't enough time but if we see even the most basic building blocks in pointless rocks flying through space, then you can't discount dumb chance given the size of the universe and unknown conditions throughout it.

The difference between simulation theory and the average religious stance is that in simulation theory the intelligent being isn't necessarily god, just like the people who program VR games are not superior beings than those who play VR games.

edit on 14-10-2023 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2023 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: cooperton

Yes, but isn't all of that simply chemicals, elements and processes? Can't we replicate it all?

Here's an honest review of the state of the field (OOL research), the video was uploaded 4 days ago, so it's quite up-to-date. First key point in relation to your question is at 5:53-6:16 (keep in mind that ribosomes are made of both RNA and amino acids):

Just keep in mind that when he's talking about the "early earth" (9:27; 10:30; 14:55) or "prebiotic earth", that what he's saying often also counts for when you move the project over to an extraterrestrial scenario/environment (such as asteroids or interstellar clouds), or the obstacle or problem he's describing gets even worse because the conditions there are even less favorable for the required chemical reaction(s) being discussed (and/or more inclined to favor reactions and effects that get in the way of accomplishing what is being discussed by Tour there as a required step in the origin of life).

Another key point in relation to your question is found at 20:24.

When the subject of interactomes comes up (18:10), sometimes a picture says more than a 1000 words, imagine what an animation can accomplish. Since he uses a yeast cell as his example as well:

edit on 14-10-2023 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2023 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: cooperton

Yes, but isn't all of that simply chemicals, elements and processes? Can't we replicate it all?

Here's an honest review of the state of the field (OOL research), the video was uploaded 4 days ago, so it's quite up-to-date. First key point in relation to your question is at 5:53-6:16 (keep in mind that ribosomes are made of both RNA and amino acids):

Just keep in mind that when he's talking about the "early earth" (9:27; 10:30; 14:55) or "prebiotic earth", that what he's saying often also counts for when you move the project over to an extraterrestrial scenario/environment (such as asteroids or interstellar clouds), or the obstacle or problem he's describing gets even worse because the conditions there are even less favorable for the required chemical reaction(s) being discussed (and/or more inclined to favor reactions and effects that get in the way of accomplishing what is being discussed by Tour there as a required step in the origin of life).

Another key point in relation to your question is found at 20:24.

When the subject of interactomes comes up (18:10), sometimes a picture says more than a 1000 words, imagine what an animation can accomplish. Since he uses a yeast cell as his example as well:


It appears they are unable to realize or synthesize a prebiotic early Earth.



posted on Oct, 17 2023 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: quintessentone

I would say they are more unwilling than unable to simulate a realistic prebiotic environment in their so-called "OOL" experiments, cause they know if they did that, the chemistry wouldn't work the way they want, you would get undesired reactions (undesired in the effort to induce reactions that are deemed relevant to the origin of life) and undesired degradation, decomposition, “spontaneous dissolution” or “depolymerization” (which would be the opposite of moving in the direction of life, hence undesired by the researchers who want to claim their experiment tells us something about the origin of life, who want to describe their research as OOL research).

Here are some of the problems:

Could Life Originate by Chance? (Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?)

...

The principal steps en route to the origin of life, as envisioned by evolutionary theory [whereislogic: we're talking here about the so-called "chemical evolution theory of life"], are (1) the existence of the right primitive atmosphere and (2) a concentration in the oceans of an organic soup of “simple” molecules necessary for life. (3) From these come proteins and nucleotides (complex chemical compounds) that (4) combine and acquire a membrane, and thereafter (5) they develop a genetic code and start making copies of themselves. Are these steps in accord with the available facts?

The Primitive Atmosphere

In 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through an “atmosphere” of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. This produced some of the many amino acids that exist and that are the building blocks of proteins. However, he got just 4 of the 20 amino acids needed for life to exist. More than 30 years later, scientists were still unable experimentally to produce all the 20 necessary amino acids under conditions that could be considered plausible.

Miller assumed that earth’s primitive atmosphere was similar to the one in his experimental flask. Why? Because, as he and a co-worker later said: “The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing [no free oxygen in the atmosphere] conditions.”⁠6 Yet other evolutionists theorize that oxygen was present. The dilemma this creates for evolution is expressed by Hitching: “With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.”⁠7 [whereislogic: so what do they do? Exclude both environmental conditions from the experiment, forget about simulating or re-creating a plausible prebiotic environment, just get the reactions you want, then claim you've got something here that is relevant to the origin of life. When someone points out it's not relevant because you excluded these environmental conditions from your experiment, just ignore him (James Tour usually grants them a reducing atmosphere, but then you still have the cosmic rays problem, it's an 'either ... or' situation, you can't exlude both from your experiment cause then you are no longer recreating a realistic scenario, a realistic natural environment where this chemistry could take place). Do the same thing with the next problematic environmental condition. See below under the question: Would an “Organic Soup” Form?]

The fact is, any attempt to establish the nature of earth’s primitive atmosphere can only be based on guesswork or assumption. No one knows for sure what it was like.

Would an “Organic Soup” Form?

How likely is it that the amino acids thought to have formed in the atmosphere would drift down and form an “organic soup” in the oceans? Not likely at all. The same energy that would split the simple compounds in the atmosphere would even more quickly decompose any complex amino acids that formed. Interestingly, in his experiment of passing an electric spark through an “atmosphere,” Miller saved the four amino acids he got only because he removed them from the area of the spark. Had he left them there, the spark would have decomposed them. [whereislogic: see how that works? Just don't recreate a plausible scenario, just try to get what you want, in this case amino acids, then declare success and pretend it doesn't matter you didn't recreate an actually plausible scenario that does not involve intelligent interference from the researchers to save your product from degradation or decomposition, which would happen in a plausible natural environment.]

However, if it is assumed that amino acids somehow reached the oceans and were protected from the destructive ultraviolet radiation in the atmosphere, what then? Hitching explained: “Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules.”⁠8

So once amino acids are in the water, they must get out of it if they are to form larger molecules and evolve toward becoming proteins useful for the formation of life. But once they get out of the water, they are in the destructive ultraviolet light again! “In other words,” Hitching says, “the theoretical chances of getting through even this first and relatively easy stage [getting amino acids] in the evolution of life are forbidding.”⁠9

Although it commonly is asserted that life spontaneously arose in the oceans, bodies of water simply are not conducive to the necessary chemistry. Chemist Richard Dickerson explains: “It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization.”⁠10 Biochemist George Wald agrees with this view, stating: “Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis.” This means there would be no accumulation of organic soup! Wald believes this to be “the most stubborn problem that confronts us [evolutionists].”⁠11 [whereislogic: this is what Cooperton is talking about when he's talking about the formation of proteins in water being thermodynamically unfavorable.]

...

Chemist Dickerson also made this interesting comment: “The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts.”⁠* But is it good scientific procedure to brush aside the avalanches of “inconvenient facts” so easily? (*: Scientific American, September 1978, p. 85.)

How about this inconvenient fact?

originally posted by: whereislogic

Established (observed) fact #1: machinery is the product of engineering/creation.
It's the first fact presented in that comment that supports the argument of induction that life was the product of engineering/creation, laid out there (another thread).

From the article in my signature:

They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others.

edit on 17-10-2023 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2023 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic




“With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.”


But then we have Tardigrades (Tradigrada, from Latin tardigradus, slow-stepper) which can survive deadly radiation, temperature extremes and extreme dehydration for up to a decade. The molecular mechanisms enabling these exceptional resistances are not well understood.



They are able to avoid the effects of radiation because they have a protective protein called Dsup, short for “damage suppressor,” which coats their DNA and provides resistance, according to the study. They can also repair damaged DNA and RNA and can produce fatty acids, which humans can’t do, even though they are essential for brain and nerve function and overall cell health.


www.pfizer.com...#:~:text=Tardigrades%20may%20be%20microscopic%2C%20but,surviving% 20extremes%2C%20including%20deadly%20radiation.

So, maybe the missing puzzle pieces are protective proteins akin to Dsup in early human evolution?

www.nature.com...
edit on q000000101031America/Chicago3434America/Chicago10 by quintessentone because: (no reason given)

edit on q000000111031America/Chicago4343America/Chicago10 by quintessentone because: (no reason given)

edit on q000000191031America/Chicago2222America/Chicago10 by quintessentone because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2023 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: quintessentone
You'll need amino acids first before you can get protective proteins. Then those amino acids will have to spontaneously form polymers (strings) of amino acids. So you're faced with all the same problems to get to protective proteins. And even if you did get to that point, what would they protect? They serve no function yet until some RNA or DNA joins the scene (nucleotides, RNA and DNA are even more unstable and prone to decomposition, degradation or depolymerization than amino acids and proteins, i.e. they break up at lower temperatures). And without a cell membrane to protect them, neither proteins, DNA nor RNA will stick around for long (especially near a hydrothermal vent, as some of the scenarios go for the origin of life or the cell membrane specifically, where conditions are highly volatile and conducive for decomposition, degradation and depolymerization, with the high temperatures there). A subject discussed by James Tour in that video after 24:31 when he's discussing half-lives (although he's talking about carbohydrates there).
edit on 17-10-2023 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2023 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: quintessentone
You'll need amino acids first before you can get protective proteins. Then those amino acids will have to spontaneously form polymers (strings) of amino acids. So you're faced with all the same problems to get to protective proteins. And even if you did get to that point, what would they protect? They serve no function yet until some RNA or DNA joins the scene (nucleotides, RNA and DNA is even more unstable and prone to decomposition, degradation or depolymerization than amino acids and proteins, i.e. they break up at lower temperatures). And without a cell membrane to protect them, neither proteins, DNA nor RNA will stick around for long (especially near a hydrothermal vent, as some of the scenarios go for the origin of life or the cell membrane specifically, where conditions are highly volatile and conducive for decomposition, degradation and depolymerization, with the high temperatures there).


Yes, I read all that but I was wondering if the beginnings of molecular life would have protective and adaptive elements and mechanisms at play in unison with the harsh extreme pre-biotic Earth conditions not necessarily a protective protein.

Now you've got me on the hydrothermal vent early life theory where that unique environment may have contributed in the chemical make up and the protection of early forming life.



Answer. Hydrothermal vents support unique ecosystems and their communities of organisms in the deep ocean. They help regulate ocean chemistry and circulation. They also provide a laboratory in which scientists can study changes to the ocean and how life on Earth could have begun




The study of hydrothermal vent ecosystems continues to redefine our understanding of the requirements for life. The ability of vent organisms to survive and thrive in such extreme pressures and temperatures and in the presence of toxic mineral plumes is fascinating. The conversion of mineral-rich hydrothermal fluid into energy is a key aspect of these unique ecosystems. Through the process of chemosynthesis, bacteria provide energy and nutrients to vent species without the need for sunlight.


education.nationalgeographic.org...

Maybe we are a hybrid hydrothermal vent chimera of bacteria and something else?



These mitochondria probably began as free-living bacteria before they embarked on a symbiotic relationship with us. The only reason that we don’t include them in our tally of bacteria is that they never leave the confines of human cell membranes, though they are, in many respects, independent organisms with their own DNA.


www.sciencefocus.com...

Okay, enough rabbit holes for now.
edit on q000000141031America/Chicago1010America/Chicago10 by quintessentone because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2023 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: quintessentone
...
Yes, I read all that but I was wondering if the beginnings of molecular life would have protective and adaptive elements and mechanisms at play in unison with the harsh extreme pre-biotic Earth conditions not necessarily a protective protein.

Well as long as you're just "wondering" and not using that idea as a personal rationale to side-step the counterevidence to the chemical evolution theory of life as presented in the article I was quoting from (or by James Tour and Stephen Meyer). Counterevidence (facts) that in my opinion shows that the chance of a purely naturalistic origin of life is 0. It's not 1 in a gazillion (whatever big number you want to fill in here), it's simply 0, it's never going to happen that way because these unavoidable problems prevent it from happening that way.

Have you ever heard of an "ad hoc argument"?

8 logical fallacies that are hard to spot - Big Think

An ad hoc argument isn’t really a logical fallacy, but it is a fallacious rhetorical strategy that’s common and often hard to spot. It occurs when someone’s claim is threatened with counterevidence, so they come up with a rationale to dismiss the counterevidence, hoping to protect their original claim. Ad hoc claims aren’t designed to be generalizable. Instead, they’re typically invented in the moment.

Note that your idea of special "protective and adaptive elements and mechanisms at play" in a prebiotic environment did not come from the discovery of evidence for such special "protective and adaptive elements and mechanisms at play" at the time this is said to have occurred (the OOL; so no tardigrades around, so you can't use their proteins as evidence for this). It comes from your desire to find a way (a rationale, an explanation, a scenario) to make it work within an evolutionary framework, given the facts of chemistry that are problematic for the evolutionary storyline as were just explained to you prior to bringing up that idea, i.e. the counterevidence to evolutionary theory.
edit on 17-10-2023 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2023 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: quintessentone
...
Yes, I read all that but I was wondering if the beginnings of molecular life would have protective and adaptive elements and mechanisms at play in unison with the harsh extreme pre-biotic Earth conditions not necessarily a protective protein.

Well as long as you're just "wondering" and not using that idea as a personal rationale to side-step the counterevidence to the chemical evolution theory of life as presented in the article I was quoting from (or by James Tour and Stephen Meyer). Counterevidence (facts) that in my opinion show that the chance of a purely naturalistic origin of life is 0. It's not 1 in a gazillion (whatever big number you want to fill in here), it's simply 0, it's never going to happen that way because these problems prevent it from happening that way.

Have you ever heard of an "ad hoc argument"?

8 logical fallacies that are hard to spot - Big Think

An ad hoc argument isn’t really a logical fallacy, but it is a fallacious rhetorical strategy that’s common and often hard to spot. It occurs when someone’s claim is threatened with counterevidence, so they come up with a rationale to dismiss the counterevidence, hoping to protect their original claim. Ad hoc claims aren’t designed to be generalizable. Instead, they’re typically invented in the moment.

Note that your idea of special "protective and adaptive elements and mechanisms at play" in a prebiotic environment did not come from the discovery of evidence for such special "protective and adaptive elements and mechanisms at play" at the time this is said to have occurred (the OOL; so no tardigrades around, so you can't use their proteins as evidence for this). It comes from your desire to find a way (a rationale, an explanation, a scenario) to make it work within an evolutionary framework, given the facts of chemistry that are problematic for the evolutionary storyline as were just explained to you prior to bringing up that idea, i.e. the counterevidence to evolutionary theory.


Then again, microbiologists still can't figure it out, so what are they missing? It's an intellectual play on what could possibly be the missing puzzle pieces. No harm done, just brain muscle flexing or rabbit hole exploration.
edit on q000000581031America/Chicago4040America/Chicago10 by quintessentone because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2023 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I'm late to this party, so I'll be brief and simply point out an observation.

I absolutely love that all that has to be done is for someone to point out evidence and science that goes so far as to question the validity of evolution or its aspects, and there are ardent supporters that will come out, at times aggressively, to defend it to the death - just like a cult or religion.

Don't boo me, I'm right.



posted on Oct, 17 2023 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: quintessentone

Then again, microbiologists still can't figure it out, so what are they missing?

Those people (doesn't count for all of them) are missing the conclusion by induction that they are excluding (rejecting) from the conversation (or their reasoning) a priori based on their adherence to philosophical naturalism and the accompanying evolutionary philosophies (and thus not any legitimate logical reason). And their treatment of what they refer to as "methodological naturalism" as "the scientific method", which basically boils down to always looking to force-fit a purely naturalistic explanation for these topics (OOL, origin of the universe, origin of earth, etc.), i.e. trying to force-fit 'nature did it' ("the dialogue of chance and necessity"), and then arguing that concluding that a creator/engineer did it, is not following "the scientific method"; a ridiculous argument, since, unlike their philosophies and philosophical bias, that conclusion is based on inductive reasoning, which is at the heart of any proper, historically proven effective, objective method to discover previously unknown facts, new science/knowledge. Or "any proper scientific method" for short.

Here's an example of the 'excluding (rejecting) a priori' behaviour I was talking about:

"We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity (Behe 1996); but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations." (Franklin Harold, The Way of the Cell, p. 205, 2001.)

In reality, that "principle" is merely their adherence to philosohical naturalism and methodological naturalism (really the same general idea, the latter term is just used a lot by those pretending it has something to do with the scientific method, as if when you don't adhere to methodological naturalism, you are no longer following the scientific method, that's usually the way they talk about it, for example, Matt Dillahunty from the AtheistExperience show, who loves talking about methodological naturalism).

Note what Michael Behe has to say about the first part of that quote at 32:50 - 39:28 below (after that comes the Q&A section):

Why abandon inductive reasoning (reason) just because the scientific evidence (the facts) leads to a conclusion by induction that is "anathema"* to the philosophical naturalist? (*: something or someone that one vehemently dislikes.)

In Hans Christian Andersen’s famous tale of the emperor’s new clothes, it took a small child to tell the emperor that he was naked. Evolution now parades as fully clothed fact. We need childlike honesty to tell it that it’s naked. And we need courageous scientists like Professor Lipson, who said: “We must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.”

Source: If Not a Fact, What Is It? (Awake!—1981)

Quite the contrast in attitudes with Franklin M. Harold, isn't it? One is prepared to "follow the evidence where it leads" (quoting Michael Behe in that part I referred to), and the other prefers to reject where the evidence leads, in favor of sticking with trying to find a way to force-fit a fantasy supported only by "wishful speculations", i.e. wishful thinking, a set of unverified philosophies/ideas and stories posing as a scientific theory or under the marketinglabel "Science".
edit on 17-10-2023 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2023 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

In addition to evolutionary philosophy we also have evolutionary psychology (which is mostly garbage) and the reasons for acceptance and/or rejection of wishful speculations and/or selecting a particular way of thinking.

And now for a little comic relief.




new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join



viewport: 1280 x 720 | document: 1280 x 19633