Irreducible Complexity. The Evolutionary Jew

Evolution is obviously true, right? We know that birds have mutated to have different beaks, and these new beaks which are better suited to getting their worms/nuts/honey/whatever-the-hell-the-bird-wants-eat; then stay with the species because they were beneficial, and allowed the initial bird to pass on its superior beak to its offspring. (Obviously all mutations are passed on to the offspring as well, its why midgets can only have midget babies and explains that white people are just the product of an albino fetish that got out of hand). So after enough of these small mutations have happened, then surely you end up with HUGE changes, right?

Irreducible Complexity is the idea that there are certain organs, systems, limbs, or whatever; which would be absolutely useless, if not downright detrimental, were they not to be formed 'whole'. A bunch of small, systematic changes could never produce such a useful thing - each of the stages in the mutation would be entirely worthless were they not to occur all at once, and all perfectly in tune with one-another.

Consider the evolution of the 'leg'. What worth would a lump of flesh dangling from your torso have? That single-step mutation would be worthless. For it to be useful, you would need to have bones to keep the flesh from flopping all over the place. You'd need to have muscles connected to those bones. You'd need to have a heart - and arteries and veins to pump blood to your muscles. You'd need to have a connection to the ol' noggin so that it all actually 'works'. Any single one of these mutations would be completely worthless, if not absolutely detrimental to survival. Now some arguments can be made regarding the evolution of a 'leg', one might argue that it is just what happens after a fin or a wing mutates a billion times. How the original fin/wing/whatever would come from a single-celled amoeba is anyone's guess, but the (((Scientific community))) do not seem overly concerned with this - so maybe there is some decent reason. Regardless I used the leg as an example because it clearly paints the basic idea.

What they certainly do not have good arguments for are irreducibly complex systems like the ability for blood to clot. BUT - the (((scientific community))) have refuted the idea of irreducible complexity. I wonder if they had some good reasons…

Here are some fun ones:
No Goy! This perfect analogy of something that would fall apart were you to take away from it shows that Irreducibly Complex things can be created. (Oh shit its something that is created by people with a design in mind? No matter, my next point:)
Those stupid Goy won't even realise that the whole point of the analogy was that the arch was created 'step-by-step' and not from weathering. So by adding in these naturally occurring arches we prove them wrong, and they are too stupid to realise.
Stupid Goy! Doesn't he know that complicated and meaningless words are the only way we (((academics))) write about anything? The whole point is that it sounds too intelligent and complicated for non-(((academics))) to understand - so they pay us to write more meaningless smart sounding shite, and we get to make money off of doing no real work or manual labour just like all of our chosen ancestors.
NO GOY! We Chosen have created special computer programs that show all of our theories/desires to be true. This computer program - made by us - is obviously how the real world works. No need to question why we might make a computer program that aligns with our theories/desires. Stupid goy.
There we have it folks. The (((scientific community))) has (((peer-reviewed))) the idea and proclaimed that it is wrong. You stupid Goy need to accept that you are all beasts, you are all animals, just like it says in our Talmud. YOU ARE BEASTS!

Other urls found in this thread:

People grow extra fingers sometimes.

Mmm, and they seem to be created just like the rest of our fingers? Almost like there's a genetic blue-print for fingers written into our DNA. Obviously mutations do happen, I am not disputing that at all. But how did these initial mutations come about? Did we always have the "blue-prints" for a finger in our DNA? Who put it there?


Once a fully functioning limb or organ is formed, its "blue-prints" might well be recorded for easy replication in the future. It makes sense that a mutation might cause you to sprout another finger or leg or cock. But how would a complete system be created in the first place in a single stage?

You can make an argument regarding certain appendages and a step-by-step mutation into being. I used the example of the leg, as explained in the OP, because it clearly demonstrates the concept behind it. If you want to look into some irreducible complex systems then I would direct you towards such things as the eye or the ability for blood to clot.

"I'm an idiot and don't understand genetics" the post.
Gas yourself OP

Is this going to be the new flat earth?
Come on, out with the banana arguments. How old is the Earth? Dinosaurs can't swim as well as mammals and so they sank further during the flood, etc.

Timescales are beyond your comprehension it seems. A fin could never become a leg. A day/night melanin sensor can't become an eye. A cortical of nerves could never fold upon itself to become the wrinkled brain.
You lack faith, in the slow music of the spheres to have brought us about, and would rather god have done it simple, lest it try you patience. Rather than a divine chaotic-clockwork Eden that by degrees over millennia produced humanity, a mere popping into existence.
I am disgusted by your lack of reverence for nature.

No one who isn't a brainlet claims single cell to legged organism in a single step. The claim is slow progress through hundreds of millions of years (except during the cambrian - that would be fast evolution through 10s of millions of years). I recommend reading the chapter 5 of Futuyma's book on evolution:

Besides, being a product of trial and error does not necesarily deprive one of consciousness. Dualism is alive and well.

What a compelling argument. No doubt (((peer reviewed))).

Some form of argument. The point is that there are certain systems/organs that would be useless if not in their 'whole' form at the start. According to the natural selection theory, this would mean that they would be highly unlikely to remain in the creature. Even if they did, the possibility of another mutation that perfectly compliments the first useless mutation, allowing it to actually function - is quite simply ridiculous.

One can easily make an argument for dogs having different kinds of ears or birds with different beaks - but these small adaptations are far different from the development of an eye. A fish becoming human? Really?

Fucking retard, holy shit.

You need to look into the blood clotting cascade and how it needs all of the protein factors to be in place before it works at all. Humans have 12, but even losing a couple of those like in hemophiliacs produces catastrophic results. Its a lot more convincing to people then attempting to wax poetical about having useless stumps before we had arms.

The whole basis of races existing is based on evolution. Fuck off retard. Sage and report

The main arguments used for Irreducible Complex regard: blood clotting, the eye, flagella and cilium motion.

Perhaps using the leg to demonstrate the broad outline was a mistake. Forgive me for thinking people might read to the end.

Yes. I did in fact mention it, and made a point that it is what the kikes were kvetching over because they had no adequate response. I probably shouldn't have bothered using the leg to demonstrate the basic idea as most people seem to have latched onto that and ignored the fact that I did actually write that in the OP. Oh well.

Actually a stump and so on isn't that big a push.
Considering early life was primarily aquatic those would have been fins used to direct and push them through the water.

We can observe evolution in action however.
On the bacterial level and even in animal populations.
For instance elephants in much of africa are displaying increasing instances of being born with a disorder that prevents them from developing tusks. Because poachers don't touch those ones.

you're a moron, none of your examples are irreductibly complex

you creationist retard

Abiogenesis is also a big'un. You would need a fully functional lipid cell wall to form, while simultaneously capturing a fully functional strand of DNA that is capable of creating the necessary proteins to replicate itself, along with all the pores for material uptake so it can eat.

And scientists say this is all supposed to happen out of the blue through random process's. Its fucking impossible.

Looks like we got a CIAnigger poisoning the swamp again with boomer bullshit.

Arms were legs.

Horseshoe crabs have only 2 factors needed for clotting (coagulogen and an ezime that senses bacteria). Complexity got reduced plenty right there. Fucking nigger.

lol look at all the angry kvetching. Destroying any sense of spirituality among the goyim is one of the Jews primary directives.

it's an infestation, these assholes, (((>>11237622))) included, are trying to get screencaps of the retardation they pour all over the place
mass report them, this shit deserves b&

unironically read an evolutionary bio book before you go on retard rants like this. for everyone's sake

Y u mad tho?

Ya;ll cant explain shit about abiogensis.

you talk like a faggot, your shit is retarded, and you don't have the right to post meme pictures from your psyops folder to try to make believe you're not a CIAniggerjew
go fuck yourself with a cactus

You sound like you're about to cry bud. What evolutionary advantage did space dust gain by self animating and becoming something that could die? Wheres your retarded little sexual drive model come into play when the starting material was lifeless, sexless and had no reason to do anything else.

Come on you nihilistic little faggot. Think hard.

You're a fucking spud mate, it's like asking why paper cuts are a thing because everything was dirt.

the jews accuses you of what he is doing, you're probably worse than a nigger
I won't resume a couple hundred books on evolutionary biology for you, however a few seconds of googling will tell you that the apparition of sexual reproduction was 1.2 billions year ago, a full 2.6 billion years after the apparition of the first life forms

the holocaust didn't happen, but it will

Nice deflection you fucking retard, and by nice I mean it was terrible and didnt address what I asked. So Ill ask again.

How does the evolutionary model explain abiogenesis?

try to answer without kvetching all over the thread again.

That lump first appeared on a single celled organism knowns as OPs penis

At the moment we can't. Because we need to presuppose that earth was some barren ball at first, and that it rained for millions of years on that ball, then bacteria came from the water, which formed into sea life, then the sea life became mammals.

Nope. Your eyes started as simple light sensors. Your limbs as tiny protrusions for stabilization, increased surface areas, etc. Keep in mind that this all started to happen when most life was single celled or at most a few cells large.
Just because you are a retarded brainlet who cannot comprehend the enormity of the timescales involved doesn't mean that evolution is a non-viable explanation for life on Earth. You're no better than the socialist who calls for the government (= God) to produce X because you cannot comprehend how an emergent system such as the market produces insane levels of complexity and efficiency.
You have no imagination or intellectual rigor, and should kill yourself immediately.

Look at these faggots fuming when you attack their precious evolution. The world and living things were created. You don't even have to be religious to realize this.
I'll start a "Big Bang is pseudoscience/hoax" thread and hopefully a bunch of you die of anger-induced aneurysm.

HA. These fucking niggers rely completely on supernatural metaphysical forces to explain the initial expansion. Theyre so fucking deep in atheist philosophy though they wont verbally admit it.

If evolution is true than the entire universe came from immaculate generation (big bang), which is bullshit. Immaculate generation is impossible, therefore the big bang is impossible.


gas yourself nigger

fun fact. These mutations do happen, but they cannot be passed on through breeding. Often the host of said mutation is rendered sterile genetically anyway.
So the point still stands. Macro evolution does not happen naturally.

Immaculate generation- the belief that something can come from nothing. If evolution isnl true, and there is no greater being who created us, than at some point there was literally nothing. No matter, no space, no time, just a vaccum, everywhere. And that one day, with nothing to trigger the nothingness, it just exploded and created all the elements in existence, gravity, and time, which somehow became life on their own. Now, believing in a Creator takes faith, as there is no proof of who or what they are. But immaculate gerneration is literally impossible, which tells us that there must be something out there, or nothing would exist.

Only boomers fall for the Kikes Creationist bullshit. Goddamn this is one stupid thread, you think that the kikes Glowing toys would have thought this out better.

Says the guy who believes in magic. All religions believe in a Creator, who is right we will never know till we die, but thinking the universe self created itself out of nothing is just idiotic.

Eyes starting out as light sensors defends his argument retard.

A binary light on/off receptor is something that evolution could easily produce. An eye that can "see" in the traditional sense requires like hundreds of cones all perfectly aligned with each other to function.

Being that the random mutations required to even spawn one such cone, randomly aligned wouldn't even provide an advantage, the idea that the genetic code kept mutating in almost but not quite the same way to keep producing these cones, at the proper locations on the eye, and keep growing them in the proper alignment until there were finally enough to provide a mechanism by which an advantage could be obtained is laughable.

I haven't researched the subject in years, and perhaps it has been addressed, but it was a stumbling block for me whenever I'd talk to creationists about evolution.

There is a big gap between some of the higher quality simple light sensing eyes, and visual focus, shape, and movement based eyes. One that is very hard to deal with without some missing link eyes, so-to-speak.

There is no evolution, there's only devolution.

Even GMO's are generally rendered sterile, or become sterile after a few generations.

Another challenge to random evolutionary theory is the probability of these mutations arising, and arising in the correct sequence through pure chance. The rate at which mutations happen is already well known, and you can extrapolate that onto certain evolutionary features and clearly illustrate this disparity in which they happen much much faster then chance would allow.

Considering that all life on this planet started from the same single cell? The first cell divided, thus creating competition between life. Mutations can be caused by many things, but for argument's sake lets say that most early mutations came from DNA being bombarded by UV rays. We can guess what happens next. Some mutations became advantages. Some became detriments. The cells that gained mutative advantage became progenitors of their code. Rise and repeat for like a billion years. Et voila! The tree of life on Earth.

how does the theory of evolution have anything to do with the generation of the universe?

Hey Evolutionists- Why are there only fossils of complete forms?

The Anthropic Principle.

There aren't only fossils like that. You've been deceived by replications and duplications in museums. I would actually venture to guess that complete fossils are pretty fucking rare and very expensive.

Because the big bang is the basis for the entire theory. We all know specieces can evolve to their climate and conditions. But in all the fossils found, none are of incomplete forms. In otherwords, only fossils of fully evolved species are found. Yes, we can see them change as they adapt to an eviornment, but never change into other species. Every single missing link fossil of any species has eventually been proven a fake.

I mean fully evolved species. Where are the bird fish fossils and such?


Ichthyornis? We've found their fossils.

Being utterly bereft of any spiritual component, the Yid does everything it can to suck the soul out of its surroundings. To them, everything is just base flesh and the world is just a series of sensations with zero higher guidance. Jews are the worst kinds of hedonists and the Talmud pretty much lays it all bare. Everything is about owning property or sex in some fashion or another. It was Jews that pushed the modern atheism meme because they hate Christianity more than anything else. It's honestly the perfect fracture point for Europeans, just look at how effective religious D&C tactics are on this very board. And then, in traditional Jew fashion, they play both sides. For atheists, the push nihilism and degeneracy. "If there's no cosmic comeuppance, why not do drugs and commit crimes? Especially don't breed, there's no point, goyim." On Christians, they twist the Bible into its own degeneracy. "We're all children of God, we're all equal, etc. Gotta save those refugees, gotta send missions to Africa." The solution isn't to unite under either atheism or Christianity, it's to unite as whites. None of us were born Christian or Pagan or atheist, but at least some of us, hopefully most of us, were born white. It comes first because it's more important than any of the other things. I'll say it again: Unite as Whites. We can settle our differences later, if we're not extinct by then.

Jews aren't white nor descended from Neanderthal like whites.

again, what?
what the fuck is an incomplete form?
how can an organism be "fully evolved", is your understanding of evolution from Pokemon?

Oh is there an new one now that hasnt been disproved as two overlapping fossils, etc? If this was an ongoing process, there should be plenty of examples of all species missing links. The fact they have to scrape to hope to "find" one, for one species, tells the tale right there.

Did you want to explain what you meant by that?

Look at how these structural components fly together, and perfectly self assemble. Its divinity, anons. Those individual proteins the microtubles are composed of are also quantum bits, believe it or not.

My knowlege is from pokemon? You have a lot.of romm to talk. First iff, the fact tou cant put two and two together that the theory of evolution, relies on the big bang to explain the universes origins. Second, im talking about patially evolved species fossils. They dont exist. You can show species adapting to enviornments and forming different sub species, but no missing links. They should be plentiful if this was an ongoing process. Usually they claim to find one. Brag about it. And it gets disproven and they just silently act like it disproves nothing, its still out there


There should be says you? Do you not know that a massive comet or asteroid smashed the Earth like ~65mil years ago and killed basically everything?

I'm not sure even the jews in Hollywood could replicate that scene with a few billion dollars of CGI. Most life on the planet being extinguished almost simultaneously from one massive explosion. Can we even estimate how much of life was just instantly carbonized? How much was buried in ash and dirt?

A lot of shit got right fucked on planet Earth from the K-T event to the point I would dare say there were life species extinguished we'll never know of because they were vaporized.

Where does the big bang fit into this?

Genetic evolution happens in micro-changes over millions of years. It's certainly plausible that an incredibly complex organ could form from many small changes. I don't think you have a subjective right to say what is and isn't useful. That is pure projection of your own mindset, and unscientific. At the risk of sounding like a while, I think at best you are gravely misinformed, and at worst pontificating on a subject you know little about.

Haha, yeah. Wh*tes are just albinos. They are just like everyone else, but albino. it's all in the appearance…not the psychology/logos/abstract

I meant take your two bit D&C "no one is born as X" bullshit and fuck right off. My parents were Christian. I was born a Christian. You fucking jews make it so obvious who (((you))) are with your complete lack of knowledge on Christianity. I really shouldn't be doing this, but here goes. People can actually be born Christians (like myself, to Christian parents). That doesn't mean we stay Christian. We actually have rites of passage. We must be baptized, we must have First Communion, and we must complete Confirmation rites.

Not knowing a damn thing about the people that hate you, and trying to force meme unite as whites…



You perfectly illustrate how little you know of genetics. All you're doing is parroting back a belief thats been instilled into you by a few select scientists who formulated this hypothesis in a time before DNA was even recognized as a thing. I doubt you've even examined challenges to the evolutionary theory or studied cellular process's to any degree. These are just things you've been told to believe.

Since when is SAP being taught as part of evolutionary sciences?

Wow OP is such a faggot kike.

I wouldn't be surprised if he's working disinfo to make us /x/tier

By the way, for those of you too young to remember, or who were out of the loop completely ten years ago, this kike is simply trying to peddle creationism repackaged under a politically correct name like "irreducible complexity." He wants you to believe that evolution is a lie so that you'll go around spouting creationist nonsense and consequently make NatSoc look retarded by association.

Behold this gem:

Which is sort of like saying it is impossible for us to program models of how the world works… wait a minute, we do that every day with physics algorithms used in gaming and in engineering! I guess we simply must be programming those physics SDKs to only conform to our prejudices about scientific theory right? They have no use outside the computer running them, right?

Abiogenesis is literally a separate theory from evolution and they do not explain each other.

Anyway these are shill kikes trying to make us look like flat-earthers:

Of course evolution is true, goy. Inanimate objects can come to live and become monstrously complex without a designer. Don't you see this happen all the time? No? Oh it just needs more time, and a watched pot never boils! Aren't you glad we're free from anti-(((Science))) creationist faiths?

Its literally the ultimate evolution you Jewish fucking mongoloid. I swear they got some bots up in here judging by the context and total lack of depth to about half these posts. Its just spastic YOURE A JEW responses as far as me fucking eyes can see.

Sorry user, I can't take this shit anymore, I have to spoon-feed him. The big bang isn't related to evolution because it is entirely possible that some God (as in creator, religious or not) created the universe, including all its laws and evolution. One can believe in evolution (as they should) without disbelieving in a creator. People can also believe all sorts of crazy shit as well, so it really isn't the time to go there. This thread is about macroevolution.

Same thing as "intelligent design". You take a poor approach to the subject. Ie, you're not skeptical. The fact is for some of the points mentioned (eyes, blood coagulation cascade) there really isn't a better explanation offered by science. A lot of us have been waiting for a lot longer than 10 years for that better explanation too. I'm accepting of the theory that many missing links will remain missing because of the level of devastation that K-T event caused.

I'm also willing to listen to and discuss other plausible theories.

Welcome to fullchan!

Nobody can really prove shit. If you want to believe you evolved from apes that's fine with me. Just don't act like it's fact when it's unproven theory.

It's pretty simple - once light was detected and proven useful to survival, any organism that could detect light in greater detail was more likely to survive. Cones as we know them probably went through 4-5 stages at least to get to where they are.

Improvement is often a gradient, not just a -doesntwork -> works.

You are hinting at 'how does evolution keep something working the same without randomly fucking it up', which shows a fundamental lack of understanding on the subject.

Get the fuck out you dumb nigger and read a book.

Its as if evolution has these periods where it makes sustained, rapid advances in a certain direction at a pace that defies probabilistic tendencies. The earlier post about elephants suddenly losing their tusks is a good example. Adherents of the cousin fucker Darwin would have us believe such a process would take millions of random mutations to arrive at the beneficial mutation, yet here we have a very specific mutation occurring and rapidly spreading throughout the population in response to something thats only been a thing for a hundred years. Theres other examples of this, like the Fore peoples rapid evolutionary adaptation against Kuru, which popped up in the 1900's and was mutated against in 50 years, or little more then 2 generations. These lie in direct contradiction to the claim that evolution is life simply throwing random mutations against a wall and going with whatever sticks.

This is interesting. If evolution is not just random mutation, then what is it?

The issue with what you're saying is that there are many complex attributes that, should you remove one mutation, would be absolutely useless. The idea that we would mutate a fully functioning ANYTHING is quite simply preposterous - there has to be stages to it (assuming it is random mutation). This is easy to imagine if we start from a certain phase, say we already have a beak, and that beak then comes out in a different, more advantageous shape, and due to it facilitating survival it gets passed on. But when you have an eye that relies on multiple things at once to actually function, then the probability of mutating each of these perfectly, step by step, so that they would all function in unison - is just mind-blowingly unlikely (unless it was already coded into our DNA - in which case where did the code come from?)

Wow, this is a blast from the past. It feels like the internet of my youth.

OP still gets the gas though. >>>/oven/

He's referring to what is called "punctuated equilibrium" which is not a new or mystifying concept. This is literally grade school shit.

When a system is stable, dna optimizes for that system and there any good or neutral potential changes are either watered down by a healthy population size or removed from the gene pool because they were suboptimal by predators or disease. In this case, there's little practical difference between what a "good" and "better" organism can accomplish. But when there is a moderate or heavy system changes, which often consists of heavy population loss, new possible territory, or the introduction of a fierce competitor for resources, then suddenly organism with previously inconsequential dna changes could find themselves with the superior tools to survive or exploit the situation vs their peers, as well as having an opportunity to have a much larger impact on the local population genetics.

Abiogenesis and evolution are two separate theories. How about instead of pretending to know something you actually read an introductory text on the subject, or is that too hard for a faggot like you?

>I've been too busy for the last ten years sucking dicks to read a biology textbook or do some basic research in the subject therefore there's no explanation for

There's skepticism and there's laziness. All your questions would have been answered by now if you got off your ass and read a book. You just sit and wait for the answers to come to you like mana from the heavens. No wonder you're such a tard.

I don't have an answer for you, but iirc there are multiple cases of living things turning genes on and off from one generation to another. I doubt that it's a conscious decision, but it would seem that at some level it is possible to control the DNA of your child. Perhaps it can go farther than toggling genes, maybe some mutations could be "intentional" at a cellular level even if the consciousness is unaware. It would be great if as complex a species as humans could learn to actively control this shit, but I doubt it. Besides, we'd probably end up transhumanist and degenerate as all fuck. Probably for the best we don't learn it.

What you are describing is called epigenetics. DNA is tightly packed, and has to be unpacked to be "read". Certain factors can force sections of DNA to be on or off, even if they shouldn't be. Sometimes it's temporary, other times it can essentially be permanent. The circumstances of the bound/unbound DNA sections can also be passed on to offspring sometimes.

While essential to our existence, it makes things a complete shitshow to try and figure out. This why there things like genes that is associated with a x% increase in whatever horrible disease. People might have that gene, but it needs the right factors or just bad luck to activate and start wreaking havoc.

I noticed no one actually attempting to respond to you. For anyone wanting to buy into this most (((Kiked))) of notions (namely, evolution) the problem for them of explaining the origin of the first life itself has proved to be a completely insurmountable problem.

Every 3 years there is an International Origins of Life Conference and (unsurprisingly to me) despair seems to be the rule of the day now for the professional researchers in this field.

Every single materialistic pathway they have tried to propose through the years has been soundly refuted by their own peers and by other researchers, and now the only approach that garners any real attention with these folks is the multiverse hypothesis to explain away all refutations. Anyone who has any understanding at all about this idea (and isn't dedicated to the non-Theistic agenda itself) immediately recognizes the innate appeal to mysticism here, and that it has literally zero to do with the scientific method.

The imagery of both rats and sinking ships clearly comes to mind for me watching the popcorn-inducing scrambling of these people trying to escape the corner they've painted themselves into by their delusions.

This is simply untrue. Every step along the way from completely inorganic starting material in early earth conditions to the formation of biomolecules, to the formation of a cell-like structure and hereditary molecules has been explored and mechanisms have been deciphered.

The only "insurmountable" problem is that there can be no fossils of such things because they are cells and molecules. Thus, all we have are plausible ways it could have happened, which is frankly enough.

That's called projection.

Ah I got it now. Your only exposure to science and scientists comes from TV shows and youtube. You probably watch nothing but creationist videos put together at a high-school level aimed at protecting the flock from the dangerous scientific idea of "evilution."

They havent, nice job superficially examining the evidence against evolution though. Real scientific bud. They cant even accurately surmise how DNA strands could form long chains without the requisite components breaking apart. As amino acids themselves favor short chains and readily break apart as they grow in size because they lack the sugar ribose necessary to glue the longer pieces together. Of which there is no known mechanism in which it could've been produced in nature, they have even found out how some major building blocks cannot be formed, e.g., cytosine. The proposed ‘prebiotic’ conditions that biochemists attempt to recreate in the laboratory are unrealistic because it is highly unlikely that the alleged ‘precursor chemicals’ could ever have concentrated sufficiently, but just focusing on the DNA, even a long chain would be useless as it would have to carry the correct information with in it and have the transcription machinery to decode it, the cell wall to protect it, and the ATPsynthase (which operates at near a 100% efficiency) to create the necessary energy gradients to power everything. Incidentally, it’s important to note that a non-complex life form is an impossibility, since it needs to have the ability to reproduce. Even the simplest known true self-reproducing organism, Mycoplasma genitalium has 482 genes with 580,000 base pairs But even this is not enough to sustain itself without parasitizing an even more complex organism. Which makes the idea of random molecules coming together to form a functioning cell without any sort of divine intervention absolutely fucking impossible.

FTFY user. It's in the literature if you care to educate yourself and stop drinking the (((koolaid))).

Actually they have. If you ever bothered to study the topic (and no, watching YouTube videos from Discovery Institute and Kent Hovind doesn't count) you would know that the formation of organic molecules from inorganic starting points was researched for decades now, with multiple plausible mechanisms ranging from a "soup" being the oldest idea, to structural catalysts, electric catalysts, anaerobic and aerobic conditions.

This doesn't even touch into how molecular biology and microbiology have advanced our knowledge such that we know what early transcription molecules would have looked like, we know what early cells would have been made of. Every point along the way from inorganic substrate to cells has been researched and we have plausible mechanisms.

What flat-earthers like yourself are incapable of grasping is that there isn't just "one study" (there are many, many studies) "refuted" (or in scientific parlance, it was put to the test of new conditions extrapolated for a primordial earth, and found to have a different outcome).

All your knowledge comes from watching creationist videos and you are so stupid that you think you can bluff your way around the topic. I think that's what actually makes me angry at your types. It's that you're intellectually lazy. It shows in the types of arguments you make which are paper-thin and show less than a highschooler's knowledge on the topic, and YET YOU HAVE THE NERVE to pretend to be an expert on it.

Literally every argument you just made:

Is regurgitated from Discovery Institute and similar creationist organizations. The rhetorical errors they make, the way they present their case like a demagogue rather than a scientist. That's HOW I know you're bluffing and never even read a biology textbook.

You sound like a Mormon going door to door to peddle your bullshit. Pre-programmed, regurgitated bullshit arguments which don't have an inch of depth to them. You basically memorized Star Trek technobabble for religious morons.

How does an amino acid chain get long and stay stable? It relies on folding and hydrogen bonding to hold it together. How does a nucleotide reproduce itself without being a cell? It behaves like Ribozymes, molecules which both behave as genetic material which can code for themselves and transcribe themselves. How did the first cells form? It's enough to simply protect genetic material and its environment by enclosing it in a phospholipid layer. You see, people who actually know about this stuff don't talk like you do. They aren't regurgitating tracts like bullshitters. They can simply look at your argument and think it through, logically.

AHAHAHAHAHA, you didnt even address 1% of what I posted, you took a single point which is the length of amino acids chains and gave a half assed reply that didnt address the paper I was pulling that from AT fucking all and sat there and just spat angry hysterical nonsense for the rest of the post.

Ill make it exceedingly fucking simple for you to counter here. Cytosine, it doesnt exist in nature. How then is it a main component of DNA? Single question, the answer should be easy, pull up some real fucking articles nigger. Rather then your Sheldonesque bullshit (you probably watch the big bang, to be completely honest here)

After that we can examine the rest of the points one by one, so you'll be restricted from going off on these ridiculous diatribes about how everything makes sense, while showing nothing to back any of the horse shit up that keeps dribbling out of your slack jawed mongoloid mouth.