Abiogenesis

This is my thinking. Life is everywhere at this point. Any sort of proto-life doesn't stand a chance in the wild.

This

It is because you are stuck in a Platonist philosophy where you are looking for a metaphysical Platonic Ideal for life.

Look. Evolution doesn't work that way. There is no reason one configuration survives and another does not.
There is only the survival of the configuration because the other ones didn't.
Get it?

So the reason we haven't seen it is because we are looking for it and not looking at what didn't survive.

Pure numbers. Think of all the unique configurations of elements in the universe, then weed out all of those that are not here.
The configuration we call life is extremely rare, but the universe is a big place. That is the story that makes sense, not the one where magic causes life to happen.

When you can replicate the primordial soup and monitor every element, then you might see life form, and it could be in a myriad of ways.

But if you are waiting around to isolate the magical "mechanism" then maybe you need to spend more time on philosophy than biology so you can see the shell game of your logical rhetoric, and the weird places it leaves you.

What he said seems likely, maybe check out the Stanley miller experiment en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment OP if you haven't already.

There is only so much that can be inferred about the atmosphere and surface conditions in earth's early geologic history. What is known mostly comes from examining the rock record (which is scarce or has undergone such high degree of deformation since the time frame when bacteria came about in the archean) and forming models with what is understood about similar geologic processes today.
Throughout hadean and most of archean the developing atmosphere had a much different composition, water chemistry was probably different, and earth's magnetic field was still developing so the surface received much more solar radiation. Even the earth's crust did not follow the same trends of plate tectonics until the proterozoic

Im gonna rephrase your sentence replacing a couple of words with synonims:

evolution is fucking idiotic. its just a theory. i think the ilogical is logical in that god created us

lmao

Thanks, m8.

>we can't engineer the other cell parts under perfect conditions even when 'cheating'
>occurred randomly on a lifeless planet

This whole conundrum reminds me of something I discovered recently related to evolution: The main story people want us to believe is that 4-6 million years ago, humans didn't exist, and that we had a common ancestor with a chimpanzee. They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human." So that means it would have to have features of both. The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both? That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans. Obviously since humans are more advanced than chimps, the humans must have "evolved" from chimps. However, if chimps evolted into humans, then how are there still chimps? According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left. If humans evolved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS

It does. They're called Prions. Problem is prions live in brain matter. No organism have a large enough brain matter to fully develope without the brain matter decomposing.
Second, anything that has a chance of developing will most likely be eaten by any nearby bacteria. That and current bacteria had 4 billion years of evolutionary headstart to develop sophisticated mechanism.

You know, this has to beg the question, why do so many scientists believe in evolution? Even though many scientists do NOT believe in it, there is still a significant percent that does. If you think about it, the darwinists have the same evidence as us, but we can come to different conclusions because we don't have the bias of darwinism. Darwinism is the biased assumption that Richard Darwin had all the correct ideas about life science, based on the fact that he was a leading scientist of the time (the 19th century). Actually, Darwin wasn't even a real scientist, he just drew pictures and made stuff up on a boat, but the darwinists don't want to hear that. The bias of darwinism makes many people deluded into thinking that the evidence always points in favor of THEIR view, even though to an unbiased person that would not be the case. But the delusional/biased people aren't the only ones that make up believers in evolution. Since evolutionists have a monopoly on the media and on education, they are able to brainwash (for lack of a better word) aspiring students. That is how some people can continue to be deluded. However, science teachers also dismiss any evidence against evolution a priori, and even refuse to discuss it at all. Many students end up thinking that the only evidence out there is evidence IN FAVOR of evolution, and they're just ignorant of the facts that go against the mainstream theory.

>They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human."

And right about here is where you stop making any logical argument.

Cheers

Would it have any chance competing against already established life?

...

You still sound quite dumb and its said before. Low probability. It may have needed alot of luck. It did only uappen once afterwll. Dna as evidence.

Just had to make this post? It's still shit posting even if it's ironic.

They both have features of both idiot. Or they woukdnt share so much dna.

Holy shit, go and retake your writing classes, fuck

This

It's simple : Time and space.

>This takes place over a period of several hundred million years.

>The Earth is vast. Really vast.

>i think
That is where you went wrong.
Lrn2theory fgt pls

what I want to know is why is mainstream science so opposed to questioning perspectives like this? There are a lot of people who are questioning the evidence in favor of common descent with modification, but we all know that teachers and scientists aren't interested in discussing the facts, they're interested in advancing their own agenda. The problem is, many students aren't satisfied with just being told "this is correct, you just have to accept it and ignore the holes in it." I don't want a theory full of "holes," I want one full of "wholes." If evolution can't explain why chimpanzees and humans can be extant together, even when they're supposed to be genetically related by a common ancestor, and that's the cornerstone of the theory, then why should we be expected to believe it? It's a sad symptom of the state of science when there are tens of thousands of "darwinism apologists" in our classrooms, and there are only a handful of dissenters (some of whom get blacklisted or imprisoned for questioning the consensus).

But why didn't we figure out how to reproduce it under perfect conditions yet?

You get triggered by us as much as we do by you. Thats why you rant about being blacklisted. Evolution is considered overwhelmingly true with so much evidence. Way more than yours. Your theory lacks more wholes than evolution. And also elaborate on the extant thing

Contrary to what you think, most biology actually doesnt do that. You have naive view ofscience

Care to elaborate?

Not enough information yet
We still need to determine the specific levels of substances, pressure, heat and a load of other shit
We can still try for all the possibilities and find the perfect formula/process for it, but it would take billions of years

faggot

Now that the Earth has oxygen it can't occur.

[citation required]

...

Do you think biology is for your amusement?! Do you think it is a joke?!

Boy, biology has been around before you were in diapers!

Not that user but oxygen tends to oxidise things, many molecules don't stand much of a chance floating on the surface of the sea being churned up with oxygen in the air and irradiated with sunlight, they would just decompose.