>>16913303
>cant have accurate self replication without complex machinery
This implies that a simple self-replicating thing is impossible. How do you know this is true?

>>16913303
RNA chains replicate by themselves in nature under simple mechanical stress, no need for machinery.

>>16913315
RNA is quite complex and is assumed to have evolved, so that doesn't address OP in any way.

>>16913321
RNA self assembles from naturally occurring nucleic acids. Only the information encoded in it is evolved. So yes it does blow OP out entirely.

>DNA needs proteins to replicate
>proteins need DNA to exist
Checkmate atheists with this one simple trick.

>>16913327
>RNA self assembles from naturally occurring nucleic acids
Ok. And what's the likelihood of such randomly self-assembled RNA to self-replicate?

>>16913340
That's irrelevant for the question at hand. The mechanism exists and is clearly likely enough to produce complex life at least once in the universe. Strictly speaking 100% of RNA chains encounter some kind of self replication when they break apart due to mechanical stress which is more than enough to drive evolution for this purpose anyways

>>16913364
>That's irrelevant for the question at hand.
Mentally ill retard found.

>>16913340
approaches 1 given half a billion years and a whole ass planet covered in primordial soup

>>16913394
>approaches 1
Ok. Explain how you calculated this.

>>16913396
it's an empirical observation, obviously :^)

>>16913404
Another mentally ill retard. Maybe someone sane has got an explanation?

>>16913303
In principle, abiogenesis violates probability. Were such an event to occur completely dismantles many basic premises of evolution. Any argument for simplicity is irrelevant, any argument for likelihood is irrelevant. The universe has some kind of system solver at its core. It could be said that protein folding isn't the least likely thing to occur, for example randomly typing out shakespeare or the Iliad is also very unlikely, but even those outcomes would be the direct result of the same system solver. A most unlikely outcome. Some small corner of the universe hardly more than 10^80 atoms converged on events that have a likeliness far lower than 10^200000 repeatedly.
Once unlikeliness is removed from the deck, there is no reason to even think of evolution in their terms whatsoever. An animal could be anywhere by any reason. A particular line could be of nearly any imaginable construction. Genetics could change over night and change back for seemingly no reason.

File: Screenshot 2026-02-15 at 12-19-47 Timeline for random RNA self-replication - Claude.png (33.8 KB)

33.8 KB PNG

>>16913396
>>16913410
I asked Claude. I guess it's not a very satisfying answer.

>>16913303
The only explanation that makes sense is that life originated when most of the universe was hot enough to support life, and not only extremely small locations in goldilocks zones. That is the only way to overcome such absurdly small probabilities: with massively overwhelming volume. On top of that solves the problem of genetic complexity going from nothing to complex enough for simple life forms in an absurdly small time span.

>abiogenesis
>fine tuning issue
>measurement problem in quantum
there's simply no chance this isnt a "simulation" of some sort. whether that's god, 5d jannies, celestial AI we'll never know, but our reality is constructed and designed the same way software is.

>>16913448
This almost makes sense, but there is no core, no center, and no solver. Matter itself prefers compounding complexity.

>>16913627
>This almost makes sense, but there is no core, no center, and no solver. Matter itself prefers compounding complexity.
Looks like matter worshipers have reached a stage of desperation where their god has preferences and magically violates the laws of probability.

>>16913633
>violates the laws of probability
[citation required]

>>16913645
Take your Risperidone and then read your own delusional post again, and the post you replied, which you claim "almost makes sense" (except it apparently makes more sense that matter is magic).

>>16913648
Oh so you actually have no clue what you're talking about, and statements like
>>16913448
>abiogenesis violates probability
>basic premises of evolution
>events that have a likeliness far lower than 10^200000 repeatedly
are based on nothing but your misunderstanding of basically everything involved.

>>16913663
Your psychotic illness apparently causes you to think I'm every poster in the thread besides you.

>>16913673
I accept your concession

>>16913681
I observe your delusions.

>>16913303
>cant have accurate self replication without complex machinery
Wouldn’t this be good for early life? Life is mutating faster and is able to learn how to reproduce. First asexually and later sexually.

>>16913303
>>cant have evolution without mostly accurate self replication
Planets and other celestial bodies evolve and they don't have have "mostly accurate self replication"

>cant have accurate self replication without complex machinery
The planet and other celestial bodies are complex machinery which is why accurate self replication can occur on them.
>cant have complex machinery without evolution
Which is why planets evolve from simpler elements.

File: brainlet3.jpg (78.8 KB)

78.8 KB JPG

>Planets and other celestial bodies evolve and they don't have have "mostly accurate self replication"
JFC what a shit board...

>>16916906
Which part do you not understand, that planets evolve or that they don't self-replicate?

https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_plan_1.html
This explains how they evolve, do you have any evidence they self-replicate?

>>16916912
>my drivel is relevant because it uses the same token as OP

>>16916918
Oh ok, that makes sense, you are just posting angry retarded drivel, no wonder you made yourself look so angry and retarded by using the basic angry retard template in your post.

>>16916890
>LLM gets filtered by context

>>16916920
>LLM gets filtered by greentext
What does the "evolution" of planets have to do with evolution of biological life, brainlet?

>>16916942
The context is evolution, biological life is not the only thing prone to evolution over time, despite OP falsely trying to assert as much.

Celestial Evolution and Biological Evolution are both examples of evolution that demonstrates how different things tend to develop more complexity and function over time.

File: non-player-retard.jpg (17.5 KB)

17.5 KB JPG

OP:
>random mutation+natural selection has a bootstrapping problem
Free-tier LLM trying to simulate a jeet:
>BUT WHUT ABOUT MUH PLANETS, SAR? THIS COSMOLOGY TEXT ALSO USE THE TOKEN 'EVOLVE'!!!

The best part of it is that he correctly points out planets don't self-replicate and somehow ends up thinking that's a point in his favor. Abysmal quality board.

>>16916953
I see you still can't debunk that celestial bodies also randomly mutate and are naturally selected by the environment they inhabit where they are absorbed and/or obliterated by larger celestial bodies in the local space, so it makes sense that you want to seethe.

>that's a point in his favor
If by that you mean it disproves OP's assumption that things that evolve depend on self-replication, sure.

Its only such low quality these days because of angry retards like you who can only seem to use the same tired boring angry retard template over and over while never learning how to make a logical point, only look for an opportunity to say one of the 8 insults you have memorized.

>>16913303
>cant have evolution without mostly accurate self replication

Accurate replication would appear from the process of evolution.

>cant have accurate self replication without complex machinery

Which would appear during the process.

>cant have complex machinery without evolution

Hey you got one right. No, you cannot have complex machinery without evolution. Abiogenesis is the path, evolution is the math, still some stuff we don’t know. It’s the best answer other than spaghetti monsters.

>>16913370
ask better questions

>>16916967
The idea of a planet being part of the complex machinery required for abiogenesis is common. Planets of certain types and in certain windows and conditions create life of allow it to seed via panspermia from places where it was able to appear from abiotic sources. Assuming we don’t have the age of the universe wrong, which I’m definitely not sold on (fuck your baryon acoustics) life is likely way fucking older than we realize.

>>16916975
Or, God.

File: mental.jpg (6.2 KB)

6.2 KB JPG

>>16916967
>celestial bodies also randomly mutate and are naturally selected by the environment

>>16916983
I mean it’s gay, but he’s not wrong.

>>16916988
His meaningless babble falls under the "not even wrong" category. You can make the same meaningless claim about any physical configuration that settling into a stable state. It has literally nothing to do with the OP. It's effectively a concession that he knows of no specific mechanism that solves OP's problem so he's forced to extend the cope of neo-Darwinism to encompass almost anything indiscriminately.

>>16916990
>extend the cope
I mean scope* but I guess 'cope' also works here.

>>16916978
Or the universe as a whole since the Big Bang timeline is an evolutionary timeline of the universe and it wouldn't make sense to have a being with senses before a universe exists to sense.

>>16916990
>His meaningless babble falls under the "not even wrong" category.
Except in the science like astrophysics where there are entire disciplines dedicated to studying planetary evolution.

>It has literally nothing to do with the OP
Maybe according to your limited fallacious version of evolution that doesn't incorporate planetary evolution as studied by a global network of astrophysicists, but not according to math and science.

>>16916990
So if his posts are meaningless what does that make your posts trying to refute him, insane or retarded?

>>16916970
>bro there's no paradox just trust the process
congrats midwit I bet that made you feel really intelligent

>>16917005
>>16917007
You're clearly mentally ill. Moving on.

>>16917025
You clearly can't explain why scientists are actively studying planetary evolution if science doesn't accept planetary evolution, but good job signalling your mental illness, it has been obvious ever since you thought using the angry retard template was a sane way to make a valid point.

>>16916990
Who hurt you?

File: IMG_1706.gif (1.5 MB)

1.5 MB GIF

>>16916990

>>16917028
>mentally ill retard stuck in an infinite loop of getting filtered by context and "arguing" purely based on the presence of keywords

>>16917035
>durr certain types of evolution don't count as evolution if they would prove me wrong about my fallacious concept of evolution
The only context is you are retarded and can't actually support your points with logic so you devolve into this retarded name-calling nonsense every single thread you lose your retarded argument.

>>16917029
Retards usually just hurt themselves and then scream at everyone who can hear them or looks their way.

>>16917036
>>16917038
>mentally ill retard continues droning incoherently
You can do this all day, but it won't change the fact that 'evolution' as used in cosmology (or physics in general) intersects 'evolution' as in the OP only in the general meaning of describing gradual change, or the way a system tends towards a stable configuration or a local optimum under some set of rules.

>>16917044
Thanks for proving the relationship and showing you will never be able to point to any missing context since cosmological evolution and biological evolution do still describe the same basic thing of physical bodies changing over time to better conform to their environment, so there is no reason you can't have evolution without self-replication since that is exactly how celestial bodies evolve over time.

>>16917049
>cosmological evolution and biological evolution do still describe the same basic thing
You can do this all day, but it won't change the fact that 'evolution' as used in cosmology (or physics in general) intersects 'evolution' as in the OP only in the general meaning of describing gradual change, or the way a system tends towards a stable configuration or a local optimum under some set of rules.

>>16916967
>celestial bodies also randomly mutate and are naturally selected by the environment
This is schizobabble, not cosmology (unless you count crackpots like Smolin). At best it falls under the "not even wrong" category. You can make the same meaningless claim about any physical configuration that settling into a stable state. It has literally nothing to do with the OP. It's effectively a concession that you know of no specific mechanism that solves OP's problem so you're forced to extend the scope of neo-Darwinism to encompass almost anything indiscriminately.

>>16917052
You can cope all day, but you still can't point out any missing context and you can only point out the similarities in cosmological and biological evolution.

>At best it falls under the "not even wrong" category
No, it wouldn't be a major part of astrophysics in that case and harvard science classes wouldn't have it in their curriculums.

>you're forced to extend the scope
I couldn't have been the one to do that because the scope had been extended that far since before I was even born.

You are just mad because you can not point out any missing context you keep insinuating, you can just find a new way to cope and insinuate there is some missing context.

>>16917063
>>16917049
>cosmological evolution and biological evolution do still describe the same basic thing
You can do this all day, but it won't change the fact that 'evolution' as used in cosmology (or physics in general) intersects 'evolution' as in the OP only in the general meaning of describing gradual change, or the way a system tends towards a stable configuration or a local optimum under some set of rules.

>>16916967
>celestial bodies also randomly mutate and are naturally selected by the environment
This is schizobabble, not cosmology (unless you count crackpots like Smolin). At best it falls under the "not even wrong" category. You can make the same meaningless claim about any physical configuration that settling into a stable state. It has literally nothing to do with the OP. It's effectively a concession that you know of no specific mechanism that solves OP's problem so you're forced to extend the scope of neo-Darwinism to encompass almost anything indiscriminately.

>>16917065
Exactly, you can't actually point to any missing context, you can just copy/paste "missing context" over and over.

>>16917068
Because the only context is that the information proves your claims false, so you want to reject the information to avoid admitting you were wrong.

>>16917068
>you can't actually point to any missing context
There is no missing context. You're just mentally ill and unable to incorporate the context explicitly provided in the OP. See >>16917065

>>16917071
I accept your concession >>16916942 was another retarded statement because there is no missing context that filtered anyone, you are just getting filtered by the fact that planets evolve over time because admitting so destroys your thread's fallacious premise.

OP's context is evolution and as you pointed out planetary evolution is just planets changing over time instead of biological organisms.

>>16917075
Notice how your psychotic illness causes you to argue with some voices in your head about "missing context" that wasn't stated or implied anywhere.

>>16917063
>>16917049
>cosmological evolution and biological evolution do still describe the same basic thing
You can do this all day, but it won't change the fact that 'evolution' as used in cosmology (or physics in general) intersects 'evolution' as in the OP only in the general meaning of describing gradual change, or the way a system tends towards a stable configuration or a local optimum under some set of rules.

>>16916967
>celestial bodies also randomly mutate and are naturally selected by the environment
This is schizobabble, not cosmology (unless you count crackpots like Smolin). At best it falls under the "not even wrong" category. You can make the same meaningless claim about any physical configuration that settling into a stable state. It has literally nothing to do with the OP. It's effectively a concession that you know of no specific mechanism that solves OP's problem so you're forced to extend the scope of neo-Darwinism to encompass almost anything indiscriminately.

>>16917080
No I just notice you are retarded and have devolved into copy pasting nonsense after you admitted you can't actually provide the context that would make cosmological evolution not be evolutionary..

>>16917087
>you admitted you can't actually provide the context
You're just mentally ill and unable to incorporate the context explicitly provided in the OP. You're also actively hallucinating some delusions about "missing context", "admissions" etc.

>>16917049
>cosmological evolution and biological evolution do still describe the same basic thing
You can do this all day, but it won't change the fact that 'evolution' as used in cosmology (or physics in general) intersects 'evolution' as in the OP only in the general meaning of describing gradual change, or the way a system tends towards a stable configuration or a local optimum under some set of rules.

>>16916967
>celestial bodies also randomly mutate and are naturally selected by the environment
This is schizobabble, not cosmology (unless you count crackpots like Smolin). At best it falls under the "not even wrong" category. You can make the same meaningless claim about any physical configuration that settling into a stable state. It has literally nothing to do with the OP. It's effectively a concession that you know of no specific mechanism that solves OP's problem so you're forced to extend the scope of neo-Darwinism to encompass almost anything indiscriminately.

there's nothing more low iq than taking anonymous posts personally and throwing out insults as opposed to just discussing the topic at hand

>>16913303
>Im not a christcuck by any means
you're not. You're just larping as one

>>16916967
>I see you still can't debunk that celestial bodies also randomly mutate and are naturally selected by the environment they inhabit where they are absorbed and/or obliterated by larger celestial bodies in the local space
I'm neutral on this debate, but do most evolutionists really believe this shit? They actually apply a theory on biological processes to the whole universe at large?

I guess that's one way to conveniently skirt by the abiogenesis question.

>>16917005
>Except in the science like astrophysics where there are entire disciplines dedicated to studying planetary evolution.
There is no actual study, its just baseless speculation.

>>16913340
Probability does not really work when applied to events that lead to your own existence. Consider how unlikely the causal chain of events that went into making you even just considering the events that occurred within known history. Every single one of your ancestors had to survive, meet, and reproduce, and the genetic combination of every one of them was one out of many possibilities, yet some how you beat all the odds and were born.

>>16917954
>cosmic chain of unbroken statiscally unlikely events billions of years long to lead to my existence
>all to have a miserable pointless existence marred by constant failure ending with a self inflicted gun shot wound
sick

>>16917143
>unable to incorporate the context explicitly provided in the OP.
So I am missing some kind of context that you can't seem to articulate?

>hallucinating some delusions about "missing context",
So if I am not missing any context, what exactly do you mean by saying I am not incorporating OP's context?

>the fact that 'evolution' as used in cosmology (or physics in general) intersects 'evolution'
It doesn't just intersect, the theories necessitate a cosmological evolution that allows for biological evolution since science studies both organic and inorganic things simultaneously, its basic big bang theory.

>At best it falls under the "not even wrong" category.
Except it doesn't, big bang accounts first for cosmological evolution, then biological evolution withing the environment of planets and celestial bodies as the foundation of biological organisms, you are just too retarded to understand they are intrinsically connected by the fact that biological evolution necessitate evolving to fit into a planetary environment.

>>16917910
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe
According to common knowledge sources, they do.
Can you find a reputable university with a biology department that doesn't also have a physics department that teaches cosmological evolution?
https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/reprints/nasa_cosmos_and_culture.pdf
https://web.astro.princeton.edu/research/cosmology
https://physics.yale.edu/research/astrophysics-and-cosmology
Can you find an organization that studies space that doesn't also study cosmological evolution?
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20100003010/downloads/20100003010.pdf
https://esahubble.org/images/opo0318c/
https://jaxa.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/3012/files/AA1730027035.pdf

>>16917916
So telescopes and microscopes don't exist, its all just speculation from subatomic particles to galactic formations?

>>16913303
The 10^500 universes predicted by string theory are real and some of them are cyclical. At some point life had to occur no matter how unlikely

>>16913303
A small 45-nucleotide length ribozyme was just discovered that synthesizes itself and also polymerizes it's complement strand. So probability is basically 100% within even just a day.
Basically all arguments that have to do with an irreducible complexity or "the probability is just too heckin' low!" are low IQ copes. We don't even need to postulate multiverses or anything like that.

>>16920275
>A small 45-nucleotide length ribozyme was just discovered that synthesizes itself and also polymerizes it's complement strand. So probability is basically 100% within even just a day.
Interesting. Why didn't you provide a source instead of the low IQ drivel that makes up the rest of your post?

>>16913339
This is false. RNA can polymerize polypeptides without DNA. DNA didn't come until later.

>>16920141
>10^500
that is a large number

>>16920300
For you

>>16920141
the 10^500 number is just the amount of mathematically valid solutions, it doesnt predict or suggest that all of them actually exist

>>16920141
No it doesn't. A large number of possibilities doesn't guarantee anything. Not even an infinite number of universes would guarantee anything. There are infinite combinations of the digits 1 and 0 that still don't contain the digit 2.

>>16916945
>Celestial Evolution and Biological Evolution are both examples of evolution
They aren’t the same thing and you’re retarded. Try again later when you get your system updated

>>16920674
>They aren’t the same thing
Neither is fungal evolution and plant evolution exactly the same thing, but they are all examples of evolution in action and there is no evidence that biological evolution can occur without first depending on some celestial body that can support biological life first evolving from the same base particles that compose organic bodies.

Try again when you stop being so angry about being wrong or you can actually explain why cosmological evolution doesn't count as a type of evolution.

>>16920321
>infinite combinations of the digits 1 and 0 that still don't contain the digit 2
Except in binary digital logic where you will almost immediately find the combination 10 is exactly equal to the decimal digit 2.

>>16920321
>A large number of possibilities doesn't guarantee anything. Not even an infinite number of universes would guarantee anything. There are infinite combinations of the digits 1 and 0 that still don't contain the digit 2.
Big number go BRRRRR therefore everything I want is possible. It's science, chud.