Replies

Actually, it was "me," VR.

I was crediting you with more growth than that. ;)

And I wouldn't say that "chance" was responsible -- at least once there was a fertilized egg (I mean, my parents might never have met in the first place.)

Some chance, but not at the "all your aminos needed to jump together at once" level. Zygotes happen all the time.

Anything I ever became subsequent to that "long-ago encounter" was captured and specified in that instant.

All the forces and influences that would shape the present you were somehow contained in the world somewhere. I'm a determinist myself, having invented it as a teen-ager before I knew the word. (Turns out I got beat to the idea, though.) Most of those forces weren't in the proto-you, however. Only your genetic makeup was in "you" then. The environmental factors were in their own version of formation for their later collison with the ever-forming and growing you.

I suppose you have pictures and memories of much of that, but I bet there are gaps, too. We have a seven-year-old you and a seven-and-a-half-year-old you, but where are the transitionals? But I digress...

It just needed time to play out, plus free will...

You seem a bit conflicted here. Your free will is an illusion, meat-puppet. Your own words convict you.

For someone who isn't all that interested in abiogenesis, you seem to "defend" it in principle as being at least possibly true and valid.

I can tell when someone is paying less attention to its content than I am even as that someone flails at the idea. I don't see my real points addressed here, so I'll try again.

If you don't know all the ways a thing happened, you simply cannot assign a probability to its existence.
There is no magic "combinatorial" model for assigning meaningful probabilities to the occurrence of complex objects. They almost never happen by jumping together all at once from tiny elements. No one thinks they do.
You should really think before posting that "billion billion" strawman again.

Such men as Chaitin, Yockey, von Neumann, Hoyle, et al., have advanced trenchant arguments against it.

You'll never rebut abiogenesis flaunting mathematicians and a crackpot astronomer. The field has a real subject area, real experts, real studies, a real literature. If you're going to be the one who destroys it, you can't bypass that. There is no shortcut.

Real thinking on (the first replicator, the first cell, the first anything complex):

Bootstrapped from simpler but similar forms.
Employs sub-assemblies which can be stable or semi-stable. "Half a cell is dead and will decompose" is another strawman.
Massive parallelism of experiment.
Retains successes.
Lots of time available.

That kind of thing.

Also I note that there's nothing in Darwinist evolutionary theory that says anything about the origin of life, as you have already pointed out. Why, then, do so many of the same people who accept Darinist theory insist that life got statrted by abiogenesis?

Not a lot of alternatives there, really. Raelians and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

If you don't know all the ways a thing happened, you simply cannot assign a probability to its existence.

If you don't know all the ways a thing COULD HAVE happened... blah blah.

The actual probability of a thing has to be the sum of the probabilities of every individual possible way. It certainly isn't the result of picking the silliest as the sum.

I was crediting you with more growth than that. ;)

You seem a bit conflicted here. Your free will is an illusion, meat-puppet. Your own words convict you.

LOLOL VadeRetro!!! I am LMAO here! You so funny!

Jeepers, if you really want to play, just bear in mind that I'm not a determinist! :^)

You evidently credited yourself with INDEPENDENTLY finding, as a teenager, that the world is "determined." Have you learned nothing since? Or did you just turn 21?

I really do hope to hear more from you, VadeRetro, on this subject!