whoknows

Prometheus, Thank you for taking the time. That is what the columns mean indeed. Incidence rates are calculated per 1,000 live births. The numbers are probably correct. They are from the WHO website. The test is to describe the correlation between changes in vaccination rates and changes in measles incidence (2nd-3rd column). The first column is added to show the correlation between baseline measles incidence and incidence changes over time. Given the fact that this correlation is much stronger than the one between vaccinations and measles incidence, I was wondering how justified it is to adjust for baseline incidence when we look a the relation between changes in vaccination and measles incidence during follow-up. I was thinking an effect from vaccinations would have to remain relevant when it is added as the second independent variable (next to baseline measles incidence) in a regression model. With changes in measles incidence as the dependent variable.

Prometheus, thank you for your reply I find it difficult to explain what I mean. Therefore, it would be better if I added my correlations. A bit of text is added to the Excel file where I try to explain what I mean. Hope this makes it more clear. question scienceforum.xlsx

Hello people, Using PSPP, I was doing some basic linear regressions. Examining the following correlation: I included data from over a 100 countries and looked at both baseline values and values 15 years later. Calculating the differences in value for both the independent and dependent variable. Plotting them in a graph. Results were as follows: A weak R-squared value which was highly significant nonetheless (P = < 0.0001). With a negative trendline. No confounding was detected from other variables. I found a "strong" correlation between baseline values of the dependent variable and it's successive changes in values during the 15-year follow-up period. The R-squared values was > 0.7. There was a positive correlation: Higher changes during follow-up were related to higher baseline values. My problem is as follows: Most values for the dependent variable dropped over the 15-year follow-up period. When I added baseline values for the dependent variable to the model, there was no noteworthy correlation left between the independent- and dependent variable (P for sig: > 0.50). Would it be correct to assume the negative correlation between independent- and dependent variable were (probably) caused by the strong correlation between the 2 values for the dependent variable? Subgroup analyses of the correlation between the independent- and dependent variable after 15 years showed the following: -Decreases in values for the independent variable were not linked to changes of the dependent variable. -Increases in values for the dependent variable were not linked to changes of the independent variable. .

Don't give me this. Which of the questions in my opening post has been answered? Show me. Who is more ignorant? The person answering a question or the person insisting the question has been answered, but who is unable to answer the question when asked? So we agree we don't have an answer to any of the questions in my opening post? Finally. For this resets the starting point: We allready knew it is impossible to form protein under plausible early Earth conditions. But the lack of answers to my questions shows we don't even have a valid theory for how it could have occurred. Which hypotheses exist for any (part) of the 3 points I made?

If there were a logic explanation, why can't my simple and 100% valid questions (from a scientific perspective) be answered? My questions are derived from scientific logical thinking. And is there any logic if it goes against all we know about basic Chemistry? You are kidding me. You have no idea whatsoever how any of these can be explained: ​1) Formation of protein, carbohydrates, fatty acid vesicles under plausible prebiotic conditions. 2) The formation of any single component of a cell. 3) The formation of a cell and the interaction between the different parts of it. So you've explained "everything" except for this. Tell me what is left. What has been explained according to you? And by explained I mean what can scientists create under plausible early Earth conditions? So explain to me what has been experimentally created under plausible prebiotic conditions. The basic starting point is the complex mixture of thousands of different molecules formed under simulated early Earth conditions. Please explain how we go from here. For this is your basic setting. Quit the nonsense about ignorance/dishonesty for you don't have a clue how to go from here. Not a single clue. Prove me wrong and show me how we go from the complex mixture to a protein. Everybody agrees. I am just showing there is no experimentational evidence proving the way we got here.

So which molecules do the clay "things" select? And what does that mean? Does the clay attach to a specific molecule or does the clay only let specific molecules enter the clay? Which molecules would that be? Does clay chiralise things? To what extent? The micellular formation idea has exactly the same drawbacks as the idea that protein could have been formed by amino acids on early Earth. Energy added to molecules in the early atmosphere would not only form tiny amounts of amino acids, but also tiny amounts of carboxylic/fatty acids. Again: surrounded by thousands of other types of molecules. Not only amino acids but also carboxylic acids can only form chains in high concentrations of almost pure mixtures of the molecules needed to form the chain. This would prohibit formation of fatty acid vesicles. What does a theoretical increase in the possibility of synthesizing smaller molecules have to do with the odds that any specific molecules will be selected for inclusion in a chain of molecules? I don't see an answer to any of the questions I ask. All that is given are theories about how molecules could have been attached to one another in order to form chains. Nothing has to do with the way unneeded molecules would be eliminated from a complex mixture of thousands of diferent molecules. I don't state our laws would be sufficient. That's part of my points. Scientists explain abiogenesis using the laws we know. These laws (at least for now) reject the possibility abiogenesis could have occurred using the explanations given to date. Being life formed from simple chemicals under the conditions examined. If current experimentation and observation rejects the idea. The idea should not be educated and we should be honest: Teaching people/children we don't have the slightest idea how abiogenesis occurred.

What exactly is your point? Does it answer any of my questions or disprove anything I state in post #47? If so, please explain that. Do you see what you are doing here? First you state: "You should not make assumptions like that. You are using your 'knowledge' from current chemistry to debunk something that happened billions of years ago in an environment which is mostly unknown." But then you ignore this statement by telling me how DNA probably evolved on an early Earth. We don't know the atmosphere on early Earth. But we do know the amino acids arose from a carbon source (CO, CO2 or CH4), a hydrogen source (H2 or H2O), and a nitrogen source (N2 or NH3). I don't see any substantial differences in experimental molecules created by these sources. Quantities of molecules and their diversity may differ. But all experiments produce a large mixture of different molecules in tiny quantities when exposed to an energy source. From that perspective, my question would be: Is there any reason to assume basic Chemistry would have been under differential natural laws on the early Earth? I agree with you that quantum mechanichs may create a better picture of what happened. Not will, but may.

Reading seems to be very hard for you people. Again: where did I state I am a creationist? A scientists evaluates both the strengths and weaknesses of a hypothesis, before accepting them as a probable theory. This is exactly what I am doing.

"There is no point sticking his head in the sand though". I a merely showing the flaws in the hypothesis. Flaws not disproven by any of you. So who is sticking his head in the sand then? "There are explanations out there that seriously alter the values put on those probabilities he has waving about." What is keeping you form pointing them out. Your remark with possible clay catalysts has nothing to do with the chance probabilities of which molecules are included when 100 molecules are lined up to form a chain consisting of 100 different molecules, does it?

The 1x 10 and other probabilities are as they are. Clays have nothing to do with the odds. Even if the clays would somehow catalyze reactions, how would they influence what molecule binds to the amino acid? Your remark has to do with the conditions I mentioned in #47, not with the chance probabilities one specific amino acid will bind to another molecule. That's all you can do, is it not? Giving stupid remarks without being able to answer any of my questions. And without disproving any of the points I am making. I have respect for people who want to discuss the topic. But less so for people who are here to flame others.

Life "formed" by chemicals under early Earth conditions has nothing to do with my personal beliefs. The sum of Chemistry and statistics disproves it. This is something else. Of course, I applaud experiments to see how life first began. But scientists will have to take a different approach.

I am not giving an alternative. But hanging on to a "hypothesis" that goes against basic Chemistry and statistics seems nonsensical to me.

I think you are missing the point. In theory, amino acids are assumed to join. But this is not observed in the primary experiments where complex mixtures of thousands of different molecules are formed in micromolar concentrations. The mixture does not (practical experiment) and cannot (in theory) by any means form protein because a) the non-amino acids disrupt the process, b) water hydrolyzes any potentially formed peptides, c) reactive molecules take the place of amino acids in the chain, or end the chain, and d) there are requirements for the availability and amount of energy needed to form the chain. If you were somehow able to form a short peptide chain (5-6 amino acids), it would be available in minuscule amounts (nanomol/L), and it would be a racemic mixture of left- and righthanded amino acids in a soup of other molecules. Again, I ask the question: Is there any place on Earth where we could drop amino acids to show their synthesis to protein? Do you understand the required environmental conditions, I pointed out? The origin of DNA and RNA is well understood? Do you know how their building block could be formed and synthesized under prebiotic conditions? It is the same as with the protein. Some pyrimidines/purines will be formed in micromolar amounts together with thousands of other different molecules under early Earth conditions. The same goes for carboxylic acids assumed to have been the basis for a fatty acid vesicle (aka a primitive cell). They will not link to a chain, for they cannot form a chain. And yes, the pyrimidines/purines will also be a racemic mixture. Check what I wrote about protein. The same goes for the other complex building blocks.

Incorrect. I am saying the abiotic model used to explain life originating from chemicals fails.

Where did you get those ideas? I am saying chemistry does not allow protein synthesis from the abiotic early Earth model. Not by any tiny plausible chance. People don't seem to understand the conditions needed for protein synthesis to take place and don't know what the results from early Earth chemical experiments mean. But how can they be blamed if the scientists themselves make unrealistic assumptions and publish their results as if there were any proof for possible abiotic cell formation. Let's say that we want a fairly simple protein, 100 amino acids long and built from 10 different amino acids. Regardless if we want that specific protein to be formed, or if we want to calculate the odds that one duplicate protein from a fictional existing protein could be formed. The odds would be calculated as 1 x 10​100 , which allready is a very small number. An estimate for the total amount of atoms on Earth is 1,33 x 10​50. Showing the odds for it happenning on Earth are allready pretty much nonexisting. People than refer to the Universal probability bound which is defined as: "A degree of improbability below which a specified event of that probability cannot reasonably be attributed to chance regardless of whatever probabilitistic resources from the known universe are factored in" The estimated number for the bound is 1 x 10​150 . A chance smaller than this would be unreasonable to assume to be possible anywhere, ever in the known Universe. But the number 1 x 10​100 for the protein synthesis gives a much higher chance you say? You could say protein synthesis under these assumptions would be unlikely, but could possibly happen somewhere in the Universe. And that somehwere would happen to be planet Earth? But the chance of 1 x 10​100 of the specific required protein to be formed is totally unrealistic. ​​Early Earth experiments show that: 1) Racemic mixtures of amino acids are formed. 2) Amino acids are formed in a liquid mixture in the presence of thousands of other molecules. All in tiny (micromolar) concentrations. 3) Other reactive molecules (unneeded amino acids, amines, and carboxylic acids) containing a -NH2 or -COOH group are formed in quantities higher than the amino acids. A ratio of 3:1 for other reactive molecules to amino acids has been published. Possibly 3x in amount and in different forms. The racemic mixture doubles the amount of different amino acids available --> 20 x 10​100 = 1.27 x 10​130 different proteins possible. The presence of 3x as much other reactive molecules gives us 40 different possibly reactive molecules. This number becomes 80 doubled in the racemic mixture. --> 80 x 10​100 = 2.04 x 10​190 different molecules possible using a chain of only 100 parts. A number trillions and trillions of times smaller than the Universal probability bound. You may argue the calculations and number used. And say the number should be smaller. Let's assume some flaws in the reasoning. Say you downplay the number to a chance of "only" one in 1 x 10​100 . Then I would ask you what the odds would be for the formation of only 2 identical proteins. It would be the product of the number used: 1 x 10​200 . Or I would ask what the odds would be for a protein found in a living cell, consisting of all 20 amino acids in a chain of 1,000 amino acids. The chance would be unimaginably small. And we only would be talking about one single protein. Including one additional protein decreases the odds of formation by the product of these chances. And a living cell can include thousands of different proteins. Each different protein adds the product of it's chance of formation. The odds of a thousand different wanted molecules formed under the conditions mentioned would be a 1,000 x the product of 1 x 10​100 , or a chance of 1 in 1 x 10​100000 . Non-peptide bonds. Various molecules can react with the wanted protein by forming non-peptide bonds. In thas sence, the amount of possible reactive molecules is much larger than given in the examples above. Including these numbers (I have no idea how large), will most probably dramatically increase the diversity of the potentially created molecules in a 100-part molecule. The chance of obtaining the wanted protein decreasing by the same order of magnitude. The environmental conditions for a protein to be formed, further decrease the odds dramatically, by multiples of orders of magnitude. Many conditions would need to be met for protein synthesis: -The continuous presence of the needed amino acids at the right time and place. This would be hindered to a large extend by the sheer presence of the thousands of types of other (non-reactive) molecules synthesized in prebiotic experiments. -The a) continuous presence of b) the right amount of energy needed to form peptide bonds. -The (near) absence of water. -The correct pH, heat and possibly mineral content or unknown other environmental factors. This is the reason I asked if anybody knows one single place on Earth where amino acids can be dropped, in response to which we could observe protein synthesis. I doubt that such a place exists. Summary: the odds of one single simple protein built from 10 different amino acids in a chain of 100 amino acids. In a prebiotic Earth experiment mixture it is the product of these three chances: a) One in 2.04 x 10​190 . b) The chance of formation of non-peptide bonds. c) The chance of finding a location where amino acids can readily form proteins. We are talking about a simple protein which is not even folded the right way to become biologically active. A protein which is supposed to remain stable under various conditions. What these numbers show: There is not even the tiniest of a plausible chance protein could have been synthesized from the raw building blocks supposedly available on the early Earth.

It is not about "unanswered questions". Peptides can form from high concentrations of amino acids. Not from mixtures of thousands of different molecules. Do you truly think there may be a mechanism that would eliminate the thousands of non-amino acid molecules from the mixture, leaving amino acids only? And that would only be the beginning. For a fatty acid vesicle to be formed, the same problem would need to be fixed. From a mixtures of thousands of different molecules, all non-fatty/carboxylic acids would have to be eliminated, leaving carboxylic acids only. The same seems to apply for more building blocks, including pyrimidines/purines. It is inconceivable for it goes against basic chemistry. Key words are: go against! Not: there seem to be some problems. Then, all mixtures, containing (almost) purely these building blocks, would need to reach far higher concentrations (thousans/millionfold), for complexer molecules of a higher order to be formed. And the instable mixtures would need to combine. Still, this would give us nothing, for the combination of only one single protein, a fatty acids vesicle in a form not observed in nature and a chain of pyrimidines/purines is far from what would is observed at even early stages of life. Mail an expert in chemistry to see how he thinks an early Earth mixture of thousands of molecules could get rid of all non-amino acid molecules, leaving amino acids only. You will see it is beyond what can be imagined.

I cannot explain it.

Thanx, but this does not answer my questions. At some moment in the past, protein was available. It does not matter at what moment you thought it would be available. Neither does it matter if protein was synthesized before or after first life appeared. For it would need to have been available before it could be selected by evolutionary means. Biologically functional (folded) protein from left-handed amino acids only. And there is no conceivable way how this could have been synthesized from simple molecules under prebiotic conditions. Even if we forgot biological funtionality and the fact that protein is built from left-handed amino acids, it is still inconceivable how protein could have been formed in any relevant amounts and would have been kept stable. People often assume the needed amino acids were readily available in sufficient amount and could have synthesized to protein without much trouble. This is far from the truth in all it's aspects. Chemistry says it cannot be done under realistic conditions.

“They don't need to be favoured in pre-biotic conditions.” Protein synthesis from simpler compounds needs to be explained, since it obviously took place. Regardless of the moment anybody thinks it took place. “I understand it perfectly. It just happens to be a lie.” Again: then show me the experimental scenarios where protein was synthesized from simpler compounds thought to be available at that time. Regardless of the moment you believe protein was first synthesized. I’ll give you the answer. It cannot be done! Experiments done in 2016 with better equipment to examine synthesized molecules show that thousands of different molecules were formed in a perceived early atmosphere. All in micromolar concentrations. A complex brew without any peptides and chained fatty/carboxylic acids. Even if all the water would evaporate, it is inconceivable to even imagine this brew could link itself to the complex molecules needed for life. Which would be protein and/or fatty acid vesicles. Therefore, there is no theory. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26508401 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27896547 “Some of the questions regarding abiogenesis have plausible answers” Again and again I ask for the experimental evidence showing the plausibility. And always the same lack of an answer. “If you were honestly interested in science, you wouldn't have this "science knows nothing because there are some unanswered questions" attitude.” Then show me my attitude is incorrect by providing results from experimental studies. The amount of unanswered quesions is insane. Nothing can be explained. Absolutely nothing. Show me the evidence where any part of a single cell is created from chemicals. Any part. Even the building blocks (protein, complex carbohydrates, chained fatty acids) cannot be synthesized. And don’t forget the DNA, RNA, enzymes. What can be synthesized is amino acids or carboxylic acids amongst thousands of other molecules in a complex brew. Sorry, but I feel this random nonliving brew differs somewhat from a living cell. There is nothing between the brew and the cell. Nothing. Scientists don’t have a clue how to go from there. “Instead, you might be asking what mechanisms might be possible, or what research could help us find these answers, or ...” It is inconceivable to imagine how thousands of molecules could be eliminated from the (an)organic brew leaving amino acids only. Then, at some point in time, these amino acids would need to be available in an insanely higher molar quantity. They would need to eliminate all the right-handed isomers. Need to link to each other the right way. And the protein would need to fold/become biologically active. Even if this absurd miracle would take place, it would only show the availability of one single unstable protein molecule. Which would hydrolyse to amino acids on contact with water and at the same time would loose biological activity on missing contact with water. See the complexity here? “But instead you have the typical Creationist attitude of "we don't know therefore it is impossible [therefore my god did it]". That is simplistic, naive and appears to be dishonest. You are clearly anti-science and almost certainly a Creatinist. I'm not sure why so many of you hide behind the "I was only asking questions" smoke screen. Do you think it makes you appear charmingly naive? It doesn't. It just makes you appear duplicitous and dishonest. ” Please quit the blah blah dishonest, creationist thingy over and over again. And show the experimental evidence proving me wrong. “So, if you reject any scientific hypotheses and research related to abiogenesis, and you are not a Cretinist, how do you explain the existence of life?” How would I know? I cannot remember being there when it happened. I am only showing you there is no science to back up your theory. Not “unanswered question”. But we don’t have the slightest clue since it goes agains what organic science shows us. Experiments disprove the theory and observations do not exist. Mind the words “goes AGAINST what organic science shows us”. Organic science destroys the abiotic model all by itself. “I think the chirality of these evolving molecules can be influenced by clays. I read it recently and saw a documentary that shows that much of this early replication of chiral longer chain self replicating molecules were catalized by having the reactions taking place in the interstitial layers between the sheets of clay. It was all very plausible and I have seen chirality influenced first hand by seeing reactions taking place between the layers in graphite sheets. As has been said several times above - no one knows exactly what happened (yet) but we are getting closer to fully understanding it.” I understand the chirality balance can change to a certain degree. But have not read a scientific article showing plausible circumstances without intelligent aid from researchers. I will show you a few flaws in research design: 1) Amino acids can be synthesized in micromolar quantities among a mixture of thousands of other molecules synthesized from the experimental design. 2) Then researchers show how simpler peptides (up to about 6 in chain I think) can be formed from high molar concentations of amino acids. 3) Right there research stops. The barrier to a) synthesize protein b) from all left-handed amino acids and c) the protein becoming biologically active is beyond what scientists can even imagine under plausible prebiotic circumstances (or circumstances at a later moment in time). Tiny amounts of short-chain peptides could be synthesized. But the experimental flaws are obvious: -The thousands of other molecules would have to disappear from the brew containing amino acids. Many molecules that would react with the amino acids preferably, prohibiting peptide synthesis. -The amino acids would need to be available in quantities millions of times higher. This is where our knowledge comes to an end. I fear the same problems would arise with all other steps to “synthesize/create” a cell. And at one moment all these impossibilities are presumed to have been present at the same time. “I guess that until it is sorted and fully understood we will be continuously plagued by people that have their own unsupported 'theories' of creation. I personally have to be careful of not being a hypocrite here - I used to argue from the other perspective and used to be a creationist due to my (past) belief in a god. Therefore, I understand how people can be fooled by this - I felt pretty darn stupid really, but I forgive myself, I can see how it is easy to get locked into a belief system, especially when it is upheld and supported by the word of so many people.” I don’t know what to believe. Currently, I am studying the abiotic synthesis and see it completely fails to explain protein synthesis. Maybe that would need to be the conclusion from interpreting science: cells cannot be “synthesized” from chemicals. This would leave us with a big gap in knowledge. But I prefer a gap over false interpretations of science. I am glad to see you have a more sceptical mind than many abiogenesis-believers. Which sometimes seems to be a religion on it’s own. I don’t want anyone to believe in anything. Just show where science stands. Not at a place where some questions remain open. But at a place where we need to get from a chemical goo to a single protein.

“That is one of the easiest to answer. Why do you think it is a problem? Did it say that on some Creationist website you saw?” I read the scientific literature. Several experiment were performed where amino acids were synthesized. Always both left- and righthanded forms are synthesized. Show me an experiment where only the left-handed form is synthesized under plausible prebiotic conditions, if you think otherwise. “So you admit that there are multiple, plausible, possibilities for some of the steps required. That is not "zero".” What about “There is zero scenario” do you not understand? “We have two models for gravity; that doesn't mean we have no theory of gravity.” With 2 models there is a choice. We have no model for prebiotic protein synthesis. Please show me experiments were protein is synthesized under plausible prebiotic conditions, if you think otherwise. Researchers cannot do it. “Stop it. Just repeating something doesn't make it true. http://www.talkorigi...iginoflife.html” Where in the article are my questions answered? “You are the one that believes a mythical character did it all.” Pleas quote me where I state that. I am only asking quesions. You are making assumptions on that, not I. “I have already admitted that we don't have all the answers. As anyone with the slightest knowledge of science would know, that doesn't prove that your god did it.” Sofar, there are zero answers. “We don’t have all the answers” suggests some were answered. "Actually, we do have several clues" Then show me the experiments or the observations. "Not knowing everything is not the same as knowing nothing". Not having a clue comes close, doesn't it? Experiments have failed. And no current observations give any credibility to the theory. Please answer the quesions in my first post, if you feel otherwise. "Well, you clearly aren't interested in the scientific approach so that only leaves ..." Do you have a clue what science is? --> Observation and experimentation. And with each question, I am asking for???? O right, for observation and experiments............... How unscientific of me. "And your repeated lies and straw man arguments are also symptomatic of being a Creationist" Quote my lies and correct them using the scientific method then.

So, we finally got to the point to admit we don't have a clue. That was all I was asking for. Since there are no current observations we can make and since organic chemistry cannot produce the proteins under any realistic early earth scenario, the abiotic synthesis idea cannot be a theory. Not even a hypothesis. It is merely wishing it to be true. Please quote me where I state god did it.

"There are various publications that speculate how relatively simple chemistry could lead to replicating molecules" I am not asking for speculations. I am asking for observations in nature and result from experimental studies in chemistry. Scientific attempts have failed. Chemistry is unable to create protein from the molecules thought to have been available in the prebiotic atmosphere. Only amino acids and tiny amounts of simpler peptides have been found. No protein. No explanation for chirality/racemic mixtures of amino acids. Than there's the protein folding problem. "Do you understand that having a dominance of one isomer over another is just because of selective processes". What is unavailable cannot be selected. Chemistry can only create racemic mixtures of amino acids under plausible prebiotic circumstances. I am no asking about isomers and whatever theory you have about them or about peptides. Protein is what we observe so protein is what needs to be explained. Irrelevant at what stage of life/early Earth you assume it would have been present. So assume your theory would be correct. There was simple peptide built from D and L-isomer amino acids. How could this have led to biologically functional protein built from L-isomer amino acids? "Sure, we do not not with certainty how it happened" Sorry, but we don't have an idea what happened. That's something else! Not knowing with certainty what has happened means there are several possible scenarios we have to choose from. There is zero scenario. Let's be honest about that. "And no, I do not need to present a complete model of all steps that may or may not have happened. Rather I would like to see that you propose something that has more explanatory power than we currently have. At least that would be educational." Agreed, you do not need to present a complete model of all steps that may or may not have happened. But science should have a large set of possible plausible scenarios based on both observation and experimentation. What I want to make clear, is that there is no model. Experiments fail. Observations fail. Is there a theory or even a hypothesis when science fails? I don't have an idea about how it could have gone as well. How could I? Thank you for your time to give me a serious answer instead of the religion finger from people that get a Pavlov reaction when someone even thinks about showing them the flaws in their theory. "So what? "I don't know" does not prove that your god did it." Only in your head. Only in your head ​"Not true." So you do have an answer to at least some of the questions I had? Then please answer them: Where in the non-living nature can we observe: Protein synthesis? Protein? Protein consisting of laevorotary amino acids only? Biologically functioning protein? Amino acids/peptides in quantities sufficient to build protein? Places containing laevorotary amino acids/peptides only? The availability of all amino acids necessary for life? Where in the non-living nature can we dump amino acids/peptides and show their synthesis to protein? I know how you are probably going to answer. Giving me some personal retoric again. So you don't have to look into the matter. Am I wrong? Just be honest and acknowledge that you don't have a clue as well. It doesn't make anything less.

All kinds of retoric in order to conceal the fact that you don't have an answer to any of my questions? Check! That's the mirror I am holding up to you. I really don't care how you feel about me showing the assumptions we have regarding the appearance of protein on Earth need a lot of requirements. Every single requirement never observed on its own. Let alone the sum of these. Are you clairvoyant? Then you are doing a horrible job. I have little else than scientific books and comics. What does all this have to do with the questions I ask except show us you don't have an answer? I am happy to see at least some others who are able to see through the unscienfitic assumptions regarding the regular theory. Cheers!

Do you really find any of the questions in my opening post "dishonest"? And "you would have shown me the answers........" You don't fool me. You can ignore me if you want. But take the time to try to answer any of the "dishonest" questions in my opening post. Do it for yourself. Be honest and see how many you can answer.

Why do you feel the need to degrade me? Have you answered any of my question? No. You are making a few statements in this post. Please show me the evicence: -Where are the many places on earth where we can find amino acids in molar concentrations sufficient to synthesize protein? -Where in non-cellular-life nature can we find protein? And you do know how science works? Please explain environmental needs for protein synthesis in prebiotic/early life. Has anybody been able to anwer any of my questions, sofar. No. Are your attempts to degrade me the only reply you have? Is it so hard for you to see that you don't have a clue what you are talking about? I am only showing the enormous gaps there are in a small part of the abiogenesis hypothesis. Thank you for proving my point. There is no knowledgeability. If you knew you were right and worked from a scientific idea, you could have easily pointed me to scientific studies showing me wrong. 9,500 posts and this is how you react when faced with the fact that you cannot answer any single one of the questions in my opening post. Acting like a child.