Most likely, yes.
How do you know that? Please show how this is “most likely”.
Of course it’s a difficult problem. We’re trying to reconstruct a sequence of events which happened almost 4.5 billion years ago and left virtually no physical evidence. That doesn’t mean we throw up our hands and say “too hard! Just declare GODDIDIT and go have a beer”.
1 Like
Without this the event if it occurred which is very rare would not sustain itself.
That’s what it means when it isn’t self-sustaining. LOL
But why would it need to be?
Make a case where it was not that resulted in what we are observing.
Why does this matter? Maybe all the people your quoting are flat out wrong?
2 Likes
So you know it because I haven’t made that case to you, is that what you’re saying?
Once again Bill makes a claim he can’t back up then attempts to shift the burden of proof. 
I am saying given the evidence and what we know it’s a logical conclusion. If the event is rare and not sustainable we would probably have no evidence of it given that it occurred 4 billion years ago.
Every. Single. Time.
One way how it may matter is that skepticism about abiogenesis is far more valid a position than skepticism about common descent, and there for more common…
Is that your point?
What beautiful collection of claims.
Why is everyone objecting to this? It seems to be entirely valid.
1 Like
No one is objecting to it. The objection is to Bill’s claim the earliest stages of life had to be self-sustaining.
Yes, I take the concept “self-sustaining” to imply, for example, that the first forms of cellular life could biosynthesize all their own components like modern autotrophs from simple environmental precursors like H2 and CO. But if, as indicated by some of the evidence I cited above, the first organisms picked up some of their amino acids from the environment, then that would contradict the claim that it was a self-sustaining autotroph.
So it isn’t clear that first life having to be self-sustaining in that sense is a requirement. If another sense of the word self-sustaining was meant, that would have to be assessed on it’s own merits of course.
So it isn’t clear that first life having to be self-sustaining in that sense is a requirement. If another sense of the word self-sustaining was meant, that would have to be assessed on it’s own merits of course.
Living organisms that we observe are self sustaining. Whatever the process that got them to that point. It is an exceedingly difficult challenge describing a step by step collection of simple precursors that resulted in what we are observing.
Again, so? That doesn’t mean the earliest stages of life had to be self-sustaining. The chemical reactions which produced the first prebiotic molecules in the beginning stages of life almost certainly weren’t self sustaining but required inputs of energy and materials from the environment.
Again, so?
It matters because Tour wrote “We know…” I’m simply supplying some quotes by others in the know. Tour is not the only one making these claims. The next step in the process is to examine the evidence that caused these different scientists to make these claims. I asked Mikkel if he knew about the the discovery Hoyle made that shook his atheism to the core. Mikkel has no interest in looking at the evidence. He made some remark about “Hoyle’s howlers” but the discovery he made earned his co-researcher a Nobel Prize. It’s hardly an insignificant discovery in the history of science. If Mikkel is not interested in looking at the evidence, there’s nothing I can do about it.
Where is your evidence Tour or the others “in the know” are correct? All they offered was ignorance based personal incredulity. All you’re doing is repeating their ignorance based claims.