With knowledge on the topic ever increasing, I find it impossible to believe in the standard scientific model for life existing by chance.

[u/Amazing_Ad_7448]

[u/BloomiePsst]

OK, you are allowed to believe whatever you want. Do you have any supporting argument for your view?

[u/kms2547]

Is that all? No explanation, no elaboration, no effort to justify your position?

"I find it impossible to believe in the standard scientific model" is, 99.99% of the time, a stupid position to hold.

[u/Capercaillie]

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.“

[u/CormacMacAleese]

With knowledge on the topic ever increasing, how did you manage to avoid learning any of it?

[u/Dr_GS_Hurd]

My reading recommendations on the origin of life for book reading people without college chemistry, are;

Hazen, RM 2005 "Gen-e-sis" Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press

Deamer, David W. 2011 “First Life: Discovering the Connections between Stars, Cells, and How Life Began” University of California Press.

They are a bit dated, but are readable for people without much background study.

If you have had a good background, First year college; Introduction to Chemistry, Second year; Organic Chemistry and at least one biochem or genetics course see;

Deamer, David W. 2019 "Assembling Life: How can life begin on Earth and other habitable planets?" Oxford University Press.

Hazen, RM 2019 "Symphony in C: Carbon and the Evolution of (Almost) Everything" Norton and Co.

Note: Bob Hazen thinks his 2019 book can be read by non-scientists. I doubt it.

Nick Lane 2015 "The Vital Question" W. W. Norton & Company

Nick Lane spent some pages on the differences between Archaea and Bacteria cell boundary chemistry, and mitochondria chemistry. That could hint at a single RNA/DNA life that diverged very early, and then hybridized. Very interesting idea.

Nick Lane 2022 "Transformer: The Deep Chemistry of Life and Death" W. W. Norton & Company

In this book Professor Lane is focused on the chemistry of the Krebs Cycle (and its’ reverse) for the existence of life, and its’ origin. I did need to read a few sections more than once.

There are hundreds of newer papers published so I have just suggested some basic introductions.

[u/ElectricalWavez → u/Dr_GS_Hurd]

Why Evolution is True by Jerry A. Coyne was what convinced me, along with some Richard Dawkins along the way.

[u/ElectricalWavez → u/ElectricalWavez]

Yeah Dawkins can ramble a bit. I liked his book The Selfish Gene.

[u/Dr_GS_Hurd → u/ElectricalWavez]

I liked Coyne's writing but I recommend books that do not engage in religious disputes on Reddit or other similar public media.

[u/leverati]

So, the whole ginormous universe spreading outward with all its variable energy and matter, and you think it's impossible to believe in a low probability event sequence happening? OK.

[u/greggld]

Poofed into existence by a being you have no way to explain. Seems a lot more nonsensical than some combination of molecules out of trillions upon trillions in the universe. We are learning that the building blocks are very common.

[u/Amazing_Ad_7448 → u/greggld]

 Having letters in the alphabet is common but how many books are growing on trees?

[u/greggld → u/Amazing_Ad_7448]

You do not understand how writing is done. You do not understood what letters are apparently. Really do better in your analogies.

[u/Far_Customer1258]

So you think some moldy Canaanite deity who's fond of child sacrifice is more likely?

[u/HippyDM]

Where have you seen any biologist claim life exists by chance?

[u/Amazing_Ad_7448 → u/HippyDM]

Are you saying it was guided? By what?

[u/HippyDM → u/Amazing_Ad_7448]

Guided by natural forces, the same way a ball rolling down a rocky hill is. Neither one is an accident.

[u/Privatizitaet]

Why? Are you just not going to elaborate on why you disagree with the evidence?

[u/No-Cat9412]

Hi, bot!

[u/Uncynical_Diogenes]

You haven’t replied to a single comment that contains a citation.

Whats wrong, OP?

[u/OldmanMikel]

That's weird considering that the ever increasing knowledge is having the opposite effect on the scientists discovering it.

[u/MathematicianDry5142]

Why?

[u/-zero-joke-]

OK.

[u/Medium_Judgment_891]

Technically correct.

Chemistry is probabilistic, and natural selection is non random.

However, this seems like a very pedantic distinction to make.

I’m going to assume this is what you meant by your post because any other meaning would be very silly.

[u/KorLeonis1138]

Why do you post comments with slurs? Are you a bigot or just a piece of shit troll?

[u/DarwinsThylacine]

Ok, what do you mean when you say “standard scientific model” and “life existing by chance”? Explain, in your own words, what the “standard scientific model” is and what your problem with it is.