>>13905223>Attacking the source is not an argument. Thanks for admitting your video is bullshit.It's not my video? I am someone else and yes attacking your shitty blog is totally acceptable because it's a shitty blog and not a real source.
>OORT is not abiogenesisTry reading the paper. It genuinely is. It's the stage between oiligomers randomly forming by chance to the replication and translation stage. That encompasses abiogenesis in it's entirety, there is nothing else. Even wikipedia blatantly says abiogen encompasses the beginning molecules all the way to the emergence of cell walls. If you want to play semantics and claim abiogen is fulfilled merely when simple replication begins then you are still wrong because the first replicaiton is included in OORT by Koonin's definition, thus OORT could not "occur after it"... you very obviously didn't read or didn't understand the paper.
The rest of your opinions goes into the trash on this gross misunderstanding alone.
>The "paradoxes" he discusses are not paradoxes, merely unknown mechanismsThis meaningless statement amounts to nothing but "nuh uh" One could mindlessly claim any paradox just has some "unknown mechanism" making the word paradox meaningless. He clearly laid out why they are paradoxes. Just because you don't understand him and can't create a counter argument does not mean they are not valid paradoxes.
>There is no reason self-polymerizing nucleotides can't act as their own proteins and genetic templates simultaneouslyProve they can. Oh can't do it? That's what I thought. Your entire nonsense excuse is that you have a faith based belief that a mechanism can work a certain way that supports your narrative but you can't even prove it works that way, it's just faith/wishful thinking that one exists and it works that way.
>An apt analogy would be languagehaha I stopped reading. No sense making an analogy for unproven baseless guesses of yours which you don't even understand.
