There is still NO scientifically plausible theory of how life could have emerged

Home Forums Science & tech There is still NO scientifically plausible theory of how life could have emerged

Viewing 29 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #124204
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Just a reminder that there is still NO scientifically plausible theory of how life could have emerged from the primordial soup.

    • #124205
      Anonymous
      Guest

      why are RNA world and lipid vesicle protocells not scientifically plausible?

      • #124211
        Anonymous
        Guest

        because they arevin tjermodynamic equlibrium
        I personally prefer the "metabolism-first" theory with the origin on white smokers (hydrotermal vents)

        • #124212
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >arevin tjermodynamic
          *are in thermodynamic equilibrium
          goddamit

      • #124232
        Anonymous
        Guest

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQrCsPrh11M
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ5jh33OiOA
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfq5-i8xoIU
        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

        >why are RNA world and lipid vesicle protocells not scientifically plausible?
        There are insane paradoxes that must be overcome by some unknown means for that hypothesis to work
        https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-2-15

        Make a better one then

        You are 2nd from top left in pic related

        • #124233
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >All this is not to suggest that OORT is a problem of "irreducible complexity" and that the systems of replication and translation could not emerge by means of biological evolution. It remains possible that a compelling evolutionary scenario is eventually developed and, perhaps, validated experimentally.
          Thanks for proving our point.
          Unless we come up with a more compelling hypothesis than MUH MULTIVERSE or MUH DESIGNER, we’ll stick with abiogenesis.

          • #124234
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >Thanks for proving our point.
            Denial is one hell of a drug
            The topic of this thread was no plausible explanation for abiogenesis. The link I gave that went very far over your head explains that there is in fact no current plausible explanation due to multiple unresolved paradoxes he laid out that exist within the current abiogenesis hypothesis (more particularly, the OORT aspects as he defined them). Your own poor choice of quote selection blatantly illustrates this when he merely says it "perhaps" could be experimentally validated. ie it hasn’t been and it’s just an unproven hypothesis.
            The "MUH MULTIVERSE" is an alternative that the author says should be taken seriously. The fact that you imply it’s nonsense on is just reaffirming that your own current belief is equal nonsense. Your hypothesis is not "more compelling" whatsoever, which is why the author wrote the paper giving an alternative hypothesis he verbatim said should be taken seriously.

            The author is making a huge cope that you quoted btw so thanks for bringing it up. He says it’s not a matter of irreducible complexity because it "perhaps" could be "validated experimentally." Hilarious. He has no reason to say it doesn’t boil down to irreducible complexity other than wishful thinking. He even says anything is possible in an infinite multiverse, so it’s meaningless to say it "remains possible" because he already said anything imaginable is possible. It could be less likely than throwing a deck of cards to the wind and having them land arranged in perfect order.

            >Unless we come up with a more compelling hypothesis
            >we’ll stick with abiogenesis
            care to explain those massive, unresolved paradoxes the author listed then or are you content with looking like a blissful fool by pretending something is "plausible" despite containing massive paradoxes? Can you even admit they are paradoxes?

            Like other anon , you are 2nd from the top left in pic related here

            […]
            >why are RNA world and lipid vesicle protocells not scientifically plausible?
            There are insane paradoxes that must be overcome by some unknown means for that hypothesis to work
            https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-2-15

            […]
            You are 2nd from top left in pic related

            • #124237
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >no plausible explanation
              close enough

              • #124238
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >sosocrates

              • #124245
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Then stop teaching abiogenesis in schools then yes? If you agree it’s not plausible and you likewise agree that if something is not plausible then it’s no different than religion then it should not be taught in schools yes?

                Blah blah blah all I’m reading is I’m in love with magic sky man
                Whatever we come up with as a possible explanation for abiogenesis, it will be better than your caveman fairytale nonsense

                go back to /poo/ you tourist

                >you are 2nd from the top left in pic related here
                Yes, I am
                The fact remains that on Earth, there was no life and then there was, and presumably the same for the whole universe (if we believe panspermia, we just shift the origin of life from the Earth oceans to somewhere else)
                Either life originated from non-living matter, or… Or what? There’s no other plausible explanation
                >muh deisgner
                Where did the designer come from etc.

                >Yes, I am
                So you acknowledge you don’t understand the scientific method. I agree.

                >Either life originated from non-living matter, or… Or what?
                The author is saying his hypothesis, as well as the other paradoxical "mainstream" one he is offering an alternative to (abiogenesis), both have life originating from non-living matter.
                ROFL even the Bible says some life originated from non-living matter.
                The question is how.

                >There’s no other plausible explanation
                you are begging the question that abiogenesis is a "plausible" explanation for life arising from inorganic matter. I directly asked if you, or any scrotebrain reading it, acknowledges the outlined paradoxes in that paper.
                As it stands abiogenesis is not plausible until those paradoxes are addressed and resolved. They never will be. All you’re doing is saying "there is no plausible explanation so we should believe my unplausible explanation because I feel like it"

                >Where did the designer come from etc.
                There is no "etc" here. You are asking a logically unnecessary question because you want to cling to your belief system instead of question it.
                There is nothing wrong with acknowledging abiogenesis is a failed hypothesis due to unresolved paradoxes and abiogenesis should be rejected outright. You are creating strawmen to circumvent this fact; making the fallacy that other options must be impossible so all we are left with is your understanding of abiogenesis, so it must be "truth". You are literally creating a false premise in the famous Sherlock Holmes pic related quote to justify your belief system. Nothing more.

                • #124248
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >not plausible
                  but it is

                  • #124251
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >too dumb to understand multiple unresolved paradoxes mean a hypothesis is "not plausible"
                    >posts anyway
                    >tries to think up catchy response
                    >"b-b-b-b-b-but it is plausible i promise!!?!!..!"
                    haha what a scrotebrain

                    What a terrible meme. Cringe as hell.

                    >ITSSSCRIIIINNNNGEEEEE
                    And you can’t point out a single thing wrong with it. Now go back

                    • #124265
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >haha what a scrotebrain
                      let me guess, you think angels did it

                      • #124274
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Not an argument.
                        It’s a pathetic, shameful mark of failure to resort to saying "y-y-yeah?? w-w-w-well you probably have a worse hypothesis than me!!!!" instead of actually being capable of defending your own.

                • #124252
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >There is nothing wrong with acknowledging abiogenesis is a failed hypothesis due to unresolved paradoxes and abiogenesis should be rejected outright.
                  So let’s replace it.
                  What with?

                  • #124256
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >So let’s replace it.
                    >What with?
                    rofl not my problem. If your best hypothesis falls flat on its face due to being riddled with paradoxes (according to the paper i linked) then the only thing that im required to do is point out its failure. You invent another theory. Good luck.

                    But of course you’re just being a little shit and cant even admit the hypothesis is failed. You’re only asking for a replacement hypothesis to disingenuously misdirect/dodge the issue because you can’t defend your own belief, so you’d rather go on the offense. It’s very obvious. And again, it’s where the meme above comes from. The ironic stupidity and failure to understand the scientific method when saying you need a better theory first before you reject a terrible one… most anons here are following it to a t.

            • #124239
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Blah blah blah all I’m reading is I’m in love with magic sky man
              Whatever we come up with as a possible explanation for abiogenesis, it will be better than your caveman fairytale nonsense

              • #124241
                Anonymous
                Guest

                all I’m reading is ooh ooh ooh aah aah aah I love bananas

                • #124243
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  I do, in fact, love bananas. They are my favorite fruit.

            • #124240
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >you are 2nd from the top left in pic related here
              Yes, I am
              The fact remains that on Earth, there was no life and then there was, and presumably the same for the whole universe (if we believe panspermia, we just shift the origin of life from the Earth oceans to somewhere else)
              Either life originated from non-living matter, or… Or what? There’s no other plausible explanation
              >muh deisgner
              Where did the designer come from etc.

        • #124249
          Anonymous
          Guest

          What a terrible meme. Cringe as hell.

        • #124297
          Anonymous
          Guest

          /thread

    • #124206
      Anonymous
      Guest

      theories about events that transpired in the distant past are early all fundamentally disprovable and completely unscientific.

      […]

      is <—-thataway

    • #124207
      Anonymous
      Guest
      • #124209
        Anonymous
        Guest

        wew lad
        abiogenesis =/= evolution

    • #124208
      Anonymous
      Guest
    • #124210
      Anonymous
      Guest

      *slurp* good soup *spoon clanks against bowl*

    • #124213
      Anonymous
      Guest

      And religious people have a completely stupid, obviously wrong, explanation of how life emerged. What’s your point?

      • #124214
        Anonymous
        Guest

        how does
        "in the beginning, god created everything"
        differ from
        "in the beginning, big bang created everything"?
        theres practically no difference, soience and gnomish bible fairy tales are nearly identical belief systems

        • #124216
          Anonymous
          Guest

          worse than that. it’s so obviously lifted from religion directly.

          • #124217
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >be catholic soientist
            >create big bang theory to explain how the universe existed
            >many decades later, some scrotebrain thinks atheist scientists copied le ebin bible
            cringe

        • #124218
          Anonymous
          Guest

          worse than that. it’s so obviously lifted from religion directly.

          >theres practically no difference, soience and gnomish bible fairy tales are nearly identical belief systems
          Let me correct both your thinking: Science produces tangible positive results.
          So then one has to look at the root tenets of each belief system to see why one produces results and the other does not.

          • #124220
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >Science produces tangible positive results.
            if thats the case then why did you feel the need to pair your post with a dishonest image that depicts the fantasy of science as reality?
            science can’t make cripple children walk, if that was possible then there wouldn’t be any crippled kids in wheelchairs, science would’ve cured them all.
            jesus is the guy famous for curing cripples, your image is essentially telling the same biblical fairy tale as the ones about jesus, its just crediting the cure to atheism instead of god. in both cases its a lie an nobody was cured of anything.
            NIH has been working on a "cure for cancer" for more than half a century, they’ve spent a trillion dollars on it, but have produced no results.

            • #124225
              Anonymous
              Guest

              What are you talking about? Science hasn’t solved everything yet is not an argument.

            • #124295
              Anonymous
              Guest

              The meme is a reference to the polio vaccine you dumb scrote.

          • #124224
            Anonymous
            Guest

            quintessential reddit post

          • #124228
            Anonymous
            Guest

            quintessential reddit post

            It’s kind of interesting sociological phenomenon that people will pretend to be scrotebrained to be contrarians against a (perceived) social group they don’t like.
            I wonder if this kind of stuff translates to real life behavior.
            I’m being entirely sincere.

          • #124242
            Anonymous
            Guest

            This is what a scientist looks like.

          • #124288
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >it is simple, really
            it is never simple.
            Science can be used to evaporate you, your family, and millions of people around you. Science can empower us, if it is used right, or cripple and sometimes just simply anihilate you if it’s used wrong.

          • #124299
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Results are meaningless, since each proposed truth needs to be independently evaluated.

            The theories invented by scientists regarding both the reason for existence or the emergence of consciousness are comical, and never any better than Greek mythology about Medusa and minotaurs… I genuinely don’t know how they get published. Materialists need to stick to the material domain and stop making idiotic metaphysical claims.

          • #124304
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Religion is the death of curiosity and thus what makes one really a human and a living person, everything is just god this god that good goy don’t question.

            • #124305
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >Religion is the death of curiosity
              >t. IFLS cultist

              • #124309
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >Does God exist?
                >Yes
                >Why?
                >Because God said so
                >What about the other gods?
                >Paganism, if you worship them you go to Hell
                >How do we know that’s true?
                >Because God said so
                Doesn’t sound like a very curious life to me

                • #124310
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Why are you vomoting your braindead IFLS cult strawmen at me?

            • #124324
              Anonymous
              Guest

              You could never disprove the existence of God no matter how curious you are. You could be the most curious person ever and still be religious.

        • #124219
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >in the beginning, big bang created everything
          Bit of a strawman because the big bang theory does not state that the big bang created everything. It merely states that that universe used to be in a denser state and expanded from that state. It doesn’t say anything about how everything got here.

          You can believe "God created everything" and "the universe used to be more compact and dense before it expanded" and not have those two beliefs conflict with one another.

          • #124221
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >You can believe "God created everything" and "the universe used to be more compact and dense before it expanded" and not have those two beliefs conflict with one another.
            They are nearly identical belief systems, why would they contradict each other? Scientific cosmology and biblical cosmology tell the same tale.

          • #124226
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Not that anon, but I would sincerely appreciate anyone who can point me to some theories as to why shit exists in the first place. Every argument I’ve seen falls back into a philosophical/religious explanation. While that’s reasonable given that we just can’t say for sure that we even have a start of a clue, I’d appreciate a logical reason for why matter decided to just exist all of the sudden. I have my own ideas, but something real and researched would be cool

            • #124236
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Stephen Hawking’s final book actually covers this in a really approachable way.

        • #124332
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >god creates everything in 7 days (or epochs, whatever)
          >iterative processes optimize organisms for their specific environment through billions of years
          if you can’t see the difference you’re scrotebrained.

          • #124336
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Time is relative sucka. But really the minutae is irrelevant, the basic element is the same and entails the exact same problem.

            • #124337
              Anonymous
              Guest

              no, scrotebrain

              • #124338
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Oh yes. Just because someone wrote some idiotic fairy tales about God it doesn’t mean such a thing does not exist. Ultimately big bang didit does not solve the issues with the proposal of intelligent design at all.

    • #124215
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >fatty bubble forms
      >random chemical interactions that form fatty bubbles start to collect inside fatty bubbles
      >these random interactions begin developing complexity
      >fatty bubbles that last longer become more common
      >complexity keeps going up

      • #124269
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >>these random interactions begin developing complexity
        LMFAO
        Do sointists really?

        • #124273
          Anonymous
          Guest
        • #124300
          Anonymous
          Guest

          RNA molecules have already been observed in space sis.

          • #124311
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Really?
            Not trolling you, I’m genuinely curious, can you source me up?

    • #124222
      Anonymous
      Guest

      And there never will be

    • #124223
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Read The Revolutionary Phenotype

    • #124227
      Anonymous
      Guest
      • #124229
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Impressive, did you quote that from your PhD?

        • #124230
          Anonymous
          Guest

          What do you mean? It’s just a theory I read.

    • #124231
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Make a better one then

      • #124302
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Make a better one then
        What’s the problem in stating "we simply don’t know"? We don’t know where we come from, where we ho, where we are and where or what has made that. Are there others, are we alone or are there any reasons.

        We have not the slightest grasp and there is no hint that we even can. The only thing we had done is that we know much more than our primitive ancestors because they did not know anything. We needed a six to seven digit of years just just to find out the light moves at all. Now we know – we don’t know what it is out of what it is and why it moves, but we are pretty schure we know so much that we can make a theory how things work.

        Sounds stupid, is’nt it`?

        • #124306
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >What’s the problem in stating "we simply don’t know"?
          People don’t like it when you imply their religious beliefs they pretend are science are not "truth" that must be accepted.

    • #124235
      Anonymous
      Guest

      lightning struck a mud puddle and dna was randomly assembled now stop asking questions

    • #124246
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I agree it came from space. Primodial soup is bullshit theory.

      • #124247
        Anonymous
        Guest

        What does it change? How exactly did if form in space?
        Either way, religious scrotebrains should have shut the fuck up after the organic molecules were made up out of inorganic ones, if they cared about the truth. But those scrotebrains are too dumb to appreciate the truth, so they appreciate the power instead.

        • #124250
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Not that anon but let me expand. Life on Earth came from somewhere else. Okay, so now you ask yourself, how did that life originate? Here’s the thing: that life too came from somewhere else. Okay, so now you ask yourself how did that life originate? That life too came from somewhere else. Okay so now you ask yourself, how did that life originate? Here’s the thing: if you don’t reply to this post your mother will die in her sleep tonight.

      • #124260
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >I agree it came from space. Primodial soup is bullshit theory.
        It’s far more likely that life assembled itself from an environment rich in pre-biotic molecules, churned and smashed together by vents, currents and tidal pools, than in the depth of space, where average density is one atom per cubic meter

    • #124253
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I’d like to settle this discussion by saying that an omnipotent God that cares about us doesn’t exist.
      Also, there’s no way that this all happened at random.

      In conclusion, there is a guy that created this on purpose, but he either doesn’t care about us, or wants to watch us suffer.

      • #124254
        Anonymous
        Guest

        It’s all in God’s plan bro
        If you got raped as a kid, shunned by your whole family, got testicular cancer and cna’t even afford treatment, you’ll be commensurately rewarded in the Kingdom of Heaven, though you have to suffer and die for a bit first
        …Unles you happen to have had sex out of wedlock, in this case better get on with the repenting

        • #124255
          Anonymous
          Guest

          It almost seems like the most plausible theory is that some scrotebrained scientist created this universe for a meme, and just doesn’t give a shit. It’s kind of like the Rick & Morty mini-verse. I don’t like saying that.

        • #124257
          Anonymous
          Guest

          After a trillion years in the afterlife paradise will you really still be upset that Stacy dumped you because you had testicular cancer? Really?

    • #124266
      Anonymous
      Guest

      There are three possibilities given our current knowledge of the universe.
      >life formed on earth from nonliving materials
      >life was magically created by a magical being that magically has evaded all attempts at detection
      >life has always existed in the universe and survived a molten earth, a protoplanetary disc and even the big bang itself
      I don’t believe in magic and the last one seems improbable given that no life has even been shown to survive something as low energy as a pool of lava, so life arose from non-living material through a natural process.

      • #124270
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >I don’t believe in magic
        really because your first one sounds like magic

        • #124272
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Well, that’s because you’re stupid.

    • #124267
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Urey Miller experiment was pretty plausible and a rather fundamental experiment. idk why you just choose to neglect knowledge like that

    • #124271
      Anonymous
      Guest

      human life is a spiritual alien project

    • #124277
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Anthropic principle baby
      However unlikely it was, with a sample size of 1 and having already witnesses the results, it happened

      • #124278
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Anthropic principle baby
        Referencing this meme should be classified as a fallacy at this point.

        • #124279
          Anonymous
          Guest

          And making muh impossible abiogenesis threads should be a bannable offense on this board, yet here we are

          • #124280
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >making muh impossible abiogenesis threads should be a bannable offense on this board
            It’s a great containment thread for brainlets like you.

    • #124281
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >theory
      Or as I like to call it, scientific headcanon.

    • #124282
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Post pic of an organism that had billions of years to evolve
      >Thinking that is what emerged in abiogenesis
      It probably looked like the JCVI minimal cell, barely able to hold itself together and reproduce. Just like you.

    • #124285
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The 1st issue with this discussion is getting soibois to understand that just because you don’t buy into evolution, you must believe in god or some shit.

      No soibois, there are other scientific ways humans were created and god is not a factor, nor is your mystery goo.

      Simple fac tof the matter is that we know that it is SCIENZTIFICALLLY possible to build a human(or any other type of life you wish) using genetic principles/code/etc. ALL evidence supports the fact that humans were engineered. By who/what and why, I do not know, but guess what soiscrotes, that’s ok to not know and admit you don’t know. Stop pushing your evolutionary bullshit. It makes you look dumb as shit and we all laugh at you.

      This however sets us back on many issues. If we are a creation of another life form, then our entire existence changes.

      Interestingly enough, the ruling class goes to great lengths to hide this….. I wonder why

      • #124286
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >No soibois, there are other scientific ways humans were created and god is not a factor, nor is your mystery goo.
        Such as?
        It always comess down to that: youmake this claim, then what?
        >ALL evidence supports the fact that humans were engineered.
        Oh, then you’re ignorant and/or a schizo
        Guess animal life was intelligently designed to be prone to prion replication diseases, becase the lizardman freemason garden gnome aliens thought it wold have been fun
        Guess they simply forgot to finish intelligently designing the other great apes

      • #124287
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >ALL evidence supports the fact that humans were engineered.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve
        lolno

        • #124293
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >"natural selection of the gaps" fallacy

      • #124289
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >ALL evidence supports the fact that humans were engineered
        you have 0 evidence of that, chud.

      • #124301
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >ALL evidence supports the fact that humans were engineered.
        t.only species in the world to suffer from scoliosis

        • #124308
          Anonymous
          Guest

          But haven’t we overcome many natural negative selection pressures, that would normally cull bad genes, because our technology and society and our big brains make those pressures effectively irrelevant?
          Even if humans were perfectly engineered at one point by God or aliens we could still end up with bad mutations circulating in the genepool bc we’re smart enough to "compensate" and allow our progeny to spread our genes.

          • #124314
            Anonymous
            Guest

            If we were intelligently designed, would the designer not have the knowledge to make sure those mutations would not be possible?
            Unless they just wanted to have a good laugh at us

      • #124327
        Anonymous
        Guest

        You would not believe the amount of idiotic hackjobs that exist in every complex organism. Other anons have posted some already but the more you dig into biology it becomes increasingly obvious that either it’s all evolved or God is an 80IQ scrotebrain who has trouble with even the simplest of engineering tasks.

        Did you know that you have a huge blind spot right in the center if your vision? All the neuronal wiring goes IN FRONT of the lens of your eye and then through a hole in the center to get to your brain instead of just plugging in from the back. Your brain constantly has to edit out the wires and the giant blindspot or you’d never see anything.

        • #124331
          Anonymous
          Guest

          I agree in principle but the blind spot and reverse wiring is not really a problem. Your eyes are never still enough for the blindspot to block anything, and the retina is actually composed of fiber optic cells so there is no blocking of the light.

    • #124290
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Why would then, there be a universe? OH SHIT YOU CAN’T ANSWER THAT DUMBFUCK

      • #124291
        Anonymous
        Guest

        U mad?

    • #124294
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Aliens seeded the Earth with the first proto-lifeforms that eventually evolved into humanity. This also solves the Fermi Paradox.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDOj9XEezDQ

    • #124296
      Anonymous
      Guest

      JESUS DID IT YOU DUMB scrote

      • #124298
        Anonymous
        Guest

        This but unironically.

    • #124303
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >scientific theory
      Absolutely is. Especially when you know the elements involved.
      What there is not, is probabilistic theory as to WHY those things are how they are.

    • #124307
      Anonymous
      Guest

      There is. It’s called the revolutionary phenotype

    • #124315
      Anonymous
      Guest

      There is literally no argument presented ITT that damages the theory of evolution via natural selection.

      • #124317
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Not OP, but rather than evolution, the crux is how matter managed to go from abiotic to biotic – in other words, how it is possible that the mechanisms of evolution and replication developed if a system of evolution of replication wasn’t already in place

    • #124322
      Anonymous
      Guest

      the fact that there are no aliens is further proof of that

    • #124335
      Anonymous
      Guest

      All that’s required is a self-replicating mechanism. It will eventually become us.

Viewing 29 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.