Abiogenesis lacks convincing evidence - Part 3 -

rainbow · 08-10-2015, 08:38 AM

:

Has anyone ever defined life by what it is rather than what has it?
There was a definition in this thread involving cellular life.
But that is a definition of what has life.

You don't define money by who has it.
It is defined separately.

But with "life" it seems to be always defined in terms of what is alive.

Rainbow complained that artificial urea isn't life.
That was the whole point.

Living organisms are made up of non-living material.
If living organisms were made up of up of something other than ordinary material that would have to be explained.
But artificial urea does not contain "life"

Thank you for admitting that your example is completely irrelevant.

...so do you have a proper example, we can examine?

Hárbarðr · 08-10-2015, 09:36 AM

:

Has anyone ever defined life by what it is rather than what has it?
There was a definition in this thread involving cellular life.
But that is a definition of what has life.

You don't define money by who has it.
It is defined separately.

But with "life" it seems to be always defined in terms of what is alive.

Rainbow complained that artificial urea isn't life.
That was the whole point.

Living organisms are made up of non-living material.
If living organisms were made up of up of something other than ordinary material that would have to be explained.
But artificial urea does not contain "life"

Thank you for admitting that your example is completely irrelevant.

...so do you have a proper example, we can examine?

What about those examples that you considered part of "Abiogenesis" when you said "Abiogenesis lacks convincing evidence"?

How would you rank them by probability?

If your cannot rank them, what is your reason for assigning them equal probability? (I'm guessing cowardice or laziness, please correct me if I'm wrong).

It seems you all assign them probability 0, do you?

buttershug · 08-10-2015, 10:11 AM

:

Has anyone ever defined life by what it is rather than what has it?
There was a definition in this thread involving cellular life.
But that is a definition of what has life.

You don't define money by who has it.
It is defined separately.

But with "life" it seems to be always defined in terms of what is alive.

Rainbow complained that artificial urea isn't life.
That was the whole point.

Living organisms are made up of non-living material.
If living organisms were made up of up of something other than ordinary material that would have to be explained.
But artificial urea does not contain "life"

Thank you for admitting that your example is completely irrelevant.

...so do you have a proper example, we can examine?

Irrelevant to your fantasy where living organisms contain "life".
Living organisms are made up of non-living material.
There is no evidence of a substance called "life".

Thank you for exposing your fantasy belief.

buttershug · 08-10-2015, 10:12 AM

:

Life isn't a thing, it's a behaviour.

Rainbow will never understand that.

Mike PSS · 08-10-2015, 02:24 PM

:

rainbow,
So I take it that you are NO LONGER WAITING for a testable hypothesis?

Is that correct?

No. The question remains whether these are testable. They are certainly hypotheses.

Now choose YOUR favourite, and we'll see if it can be tested, and if so what evidence exists to support it.

rainbow,
Many of those studies have positive conclusions from testing the hypothesis. They are not all-inclusive types of tests but building blocks that others can use in further hypothesis and experiments.

So, I choose ...

:

"Wächtershäuser's hypothesis: Günter Wächtershäuser argues that some compounds come with inboard energy sources like iron sulfides that could release energy and synthesize simply organic molecules. His experiments produced small amounts of dipeptides and tripeptides.

His hypothesis is the basis for the "Iron-Sulfide Vent" avenue of investigation.

:

Rainbow:

:

Wah.

Every published study to which you have been cited contains such hypotheses.

You've refuted none of these.

Wrong.
I refuted the Soupist Theories, since there is no evidence of the Primordial Soup in fossil sediments.
If there had been a soup, we'd have evidence of it but we don't.

I thought we'd already been through this. Please try to keep up.

We DO have evidence of life (Stromatolites) AND we have evidence of the conditions that existed in the rocks from the era.

What more do YOU want?

Or, maybe, you could write up a geologic hypothesis about promordial soup deposits.

buttershug · 08-10-2015, 04:52 PM

:

We DO have evidence of life (Stromatolites) AND we have evidence of the conditions that existed in the rocks from the era.

You might be better off saying "living organisms" instead of "life".

Rainbow might be a Vitalist without knowing that he is.

:

Vitalism is an obsolete scientific doctrine that "living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities because they contain some non-physical element or are governed by different principles than are inanimate things".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism

That would explain his answers about artificial urea.

rainbow · 08-11-2015, 09:27 AM

:

Has anyone ever defined life by what it is rather than what has it?
There was a definition in this thread involving cellular life.
But that is a definition of what has life.

You don't define money by who has it.
It is defined separately.

But with "life" it seems to be always defined in terms of what is alive.

Rainbow complained that artificial urea isn't life.
That was the whole point.

Living organisms are made up of non-living material.
If living organisms were made up of up of something other than ordinary material that would have to be explained.
But artificial urea does not contain "life"

Thank you for admitting that your example is completely irrelevant.

...so do you have a proper example, we can examine?

Irrelevant to your fantasy where living organisms contain "life".

Where did I say "living organisms contain "life""?

Stop making things up.

rainbow · 08-11-2015, 09:29 AM

:

We DO have evidence of life (Stromatolites) AND we have evidence of the conditions that existed in the rocks from the era.

You might be better off saying "living organisms" instead of "life".

Rainbow might be a Vitalist without knowing that he is.

:

Vitalism is an obsolete scientific doctrine that "living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities because they contain some non-physical element or are governed by different principles than are inanimate things".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism

That would explain his answers about artificial urea.

No Butters, it might explain YOUR ideas.

rainbow · 08-11-2015, 09:32 AM

:

rainbow,
So I take it that you are NO LONGER WAITING for a testable hypothesis?

Is that correct?

No. The question remains whether these are testable. They are certainly hypotheses.

Now choose YOUR favourite, and we'll see if it can be tested, and if so what evidence exists to support it.

rainbow,
Many of those studies have positive conclusions from testing the hypothesis. They are not all-inclusive types of tests but building blocks that others can use in further hypothesis and experiments.

So, I choose ...

:

"Wächtershäuser's hypothesis: Günter Wächtershäuser argues that some compounds come with inboard energy sources like iron sulfides that could release energy and synthesize simply organic molecules. His experiments produced small amounts of dipeptides and tripeptides.

His hypothesis is the basis for the "Iron-Sulfide Vent" avenue of investigation.

:

Rainbow:

:

Wah.

Every published study to which you have been cited contains such hypotheses.

You've refuted none of these.

Wrong.
I refuted the Soupist Theories, since there is no evidence of the Primordial Soup in fossil sediments.
If there had been a soup, we'd have evidence of it but we don't.

I thought we'd already been through this. Please try to keep up.

We DO have evidence of life (Stromatolites) AND we have evidence of the conditions that existed in the rocks from the era.

What more do YOU want?

Evidence of the Prebiotic Soup. The Stromatolites are Post-Biotic.
Quite an obvious error on your part.

:

Or, maybe, you could write up a geologic hypothesis about promordial soup deposits.

Why would I make a hypothesis on that?
I lack any Belief in the Primordial Soup.

rainbow · 08-11-2015, 09:35 AM

:

rainbow,
So I take it that you are NO LONGER WAITING for a testable hypothesis?

Is that correct?

No. The question remains whether these are testable. They are certainly hypotheses.

Now choose YOUR favourite, and we'll see if it can be tested, and if so what evidence exists to support it.

rainbow,
Many of those studies have positive conclusions from testing the hypothesis. They are not all-inclusive types of tests but building blocks that others can use in further hypothesis and experiments.

So, I choose ...

:

"Wächtershäuser's hypothesis: Günter Wächtershäuser argues that some compounds come with inboard energy sources like iron sulfides that could release energy and synthesize simply organic molecules. His experiments produced small amounts of dipeptides and tripeptides.

His hypothesis is the basis for the "Iron-Sulfide Vent" avenue of investigation.

...which is in contradiction of the Pre-Biotic Soup idea.

Good so can we bin that and talk about vent theory?

rainbow · 08-11-2015, 09:39 AM

:

Has anyone ever defined life by what it is rather than what has it?
There was a definition in this thread involving cellular life.
But that is a definition of what has life.

You don't define money by who has it.
It is defined separately.

But with "life" it seems to be always defined in terms of what is alive.

Rainbow complained that artificial urea isn't life.
That was the whole point.

Living organisms are made up of non-living material.
If living organisms were made up of up of something other than ordinary material that would have to be explained.
But artificial urea does not contain "life"

Thank you for admitting that your example is completely irrelevant.

...so do you have a proper example, we can examine?

What about those examples that you considered part of "Abiogenesis" when you said "Abiogenesis lacks convincing evidence"?

How would you rank them by probability?

I would rank them by the amount of convincing Evidence that we have for each hypothesis.

...since we don't really have much evidence being presented, it is a tad difficult to rank them.

But you must have YOUR favourite.

Which is it?

buttershug · 08-11-2015, 10:00 AM

:

Has anyone ever defined life by what it is rather than what has it?
There was a definition in this thread involving cellular life.
But that is a definition of what has life.

You don't define money by who has it.
It is defined separately.

But with "life" it seems to be always defined in terms of what is alive.

Rainbow complained that artificial urea isn't life.
That was the whole point.

Living organisms are made up of non-living material.
If living organisms were made up of up of something other than ordinary material that would have to be explained.
But artificial urea does not contain "life"

Thank you for admitting that your example is completely irrelevant.

...so do you have a proper example, we can examine?

Irrelevant to your fantasy where living organisms contain "life".

Where did I say "living organisms contain "life""?

Stop making things up.

But you never say anything.
And think that that is clever.
What do you think is the origin of life?

And why is artificial urea irrelevant?
It shows that living things are made up of ordinary matter.
Life is a behaviour.
Why does that behaviour of ordinary matter require outside intervention?
Without evidence of that requirement, there is no need to invoke that requirement.

buttershug · 08-11-2015, 10:04 AM

:

Has anyone ever defined life by what it is rather than what has it?
There was a definition in this thread involving cellular life.
But that is a definition of what has life.

You don't define money by who has it.
It is defined separately.

But with "life" it seems to be always defined in terms of what is alive.

Rainbow complained that artificial urea isn't life.
That was the whole point.

Living organisms are made up of non-living material.
If living organisms were made up of up of something other than ordinary material that would have to be explained.
But artificial urea does not contain "life"

Thank you for admitting that your example is completely irrelevant.

...so do you have a proper example, we can examine?

What about those examples that you considered part of "Abiogenesis" when you said "Abiogenesis lacks convincing evidence"?

How would you rank them by probability?

I would rank them by the amount of convincing Evidence that we have for each hypothesis.

...since we don't really have much evidence being presented, it is a tad difficult to rank them.

But you must have YOUR favourite.

Which is it?

Not much evidence, is more than no evidence.

Remember the discussion is about the origin of life.
And I'm guessing his favourite is abiogenesis.
Non-abiogenesis does not have any evidence.
"not much" wins over no evidence.

And there is not enough evidence to completely narrow it down from abiogenesis.
Thanks for playing.
Do you want to change the game to there is not enough evidence to pick a particular abiogenesis theory?

Hárbarðr · 08-11-2015, 10:08 AM

:

Has anyone ever defined life by what it is rather than what has it?
There was a definition in this thread involving cellular life.
But that is a definition of what has life.

You don't define money by who has it.
It is defined separately.

But with "life" it seems to be always defined in terms of what is alive.

Rainbow complained that artificial urea isn't life.
That was the whole point.

Living organisms are made up of non-living material.
If living organisms were made up of up of something other than ordinary material that would have to be explained.
But artificial urea does not contain "life"

Thank you for admitting that your example is completely irrelevant.

...so do you have a proper example, we can examine?

What about those examples that you considered part of "Abiogenesis" when you said "Abiogenesis lacks convincing evidence"?

How would you rank them by probability?

I would rank them by the amount of convincing Evidence that we have for each hypothesis.

...since we don't really have much evidence being presented, it is a tad difficult to rank them.

Ah. "difficult".
Still not clear if you just don't want to do the work, or are afraid of being wrong. Lazy or coward (or something else!) is still a mystery.

But, hypothetically, if you were not lazy or a coward(or something else!), and if the amounts and degrees of convincingness of the evidence were not equal it would be possible to rank them. No?

So, do you think the amounts and degrees of convincingness of the evidence is equal for all hypotheses?

Or do you believe something is only evidence when it's convincing and/or something can either be completely convincing or completely unconvincing without anything in between? In that case the "something else" could be idiot.
Do you prefer idiot to lazy or coward?

:

But you must have YOUR favourite.

Which is it?

My favorite is "It's all chemistry". Did you forget?
It's not very good but better than yours.

buttershug · 08-11-2015, 10:13 AM

:

Has anyone ever defined life by what it is rather than what has it?
There was a definition in this thread involving cellular life.
But that is a definition of what has life.

You don't define money by who has it.
It is defined separately.

But with "life" it seems to be always defined in terms of what is alive.

Rainbow complained that artificial urea isn't life.
That was the whole point.

Living organisms are made up of non-living material.
If living organisms were made up of up of something other than ordinary material that would have to be explained.
But artificial urea does not contain "life"

Thank you for admitting that your example is completely irrelevant.

...so do you have a proper example, we can examine?

What about those examples that you considered part of "Abiogenesis" when you said "Abiogenesis lacks convincing evidence"?

How would you rank them by probability?

I would rank them by the amount of convincing Evidence that we have for each hypothesis.

...since we don't really have much evidence being presented, it is a tad difficult to rank them.

Ah. "difficult".
Still not clear if you just don't want to do the work, or are afraid of being wrong. Lazy or coward (or something else!) is still a mystery.

But, hypothetically, if you were not lazy or a coward(or something else!), and if the amounts and degrees of convincingness of the evidence were not equal it would be possible to rank them. No?

So, do you think the amounts and degrees of convincingness of the evidence is equal for all hypotheses?

Or do you believe something is only evidence when it's convincing and/or something can either be completely convincing or completely unconvincing without anything in between? In that case the "something else" could be idiot.
Do you prefer idiot to lazy or coward?

:

But you must have YOUR favourite.

Which is it?

My favorite is "It's all chemistry". Did you forget?
It's not very good but better than yours.

Have you ever claimed to break it down past "it's all chemistry"?
Or have you simply broken the origin of life down to abiogenesis and non-abiogenesis?
If he wants it broken down further he will have to find people who claim to have done so.

Hárbarðr · 08-11-2015, 10:43 AM

:

Has anyone ever defined life by what it is rather than what has it?
There was a definition in this thread involving cellular life.
But that is a definition of what has life.

You don't define money by who has it.
It is defined separately.

But with "life" it seems to be always defined in terms of what is alive.

Rainbow complained that artificial urea isn't life.
That was the whole point.

Living organisms are made up of non-living material.
If living organisms were made up of up of something other than ordinary material that would have to be explained.
But artificial urea does not contain "life"

Thank you for admitting that your example is completely irrelevant.

...so do you have a proper example, we can examine?

What about those examples that you considered part of "Abiogenesis" when you said "Abiogenesis lacks convincing evidence"?

How would you rank them by probability?

I would rank them by the amount of convincing Evidence that we have for each hypothesis.

...since we don't really have much evidence being presented, it is a tad difficult to rank them.

Ah. "difficult".
Still not clear if you just don't want to do the work, or are afraid of being wrong. Lazy or coward (or something else!) is still a mystery.

But, hypothetically, if you were not lazy or a coward(or something else!), and if the amounts and degrees of convincingness of the evidence were not equal it would be possible to rank them. No?

So, do you think the amounts and degrees of convincingness of the evidence is equal for all hypotheses?

Or do you believe something is only evidence when it's convincing and/or something can either be completely convincing or completely unconvincing without anything in between? In that case the "something else" could be idiot.
Do you prefer idiot to lazy or coward?

:

But you must have YOUR favourite.

Which is it?

My favorite is "It's all chemistry". Did you forget?
It's not very good but better than yours.

Have you ever claimed to break it down past "it's all chemistry"?
Or have you simply broken the origin of life down to abiogenesis and non-abiogenesis?
If he wants it broken down further he will have to find people who claim to have done so.

"it's all chemistry" is shorthand for "life came about entirely by the interaction of energy and matter according to natural laws as we know them".
I prefer "it's all chemistry" because it's shorter and close enough.

As a hypothesis it's pretty useless, which puts me miles ahead of rainbow.
Even a slightly informed guess with a whiff more detail than mine would put rainbow ahead. But rainbow doesn't care, she's just here to whine.

Mike PSS · 08-11-2015, 01:29 PM

:

I refuted the Soupist Theories, since there is no evidence of the Primordial Soup in fossil sediments.
If there had been a soup, we'd have evidence of it but we don't.

I thought we'd already been through this. Please try to keep up.

We DO have evidence of life (Stromatolites) AND we have evidence of the conditions that existed in the rocks from the era.

What more do YOU want?

Evidence of the Prebiotic Soup. The Stromatolites are Post-Biotic.
Quite an obvious error on your part.

rainbow,
Are you one of those people who can only keep one data point in their head while they discuss things?
IF Stromatolites were representative of early life (say 500 million years after their start) THEN their environment could be representative of early life conditions.

Therefore, any fossil evidence we have of the Stromatolite environment could elucidate further investigation into the pre-Abiogenesis environment.

It's like all or nothing with you. The inability to fathom the difference between all/most/some/none.

:

Or, maybe, you could write up a geologic hypothesis about promordial soup deposits.

Why would I make a hypothesis on that?
I lack any Belief in the Primordial Soup.

You were the one asking for evidence, I just gave it to you. If you don't like the evidence offered then please make a request as to how someone would go about discovering that fact.

Your negative "Belief" is actually a better starting position for investigation, that way you can challenge some established norms through a rigorous hypothesis. A negative result of a valid hypothesis is as much a discovery as a positive result.

It's becoming apparent that you don't do science much.

Mike PSS · 08-11-2015, 01:32 PM

:

rainbow,
So I take it that you are NO LONGER WAITING for a testable hypothesis?

Is that correct?

No. The question remains whether these are testable. They are certainly hypotheses.

Now choose YOUR favourite, and we'll see if it can be tested, and if so what evidence exists to support it.

rainbow,
Many of those studies have positive conclusions from testing the hypothesis. They are not all-inclusive types of tests but building blocks that others can use in further hypothesis and experiments.

So, I choose ...

:

"Wächtershäuser's hypothesis: Günter Wächtershäuser argues that some compounds come with inboard energy sources like iron sulfides that could release energy and synthesize simply organic molecules. His experiments produced small amounts of dipeptides and tripeptides.

His hypothesis is the basis for the "Iron-Sulfide Vent" avenue of investigation.

...which is in contradiction of the Pre-Biotic Soup idea.

Good so can we bin that and talk about vent theory?

No, we don't "bin" the discussion on Pre-Biotic Soup. We focus on the vent theory. Any and all investigations and discoveries along the Pre-Biotic Soup arena are still valid.

So you said above that you would somehow discredit the various hypothesis around underwater vent theories as the origin of life.

Go ahead .... or do you wish me to present one of the many papers and you can review and attempt to discredit it?

Drosophila Melanogaster · 08-11-2015, 05:46 PM

Are there actually any proponents of the 'prebiotic soup' idea on the forum? I didn't think it was actually much supported these days, although it isn't my area of interest really.

Mike PSS · 08-11-2015, 07:04 PM

:

Are there actually any proponents of the 'prebiotic soup' idea on the forum? I didn't think it was actually much supported these days, although it isn't my area of interest really.

Regardless of the "sides" people are on, many data points and research papers have provided abundant results that others can use for their own over-arching explanations about abiogenesis.

What is apparent from rainbow's whinging is that she doesn't appreciate (or accept) that very many research papers have been done that still provide evidence about how the early earth functioned. And if there is some reason that some Abiogenesis investigator needs to investigate conditions that some "Pre-Biotic Soup" scientist has already looked at and written up then that earlier paper becomes a cite on later research.

That's why discussions of the type that rainbow wishes to have (i.e. "What Abiogenesis hypothesis do you believe?") are mostly without merit since the fundamental mechanisms may already be discovered and written; it's just that someone hasn't put all the pieces together yet.

rainbow · 08-14-2015, 09:34 AM

:

I refuted the Soupist Theories, since there is no evidence of the Primordial Soup in fossil sediments.
If there had been a soup, we'd have evidence of it but we don't.

I thought we'd already been through this. Please try to keep up.

We DO have evidence of life (Stromatolites) AND we have evidence of the conditions that existed in the rocks from the era.

What more do YOU want?

Evidence of the Prebiotic Soup. The Stromatolites are Post-Biotic.
Quite an obvious error on your part.

rainbow,
Are you one of those people who can only keep one data point in their head while they discuss things?
IF Stromatolites were representative of early life (say 500 million years after their start) THEN their environment could be representative of early life conditions.

Therefore, any fossil evidence we have of the Stromatolite environment could elucidate further investigation into the pre-Abiogenesis environment.

It's like all or nothing with you. The inability to fathom the difference between all/most/some/none.

:

Or, maybe, you could write up a geologic hypothesis about promordial soup deposits.

Why would I make a hypothesis on that?
I lack any Belief in the Primordial Soup.

You were the one asking for evidence, I just gave it to you. If you don't like the evidence offered then please make a request as to how someone would go about discovering that fact.

I like the evidence muchly. It just isn't Evidence for the Primordial Soup.

It is not all/most/some Evidence of the Soup.

It is none.

See. I can tell the difference.

rainbow · 08-14-2015, 09:37 AM

:

Are there actually any proponents of the 'prebiotic soup' idea on the forum? I didn't think it was actually much supported these days, although it isn't my area of interest really.

Seems as if certain people do refer to it as if it were established fact. Papers are still being published in journals that refer to this Mythology.

rainbow · 08-14-2015, 09:39 AM

:

Go ahead .... or do you wish me to present one of the many papers and you can review and attempt to discredit it?

That is what I've been asking for.

Present and defend your favourite hypothesis.

Are you brave enough?

DaveGodfrey · 08-14-2015, 10:17 AM

This is the problem, none of us are particularly attached to any hypothesis. The one we favour is the least worst one. It isn't necessarily convincing, its just better than the alternatives.

This is something you cannot seem to be able to grasp. None of the scientific hypotheses are necessarily good, but they are all better than "dunno", which seems to be your alternative. An alternative that makes no testable predictions, has no ability to be refuted, and is basically completely useless as a basis for formulating a research programme. And each and every one of them has more evidence for them than "a biog boy did it and ran away".

And of course nobody cares whether you're not convinced by something. Unless you can present an alternative that is better than any of the current models of abiogenesis.

Hárbarðr · 08-14-2015, 10:32 AM

:

Go ahead .... or do you wish me to present one of the many papers and you can review and attempt to discredit it?

That is what I've been asking for.

Present and defend your favourite hypothesis.

Are you brave enough?

My favorite hypothesis is the one that you found most unconvincing among those you were thinking about when you wrote "Abiogenesis lacks convincing evidence".

My defense is "It's better than what you have".

Your turn.

08-14-2015, 10:17 AM	#2544044 / #74
DaveGodfrey Demoderated : Jan 2010 : 10,613	This is the problem, none of us are particularly attached to any hypothesis. The one we favour is the least worst one. It isn't necessarily convincing, its just better than the alternatives. This is something you cannot seem to be able to grasp. None of the scientific hypotheses are necessarily good, but they are all better than "dunno", which seems to be your alternative. An alternative that makes no testable predictions, has no ability to be refuted, and is basically completely useless as a basis for formulating a research programme. And each and every one of them has more evidence for them than "a biog boy did it and ran away". And of course nobody cares whether you're not convinced by something. Unless you can present an alternative that is better than any of the current models of abiogenesis. __________________ Why do I bother?

X vBulletin 3.8.6 Debug Information
Page Generation 0.39048 seconds Memory Usage 4,553KB Queries Executed 68 (?)
More Information
Template Usage: (1)SHOWTHREAD (1)ad_footer_end (1)ad_footer_start (1)ad_header_end (1)ad_header_logo (1)ad_navbar_below (1)ad_showthread_beforeqr (1)ad_showthread_firstpost (1)ad_showthread_firstpost_sig (1)ad_showthread_firstpost_start (25)add_ignore_user_to_postbit (82)bbcode_quote (1)footer (1)forumjump (1)forumrules (1)gobutton (1)header (1)headinclude (1)navbar (3)navbar_link (1)navbar_mini (1)navbar_noticebit (55)option (1)pagenav (1)pagenav_curpage (4)pagenav_pagelink (2)pagenav_pagelinkrel (25)postbit_legacy (25)postbit_onlinestatus (25)postbit_reputation (25)postbit_wrapper (1)spacer_close (1)spacer_open (1)tagbit_wrapper (36)v3arcade_award_bit (6)v3arcade_postbit_userid_popup_menu (6)v3arcade_postbit_userid_trophy Phrase Groups Available: global inlinemod postbit posting reputationlevel showthread	Included Files: ./showthread.php ./global.php ./includes/init.php ./includes/class_core.php ./includes/config.php ./includes/functions.php ./includes/class_hook.php ./includes/functions_notice.php ./mobiquo/smartbanner.php ./mobiquo/smartbanner/head.inc.php ./includes/functions_bigthree.php ./includes/class_postbit.php ./includes/class_bbcode.php ./includes/functions_reputation.php Hooks Called: init_startup cache_permissions fetch_threadinfo_query fetch_threadinfo fetch_foruminfo style_fetch cache_templates global_start parse_templates fetch_musername notices_check_start notices_noticebit global_setup_complete showthread_start showthread_getinfo forumjump showthread_post_start showthread_query_postids showthread_query bbcode_fetch_tags bbcode_create showthread_postbit_create postbit_factory postbit_display_start reputation_image bbcode_parse_start postbit_imicons fetch_userinfo_query fetch_userinfo bbcode_parse_complete_precache bbcode_parse_complete postbit_display_complete pagenav_page pagenav_complete tag_fetchbit_complete forumrules navbits navbits_complete showthread_complete
Messages:

08-11-2015, 05:46 PM	#2541808 / #69
Drosophila Melanogaster Senior Member : Jul 2015 : 104	Are there actually any proponents of the 'prebiotic soup' idea on the forum? I didn't think it was actually much supported these days, although it isn't my area of interest really.