Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )

Was that because you looked at my profile?

Under pressure. In his original thesis he didn't give the reference. By that time, Einstein had given up trying to oppose QM and he was trying to improve his own image. He achieved that mainly by sticking his tongue out and never mentioning Mileva Maric.

Newton famously said that he stood on the shoulders of others. Hooke was a greater scientist than Newton but he was very short, apparently.

I wonder if anything could have induced Einstein to mention Mileva Maric.

Big problem with viruses as precursors of cellular life: they can't replicate. So without living cells, if you have one virus, it fails to replicate and then it dies (or breaks down). This is not going anywhere.

Replication is essential to developing functionality.

Of course, viruses could be derived from some precursor that had the ability to replicate, but that is a huge difference.

What on earth is an extant archaea?

Then how do viruses spread?

Give the fly a sporting chance? I don't think so.

They have machinery which inserts their genetic material into a cell of a host, and then that host's machinery for replicating its own genetic material and expressing its genes is tricked into replicating the virus.

It is two words you could look up. Not that I have any evidence you ever do that.

We don’t have to be unpleasant to each other on every forum we go on you know. Surely one at a time is enough.  How is social distancing affecting you?  But thanks for the advice, it did help.  I’d been trying to look up the two words together not apart

I’m finding it hard adapting to a new routine and finding it hard to motivate myself to work from home with so many distractions.  I’m going to try and spend tomorrow doing some work work, hopefully once I start I’ll get fixated by it

lol king.

Viruses are somewhat parasites and depends on living hosts for both their survival and reproduction.
iow, they are basically just chunks of organic genetic codes without the ability to reproduce or survive outside of a living host. (they hijack living cells for replication)

that's why "viruses first" didn't make any sense at first, luckily google has some good ideas.. : )

"The concept of a pre-cellular stage of biological evolution outlined here posits that the precellular stage of life’s evolution took place within networks of inorganic compartments that hosted a diverse mix of virus-like genetic elements.
It is further proposed that these ensembles of genetic elements were the ancestral state from which cells emerged,"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3380365/

One session at OQOL2014 focused on “Why is the origin of life still a mystery?” This important OQOL persists. One proposed OQOL for the 2009 conference pondered why the field of OoL research “has not progressed much since the early experiments of Stanley Miller [in the 1950s]”.  In 2001, Lahav et al. concluded that “After almost 50 years of modern research, there is no paradigm of the origin of life.” The OoL community has not even agreed to fundamental assumptions, includ- ing those pertaining to (1) where did life begin?, (2) which came first: genetics or metabolism?, (3) how did genetics and metabolism unify?, (4) was RNA or protein the gateway from lifeless chemicals to cellular life, and (5) was the “origin of life” a singular event or were the “origins of life” a confederacy of independent events?

The search continues for natural laws governing complex systems that can explain how biochemistry and biology emerge from chemistry and physics.

One explanation for lack of evi-dence for intermediate stages from mere chemicals to ‘life’ is that early OoL metabolic cycles or genetic 9 replicators “ate the evidence”. However, a theory that predicts its own lack of evidence has left the realm of science.

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j28_3/j28_3_10-12.pdf

not sure what are you trying to say? ool is just one of  many open questions

Theories such as viruses turning into life just make me think of OOL.  Therefore I thought you were trying to make a case for OOL with your post.  Yes, I know, I'm a bit strange!  If your not, then you have my apologies!  I sometimes have difficulty following the chain of events so the doctors tell me.

That is superb because it fits in with the way I think that life must have evolved.

In general, biologists tend to claim that since originating, life has evolved into all its forms but that the original creation of life was non-evolutionary in nature; and I'm sure they are quite wrong, the ones who claim that.

You're a good fellow.

No, I just knew there was some element lurking about.

One question I want to pose to the much revered intellectuals on the forum: Why in the name of Lord Copernicus don't people just devour the hydrothermal vents whole? Sulfide materials are so fine... why can't they just give their humdrum lives a rest by actually going out to the Galapagos Islands or Belize Barrier Reef or somewhere? Then, they'll see what the vents taste like.

thats right, ool from viruses. im serious, lol. but .. even the author (Eugene Koonin) dont claim it to be "real". he just nicely restructured an old hypothetical scenario in a way that agree with the current knowledge. or something along that line.

in his words..

"The primordial virus world model is, at least in parts, refutable and, potentially, testable.
A discovery of an organism with an archaeal replication system but a bacterial membrane (or vice versa) would come close to a refutation."