Speciation as far as loss of genetic information due to damaging mutatations is indeed common, and does lead to non-interfertile sub-populations. For example, in the London subway, after one hundred years the mosquitos could no longer interbreed with surface mosquitos. But you know what - they were still mosquitos. No new genetic information had been created, they had just mutated in a way to lose the ability to interbreed with the surface mosquitos.
And observe the fact that for many decades, fruit flies have been bombarded with gamma and other radiation in the lab. Tons of mutations have been observed. Every one was the result of a loss of information - as the four-winged one shows, it was a loss of three crucial genes that turned the counterbalance limbs into wings. No movement toward a new species has been seen yet. The number of generations and the amount of induced mutations indicate that evolution is not happening in situations where that was the goal. It's not possible to prove a negative, but the evidence is piling up on poor Darwin.
Remember that Darwin himself said that if the cell was found to be anything but a very simple object, his theory would be disproved. Every year we hear of more and more amazing complex things inside bacteria, from flaggela motors to ion pumps that it's very hard to look and and not see DESIGN stamped on them.
And please, don't bring up the peppered moths (faked by Kettlewell et al.), nor horse fossils (seeing as Hyrax is still alive, and that in places the "descendants" were found in layers below their "ancestors").
And since the earth has been shown to have formed rapidly, the evidence being published in several prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals and never refuted in the peer-reviewed journals (don't bother citing the talkorigins article by Brawley, Gentry disproved that objection experimentally many years ago), there wasn't time for macro-evolution anyway.
Are you basing the thousands of years in the ice cores based on one layer = one year? That has been proven highly inaccurate...
Some WWII planes were forced down due to difficulties on the ice sheet in Greenland and abandoned. Forty some years later, a rich guy from Virginia had them dug out. There were a whole lot more than forty layers of ice between the surface and the planes. As the diggers said, you can get multiple layers in a week - they are caused by warm/cold cycles, not seasons in a year. And no, the planes had not sunken into the ice - those planes are way heavier in the front; if they had sunken, they would have been tilted, and they were found level and flat.
Yes, radiocarbon dating is an awesome tool. It has shown that living molluscs are thousands of years old. And since it's been shown that C14 is not yet at an equilibrium point in the atmosphere, there's an argument to be made that C14 not a reliable tool across the board. And what about other radiometric dating tools? Well K-Ar dating has shown that 8 year old rocks formed in the dome at Mt. St. Helens were dated at a range of 350,000 to 3,500,000 years.
Hard facts show that radiometric dating is not a reliable tool. Polonium pleochroic halos show that the earth formed quickly, not slowly. Yes, I've read the talkorigins argument about pleochroic halos; unlike the original research, it is not peer reviewed and has many gaps. An open mind and the hard facts should make anyone willing to think and consider non-orthodox views realize that billions of years isn't any more scientific than when it was proposed in the early-mid 1800s.
Just realized I didn't provide a proper answer to your Talkorigins "answer" to Gentry. The theory proposed by Brawley on Talkorigins, while quite clever, is fairly easily disproved. An extract from that link, emphasis added:
"This is the most intelligent argument to Gentry's claims I have seen. This is the argument that says radon traveled between the cracks of the biotite and deposited the polonium. This means, however, that the radon would leave scars along the cracks. The radon would be decaying this whole time, and as it traveled it would leave scars along the borders much like a man with his arms outspread holding cans of spray paint and walking through a narrow alley. It would be obvious where he had been. This is not the case in the mica, however, according to Robert Gentry. The radon tracks do not exist. This means that the radon could not have migrated to deposit the polonium. Also, in regard to the theory for radon travelling up through the interior of the earth: How long do you think radon lasts? It has a half life of less than four days. Radon could not travel far within a solid rock matrix, no matter how gaseous it was.
"As for fluids travelling through the mica? I think I should let Dr. Robert Gentry answer that one: 'fossil and neutron-induced fission tracks appear in U-halo centers in biotite, but are absent from Po-halo centers, thus excluding U-bearing solutions as the source of Po for those halos, irrespective of whether they occur along tiny conduits'."
Go anything more convincing to refute Gentry? Remember, his papers were peer-reviewed; do you have anything of that caliber to throw back against his ideas?
I cited an example that would be relevant to the readers of/.; it was not an example but an illustration, an analogy by way of familiarity. Your accusation that I was comparing a journal with/. is unfounded, and shows your bias and subjectiveness.
As a further illustration of the point of the tyranny of the majority or of the orthodoxy, consider the history of Galileo (persecuted by the Catholics, a threat to their control of the masses). In the medical field consider Jenner, Semmelweis, Morton, Pasteur, and Lister - all remarkable people that were trashed by the establishment because they had novel ideas. Their ideas are now part of accepted thought, but at the time they were thrown out of their professions for having ideas contrary to the orthodoxy.
Suppression of counter-ideas is nothing new. And that suppression in current "scientific" journals is well documented. Everything from Scientific American (check out their treatment of Forrest Mims for example) to Science, Nature, and National Geographic.
Sure there are rotten ideas brought forward by creationists; we all have rotten ideas some times, creationists, evolutionists, or agnostics. But the good ones don't get considered, and even when well peer reviewed are rejected sometimes for possibly undermining the orthodox position (see Gentry's book for exhaustive and frankly boring documentation of this).
As I said, on the page you gave, there is no reference to coalified wood; I did not scour the site and did not state that the site did not have a reference to it.
On that csun.edu page you referenced, there is a lot of speculation ("Although the uranium source is unknown..." etc.) but not a lot of meat. Claiming that U-238 diffused through the rocks has been dealt with as a claim by Gentry in the past; bringing it back around as an argument against him only shows that the attempted debunking is only rehashing already refuted concepts.
Note that in the talkorigins reference you gave there is no mention of the studies in coal-ified wood and other areas that Gentry presented, just a very weak (IMO) argument against Polonium. The issue of helium levels in the atmosphere, if you accept the ideas on talkorigins used in the Gentry article, are an even stronger argument against old-earth than the halos. And no one has yet taken his challenge of making a granite (the technology is available) to disprove his hypothesis.
As to why there have not been more papers published in the mainstream, orthodox scientific press - that's the tyranny of the majority. For example, submit an objectively researched, top quality, highly pro-MS story here on/. and see if it gets published. The fact that it doesn't get published only shows the bias of the editorial staff, not the quality of the data, research, and writing in the submitted article.
How about papers in Nature or in Science? There have been several from, for example, Robert Gentry here. He presents a very, very solid case for primordial granites being formed in a matter of seconds or minutes with the Polonium halos found in them only explainable that way. He has issued a very simple challenge to old-earthers, and no one has taken him up on it yet.
I for one (and far more capable people besides myself clearly) am not trying to quote about evolution breaking the second law; a much more cogent approach is to discuss information theory in relation to evolution than the oversimplified second law of thermo.
As for quoting out of context, that's a human failing that all sides of this have done; I don't see how that is strictly and only on one side.
Version 3.1 has as its changelog (READ THIS, there are path changes etc. that you need to know about!):
Important Changes: ==================
-/etc/ssh/ now default directory for keys and configuration files - ssh-keygen no longer defaults to a specific key type (rsa1);
use ssh-keygen -t {rsa,dsa,rsa1} - sshd x11 forwarding listens on localhost by default;
see sshd X11UseLocalhost option to revert to prior behaviour
if your older X11 clients do not function with this configuration
Other Changes: ==============
- ssh ~& escape char functions now for both protocol versions - sshd ReverseMappingCheck option changed to VerifyReverseMapping
to clarify its function; ReverseMappingCheck can still be used - public key fingerprint is now logged with LogLevel=VERBOSE - reason logged for disallowed logins (e.g., no shell, etc.) - more robust error handling for x11 forwarding - improved packet/window size handling in ssh2 - use of regex(3) has been removed - fix SIGCHLD races in sshd (seen on Solaris) - sshd -o option added - sftp -B -R -P options added - ssh-add now adds all 3 default keys - ssh-keyscan bug fixes - ssh-askpass for hostkey dialog - fix fd leak in sshd on SIGHUP - TCP_NODELAY set on X11 and TCP forwarding endpoints
Actually Gnat is FreeBSD based, at the time they took a kernel I'm not even sure OpenBSD had started. And FreeBSD was at the time heavily X86 focused IIRC.
If you want a no-moving-parts OpenBSD based firewall, you can build one up using embedded OpenBSD, aka emBSD, see their site for details. They use the Soekris single-board computer with Flash IDE to get a nice little firewall with pf and OpenBSD.
works great, easy to set up, floppy only, works on >= 486 machines. I've never seen it go below 98% idle on a 100MHz P5 with 5 hard-working machines filling a 768Kbps DSL line. You can pay $50 and get a DMZ added on to the free version, same price for a VPN license.
Download it from here. This is a BSD based firewall, but no shell, nothing for a cracker to get onto it. Uses SSL web access (new in later versions) or a Winblows client for configuration.
Oh and one point that is heavily stressed in their marketing material - it's ICSA certified.
There is a small version for ~$750 street price that gives 25-user version with DMZ, no moving parts, runs off 12VDC.
That's right, they require net energy, and the combination of two amino acids requires the expelling of one water molecule. Therefore it's against the energy and equilibrium gradients in an aqueous solution to have the bonding occur. I ignored that hindrance in making the point, since it would have just made the entire life arose spontaneously case even more unlikely. And FYI, I have a degree in chemistry from an Ivy school, so I am quite aware of the nature of chemical reactions.
But please inform me, in a theoretical environment where there are only chemicals and no preexisting life form, you seem to be implying (please correct me if I am incorrect in my inference) that there was some guiding force in putting the amino acids together into a polypeptide (aka protein) chain, getting the pH and salinity just right to get it folded properly, then holding it around while the others formed.
If that's what you're saying, then what was the guiding force?
I agree with your analogy - as Fred Hoyle put it, a tornado in a junkyard does not assemble a 747.
I was a dedicated, hard-core evolutionist for over forty years; I know the arguments very, very well on the evolutionist side. Dawkins is not the greatest example, he has been debunked many times rather handily; Behe and others have done so.
We do apparently agree that random chance was utterly insufficient to create life from random chemicals.. but Dawkins and others need natural selection to operate in order for things to improve, and if starting from scratch, you need at first an accurately self replicating system before natural selection can take over from randomness and pure chance.
Without the order imposed by a self-replicating system, randomness is the only operative force.
The odds are staggeringly worse than you set forth - there are less atoms in the universe than the odds of life arising by chance.
A very simple illustration, take:
1. A frog. 2. A sterilized blender in a sterile room 3. Puree the frog for 1 hour. 4. Irradiate the pureed frog with gamma rays
You've now got all the elements for life in exactly the right ratios in one place. What happens when you do that? Life does not spontaneously form... it's just a bunch of dead chemicals.
Further proof: if you managed to get only the 20 amino acids necessary for life into droplets all around the world, and started trying to assemble them into a protein, the odds are roughly 1 in 10^96 that you would be able to do that. Even if you tried once for every atom (10^78) in the universe, you would need to beat one in 10^18 odds. For just one protein - then you need about 300-400 more to get the right mix of proteins for a theoretical minimum cell. Then you need DNA, RNA, ATP, lipids, minerals in the right valence state, etc. to get the minimum cell composition.
So no, the odds are so fantastically against it happening by chance that to say it happened that way takes more faith than believing a creator was involved.
It's an amazingly huge leap to say if there's water there might be life. That "might", when subjected to just a tiny bit of mathematical analysis, is so mind-bogglingly minute that it's not worth considering.
Look at it this way: the smallest number of different proteins that is guesstimated to get life going is 400 for a minimum cell. Ignoring all the non-protein components of a cell, now consider the amino acids. There are a lot more than the 20 we need for life, but let's be generous and assume that somehow all the amino acids in some lipid-isolated droplet are the 20 we need for life. Since they have to be one enantiomer (aka one chirality) to be in proteins for all but the simplest one of the amino acids, that means you've got 39 possible choices, and you need to get them in a specific order.
So just one protein of less than average size (say 300 amino acids), assuming there are no other chemicals interfering (i.e, say inside a droplet with exactly the right composition), is going to have odds of one in 300^39. That comes out to one in 10^96. Since there are only 10^78 ATOMS in the UNIVERSE, clearly it is not in the realm of "chance" to say even one protein could happen by chance.
Then molecular evolution would require 400 more different proteins, each rather specifically structured, to be in the same droplet at the same time.
And consider further that proteins denature rather quickly outside living cells, when exposed to pH swings, temperature, salinity, and other variations.
So the odds of finding life arising somewhere by blind chance is, well, so close to zero that it's absurd to consider. Or to put it another way, it takes more faith to believe it happened by chance than to believe in a creator.
Slashdot Mirror
Speciation as far as loss of genetic information due to damaging mutatations is indeed common, and does lead to non-interfertile sub-populations. For example, in the London subway, after one hundred years the mosquitos could no longer interbreed with surface mosquitos. But you know what - they were still mosquitos. No new genetic information had been created, they had just mutated in a way to lose the ability to interbreed with the surface mosquitos.
And observe the fact that for many decades, fruit flies have been bombarded with gamma and other radiation in the lab. Tons of mutations have been observed. Every one was the result of a loss of information - as the four-winged one shows, it was a loss of three crucial genes that turned the counterbalance limbs into wings. No movement toward a new species has been seen yet. The number of generations and the amount of induced mutations indicate that evolution is not happening in situations where that was the goal. It's not possible to prove a negative, but the evidence is piling up on poor Darwin.
Remember that Darwin himself said that if the cell was found to be anything but a very simple object, his theory would be disproved. Every year we hear of more and more amazing complex things inside bacteria, from flaggela motors to ion pumps that it's very hard to look and and not see DESIGN stamped on them.
And please, don't bring up the peppered moths (faked by Kettlewell et al.), nor horse fossils (seeing as Hyrax is still alive, and that in places the "descendants" were found in layers below their "ancestors").
And since the earth has been shown to have formed rapidly, the evidence being published in several prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals and never refuted in the peer-reviewed journals (don't bother citing the talkorigins article by Brawley, Gentry disproved that objection experimentally many years ago), there wasn't time for macro-evolution anyway.
Are you basing the thousands of years in the ice cores based on one layer = one year? That has been proven highly inaccurate...
Some WWII planes were forced down due to difficulties on the ice sheet in Greenland and abandoned. Forty some years later, a rich guy from Virginia had them dug out. There were a whole lot more than forty layers of ice between the surface and the planes. As the diggers said, you can get multiple layers in a week - they are caused by warm/cold cycles, not seasons in a year. And no, the planes had not sunken into the ice - those planes are way heavier in the front; if they had sunken, they would have been tilted, and they were found level and flat.
Yes, radiocarbon dating is an awesome tool. It has shown that living molluscs are thousands of years old. And since it's been shown that C14 is not yet at an equilibrium point in the atmosphere, there's an argument to be made that C14 not a reliable tool across the board. And what about other radiometric dating tools? Well K-Ar dating has shown that 8 year old rocks formed in the dome at Mt. St. Helens were dated at a range of 350,000 to 3,500,000 years.
Hard facts show that radiometric dating is not a reliable tool. Polonium pleochroic halos show that the earth formed quickly, not slowly. Yes, I've read the talkorigins argument about pleochroic halos; unlike the original research, it is not peer reviewed and has many gaps. An open mind and the hard facts should make anyone willing to think and consider non-orthodox views realize that billions of years isn't any more scientific than when it was proposed in the early-mid 1800s.
Just realized I didn't provide a proper answer to your Talkorigins "answer" to Gentry. The theory proposed by Brawley on Talkorigins, while quite clever, is fairly easily disproved. An extract from that link, emphasis added:
"This is the most intelligent argument to Gentry's claims I have seen. This is the argument that says radon traveled between the cracks of the biotite and deposited the polonium. This means, however, that the radon would leave scars along the cracks. The radon would be decaying this whole time, and as it traveled it would leave scars along the borders much like a man with his arms outspread holding cans of spray paint and walking through a narrow alley. It would be obvious where he had been. This is not the case in the mica, however, according to Robert Gentry. The radon tracks do not exist. This means that the radon could not have migrated to deposit the polonium. Also, in regard to the theory for radon travelling up through the interior of the earth: How long do you think radon lasts? It has a half life of less than four days. Radon could not travel far within a solid rock matrix, no matter how gaseous it was.
"As for fluids travelling through the mica? I think I should let Dr. Robert Gentry answer that one: 'fossil and neutron-induced fission tracks appear in U-halo centers in biotite, but are absent from Po-halo centers, thus excluding U-bearing solutions as the source of Po for those halos, irrespective of whether they occur along tiny conduits'."
Go anything more convincing to refute Gentry? Remember, his papers were peer-reviewed; do you have anything of that caliber to throw back against his ideas?
I cited an example that would be relevant to the readers of /.; it was not an example but an illustration, an analogy by way of familiarity. Your accusation that I was comparing a journal with /. is unfounded, and shows your bias and subjectiveness.
As a further illustration of the point of the tyranny of the majority or of the orthodoxy, consider the history of Galileo (persecuted by the Catholics, a threat to their control of the masses). In the medical field consider Jenner, Semmelweis, Morton, Pasteur, and Lister - all remarkable people that were trashed by the establishment because they had novel ideas. Their ideas are now part of accepted thought, but at the time they were thrown out of their professions for having ideas contrary to the orthodoxy.
Suppression of counter-ideas is nothing new. And that suppression in current "scientific" journals is well documented. Everything from Scientific American (check out their treatment of Forrest Mims for example) to Science, Nature, and National Geographic.
Sure there are rotten ideas brought forward by creationists; we all have rotten ideas some times, creationists, evolutionists, or agnostics. But the good ones don't get considered, and even when well peer reviewed are rejected sometimes for possibly undermining the orthodox position (see Gentry's book for exhaustive and frankly boring documentation of this).
As I said, on the page you gave, there is no reference to coalified wood; I did not scour the site and did not state that the site did not have a reference to it.
On that csun.edu page you referenced, there is a lot of speculation ("Although the uranium source is unknown..." etc.) but not a lot of meat. Claiming that U-238 diffused through the rocks has been dealt with as a claim by Gentry in the past; bringing it back around as an argument against him only shows that the attempted debunking is only rehashing already refuted concepts.
Note that in the talkorigins reference you gave there is no mention of the studies in coal-ified wood and other areas that Gentry presented, just a very weak (IMO) argument against Polonium. The issue of helium levels in the atmosphere, if you accept the ideas on talkorigins used in the Gentry article, are an even stronger argument against old-earth than the halos. And no one has yet taken his challenge of making a granite (the technology is available) to disprove his hypothesis.
/. and see if it gets published. The fact that it doesn't get published only shows the bias of the editorial staff, not the quality of the data, research, and writing in the submitted article.
As to why there have not been more papers published in the mainstream, orthodox scientific press - that's the tyranny of the majority. For example, submit an objectively researched, top quality, highly pro-MS story here on
How about papers in Nature or in Science? There have been several from, for example, Robert Gentry here. He presents a very, very solid case for primordial granites being formed in a matter of seconds or minutes with the Polonium halos found in them only explainable that way. He has issued a very simple challenge to old-earthers, and no one has taken him up on it yet.
I for one (and far more capable people besides myself clearly) am not trying to quote about evolution breaking the second law; a much more cogent approach is to discuss information theory in relation to evolution than the oversimplified second law of thermo.
As for quoting out of context, that's a human failing that all sides of this have done; I don't see how that is strictly and only on one side.
Version 3.1 has as its changelog (READ THIS, there are path changes etc. that you need to know about!):
/etc/ssh/ now default directory for keys and configuration files
Important Changes:
==================
-
- ssh-keygen no longer defaults to a specific key type (rsa1);
use ssh-keygen -t {rsa,dsa,rsa1}
- sshd x11 forwarding listens on localhost by default;
see sshd X11UseLocalhost option to revert to prior behaviour
if your older X11 clients do not function with this configuration
Other Changes:
==============
- ssh ~& escape char functions now for both protocol versions
- sshd ReverseMappingCheck option changed to VerifyReverseMapping
to clarify its function; ReverseMappingCheck can still be used
- public key fingerprint is now logged with LogLevel=VERBOSE
- reason logged for disallowed logins (e.g., no shell, etc.)
- more robust error handling for x11 forwarding
- improved packet/window size handling in ssh2
- use of regex(3) has been removed
- fix SIGCHLD races in sshd (seen on Solaris)
- sshd -o option added
- sftp -B -R -P options added
- ssh-add now adds all 3 default keys
- ssh-keyscan bug fixes
- ssh-askpass for hostkey dialog
- fix fd leak in sshd on SIGHUP
- TCP_NODELAY set on X11 and TCP forwarding endpoints
So it's not just a bugfix release, is it?
I was reading the screen fast, without my glasses, and thought the title was "Internet Spamming OS".
Phew!
Actually Gnat is FreeBSD based, at the time they took a kernel I'm not even sure OpenBSD had started. And FreeBSD was at the time heavily X86 focused IIRC.
If you want a no-moving-parts OpenBSD based firewall, you can build one up using embedded OpenBSD, aka emBSD, see their site for details. They use the Soekris single-board computer with Flash IDE to get a nice little firewall with pf and OpenBSD.
works great, easy to set up, floppy only, works on >= 486 machines. I've never seen it go below 98% idle on a 100MHz P5 with 5 hard-working machines filling a 768Kbps DSL line. You can pay $50 and get a DMZ added on to the free version, same price for a VPN license.
Download it from here. This is a BSD based firewall, but no shell, nothing for a cracker to get onto it. Uses SSL web access (new in later versions) or a Winblows client for configuration.
Oh and one point that is heavily stressed in their marketing material - it's ICSA certified.
There is a small version for ~$750 street price that gives 25-user version with DMZ, no moving parts, runs off 12VDC.
That's right, they require net energy, and the combination of two amino acids requires the expelling of one water molecule. Therefore it's against the energy and equilibrium gradients in an aqueous solution to have the bonding occur. I ignored that hindrance in making the point, since it would have just made the entire life arose spontaneously case even more unlikely. And FYI, I have a degree in chemistry from an Ivy school, so I am quite aware of the nature of chemical reactions.
But please inform me, in a theoretical environment where there are only chemicals and no preexisting life form, you seem to be implying (please correct me if I am incorrect in my inference) that there was some guiding force in putting the amino acids together into a polypeptide (aka protein) chain, getting the pH and salinity just right to get it folded properly, then holding it around while the others formed.
If that's what you're saying, then what was the guiding force?
I agree with your analogy - as Fred Hoyle put it, a tornado in a junkyard does not assemble a 747.
I was a dedicated, hard-core evolutionist for over forty years; I know the arguments very, very well on the evolutionist side. Dawkins is not the greatest example, he has been debunked many times rather handily; Behe and others have done so.
We do apparently agree that random chance was utterly insufficient to create life from random chemicals.. but Dawkins and others need natural selection to operate in order for things to improve, and if starting from scratch, you need at first an accurately self replicating system before natural selection can take over from randomness and pure chance.
Without the order imposed by a self-replicating system, randomness is the only operative force.
And chance just won't do it.
The odds are staggeringly worse than you set forth - there are less atoms in the universe than the odds of life arising by chance.
A very simple illustration, take:
1. A frog.
2. A sterilized blender in a sterile room
3. Puree the frog for 1 hour.
4. Irradiate the pureed frog with gamma rays
You've now got all the elements for life in exactly the right ratios in one place. What happens when you do that? Life does not spontaneously form... it's just a bunch of dead chemicals.
Further proof: if you managed to get only the 20 amino acids necessary for life into droplets all around the world, and started trying to assemble them into a protein, the odds are roughly 1 in 10^96 that you would be able to do that. Even if you tried once for every atom (10^78) in the universe, you would need to beat one in 10^18 odds. For just one protein - then you need about 300-400 more to get the right mix of proteins for a theoretical minimum cell. Then you need DNA, RNA, ATP, lipids, minerals in the right valence state, etc. to get the minimum cell composition.
So no, the odds are so fantastically against it happening by chance that to say it happened that way takes more faith than believing a creator was involved.
It's an amazingly huge leap to say if there's water there might be life. That "might", when subjected to just a tiny bit of mathematical analysis, is so mind-bogglingly minute that it's not worth considering.
Look at it this way: the smallest number of different proteins that is guesstimated to get life going is 400 for a minimum cell. Ignoring all the non-protein components of a cell, now consider the amino acids. There are a lot more than the 20 we need for life, but let's be generous and assume that somehow all the amino acids in some lipid-isolated droplet are the 20 we need for life. Since they have to be one enantiomer (aka one chirality) to be in proteins for all but the simplest one of the amino acids, that means you've got 39 possible choices, and you need to get them in a specific order.
So just one protein of less than average size (say 300 amino acids), assuming there are no other chemicals interfering (i.e, say inside a droplet with exactly the right composition), is going to have odds of one in 300^39. That comes out to one in 10^96. Since there are only 10^78 ATOMS in the UNIVERSE, clearly it is not in the realm of "chance" to say even one protein could happen by chance.
Then molecular evolution would require 400 more different proteins, each rather specifically structured, to be in the same droplet at the same time.
And consider further that proteins denature rather quickly outside living cells, when exposed to pH swings, temperature, salinity, and other variations.
So the odds of finding life arising somewhere by blind chance is, well, so close to zero that it's absurd to consider. Or to put it another way, it takes more faith to believe it happened by chance than to believe in a creator.
The big question is, will Microsoft respond in the same way and back down?