Abiogenesis is impossible

[TrueStory]

It is a reflective program.  You type anything, it claims to have it already.  Seriously, did anyone previously ever type "when on youthful freaked more warp, the loss birthed a wiggle."?

You know how I know you are serious, you said seriously.    And yes you can type anything and it does have it already, the page numbers do not change.    Seriously.    But yah it is an algorithm.   

[Baruch]

If atoms have no agency, then physical beings have no agency .. unless of course physical beings are more than physical, and Thales is wrong that everything is made of water.  Except for the bullshit of ephiphenomenalism, new physics at new scales.  Physics is the same at all scales.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Hakurei Reimu]

If atoms have no agency, then physical beings have no agency .. unless of course physical beings are more than physical, and Thales is wrong that everything is made of water.  Except for the bullshit of ephiphenomenalism, new physics at new scales.  Physics is the same at all scales.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Yes, and I can quantum tunnel through a wall because my individual atoms can. Oh, wait. I can't. So that's one demonstration of your error. Furthermore, the the gauge bosons behave differently because their gauge symmetries (symmetries of scale) are broken. The scales involved are very small, but they're still broken. At large scales you don't have to worry about the weak or strong interactions. At the extremely large scales of cosmology, you don't really have to worry about the elecromagnetic interaction either â€" the physics at that scale is almost completely dominated by gravity. The physical laws haven't changed; the way they apply do.

Similarly, when you gather a bunch of individual atoms together, you get a whole slew of new phenomena called "chemistry" â€" physics has no concept of acids and bases, yet compositions of atoms quite definitely have these properties. Even the solidity of matter is a consequence of how subatomic particles interact. Even larger collections of atoms have the ability to gather information about their environment, process it, come up with a plan of action, and execute it â€" agency. This is not something individual atoms can do because they're too simple.

You keep insisting that epiphenomena don't exist, when we have clear examples of it existing, because you think that composition fallacies aren't fallacies. Sorry, chum, they are. You have no philosophical guarantee at all that collections of objects cannot display phenomena not possessed by its components. And before saying otherwise, I challenge you to pour concentrated hydrochloric acid on your skin to demonstrate that acidity doesn't exist because none of its individual atoms are acidic.

So, yeah, epiphenomena exist, your protests notwithstanding. Materialists believe agency exists. We just don't think there's anything mystical about it.

[challengeatheism]

Yeah.  It really helps that we can watch books and jumbo jets being made.  We can personally see every step of the process if we wish.

God creating biological lifeforms...not so much.  Does he cross his arms and blink, like in I Dream of Jeanie?  Or does he snap his fingers like Q?

Objection: We have never observed a being of any capacity  creating biological systems and life. 
Answer: We do not need direct observed empirical evidence to infer design.  If investigators know that someone was deliberately killed, is their conclusion invalidated because they don't yet know exactly who did it and how?
When a detective arrives at the crime scence, and sees a bullet in the chest of the victim, and no arm nearby that could be a hint to suicide, the detective can with a  degree of certainty conclude the victim was shot in the chest and killed. So its a murder crime scence.
Same when we observe the natural world. It gives us hints about how it could have been created. We do not need to present the act of creation to infer creationism / Intelligent design.


In order to make design predictions, it must be established what can be recognized as design in nature - Something having the PROPERTIES that we might attribute to that of a intelligently designed system:

( Follwing requirements which consist in a unsurmountable problem for unguided naturalistic processes are met ) :

1) IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX.  The requirement and existence of  individual parts of a biological system which are indispensable to keep the basic function of a system,  which have no survival advantage or functional purpose by their own, nor in a  intermediate evolutionary stage. ( biologically useful or significant genetic sequences )
2) The hability to find and recruit and select the right  materials, and to form molecules with highly specific structures, which permit to form the aggregation into tissues, organs, and organ systems in a highly complex, functional, specified, correct, spacial order.
Making the individual parts and materials available at the same construction site, perhaps not simultaneously but certainly at the time they are needed.
Coordinating and instruct  the assembly of the parts in just the right way: even if all of the parts of a system are available at the right time, it is clear that the majority of ways of assembling them will be non-functional or irrelevant.
The parts must have the right size, form and material, and must be mutually compatible, that is, ‘well-matched’ and capable of properly ‘interacting’: even if sub systems or parts are put together in the right order, they also need to interface correctly. The individual parts will be held together and connected in the right manner through various different mechanisms, like fine tuned covalent and non-covalent bonds, electrostatic forces, cell junctions etc.
3) Establishment of communication systems. Most signal-relay stations we know about were intelligently designed. Signal without recognition is meaningless.  Communication implies a signalling convention (a “coming together” or agreement in advance) that a given signal means or represents something: e.g., that S-O-S means “Send Help!”   The transmitter and receiver can be made of non-sentient materials, but the functional purpose of the system always comes from a mind.  The mind uses the material substances to perform an algorithm that is not itself a product of the materials or the blind forces acting on them.  Signal sequences may be composed of mindless matter, but they are marks of a mind behind the intelligent design.  Acts as an informational processing system ( the interaction of a software program and the hardware can only be setup all at once through intelligent input )
4) Selecting the most optimal and efficient genetic code and hability of minimizing the effects of errors.
5) A system which uses a cipher, translating  instructions through one language  ( the universal genetic code) which contains Statistics, Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics and Apobetics, and assign the right triplet code to the right amino acids
6) Appearance of highly complex dependencies thus giving the appearence of Implicit intelligence (although not intelligent itself, indicates an origin involving intelligence.. )
7  Use of molecular machinery on a scale and complexity which mankind has never IMAGINED possible - all with appearence of exact purpose, intent, function and dependencies
8  exhibiting logical functional layers - regulatory genes controlling gene expression - conceptually the same as a logical software layer controlling the underlying system.
9) another layer of complex 3 Dimensional control and access, and adaptation to environment: Epigentics
10) Implicit built in ERROR checking from the get go: reducing mutations to a minimal
11) Advanced inbuilt repair mechanisms which are essential for the proper function of certain biological systems and proteins right from the start.
12) Precise optimisation and fine-tuning of biological, chemical, biochemical and physical  systems.
13) Display the DESIGN of complex software, designed to adapt and EVOLVE in a very controlled and careful way - while at the same time minimizing mutations. A system designed to EVOLVE and SURVIVE. (gene splicing )
14) The hability of provide the precise instruction and coding for development of biological systems.
15) Something which as well as exhibiting all of the above, also has no conceptual way of coming into existence through naturalistic means, : or something whose existence and origins appears to defy all known scientific understanding. Something which requires the application of alot of FAITH and IMAGINATION of some theories to describe its origins through natural means alone.
16) So the application of COMMON SENSE and inference, from observations from the world around us (information processing systems) might indicate to us certain things having these above PROPERTIES, would fall into the category of things that have been DESIGNED.
17) One of the most intelligent concepts in the known universe is the concept of Evolution itself.

[challengeatheism]

Aristitle's 4 kinds of causation:

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

Material cause, Formal cause, Efficient cause, Final cause.  This works good if you are describing a Greek creating a statue.  The Material cause is the block of marble.  The Formal cause is the shape that the sculptor will carve out of the marble.  The Efficient cause are the tools the sculptor uses for the carving.  The Final cause is the religious motivation of the sculptor to portray a divinity.  Technically, the human element shows up in the Efficient cause and the Final cause.  But if something is formed in nature, without agency (a crystal of pyrite) ... then there is no necessary Efficient or Final cause.  It simply happens because of the laws of nature, which do not require a deity.  The bone of contention is that everything requires all four causes, and that the Efficient and Final causes require a person.  This is overgeneralizing.  Some things happen because of agency, some things don't.  Materialists don't believe in agency at all.  Spiritualists don't believe in non-agency.  They are both wrong.

good point.

[trdsf]

Heredity is guaranteed by faithful DNA replication whereas evolution depends upon errors accompanying DNA replication.  ( Furusawa, 1998 ) We hypothesize that the origin of life, that is, the origin of the first cell, cannot be explained by natural selection among self-replicating molecules, as is done by the RNA-world hypothesis. ( Vaneechoutte M )
The origin of the first cell, cannot be explained by natural selection (Ann N Y Acad, 2000) DNA replication had therefore to be previously, before life began, fully setup , working, and fully operating, in order for evolution to act upon the resulting mutations. That means, evolution was not a driving force and acting for the emergence and origin of the first living organisms.

Wow, so much wrongness here.

You are conflating abiogenesis with a fully functioning cell containing modern DNA.  The two are not the same.  No one -- no one -- researching abiogenesis claims that DNA spontaneously appeared one day and that was that.  For you to claim otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest, and either way it's pure straw man.  The only people who do seem to think that life arose with a complete cell are those who are trying to cast unsupported doubts on the natural appearance of life on Earth and twist it to their own religious agenda.

What formed first was a simple, and probably not terrifically accurate, self-replicating molecule.  Where did that come from?  Well, this is where chance comes into it, although the odds were significantly stacked in favor of one (and probably several) arising.

See, here's the thing.  You can't take a cup of organic chemicals and stare at it for a week and declare abiogenesis is not possible because nothing happened in that cup.  But when you're talking about oceans -- literally oceans -- rich in organic compounds, stirred by UV radiation from the sun and heat from the still-cooling Earth and monumental tides from the then-closer moon, and doing essentially quintillions of undirected chemical experiments a second over a period of half a billion years, it would be more shocking if something self-replicating didn't emerge from that.

Probably several crude self-replicators all competed at the same time.  There's no reason for abiogenesis to have occurred only once, and the entire liquid portion of the planet's surface was essentially one huge laboratory.  The poorer replicators died out due to too many errors in transcription, and their component molecules would have gone into the better replicators, the ones with a high enough error rate to make useful mutations possible, but a low enough error rate to preserve the self-replication function.

Set your egg timer for half a billion years and wait.  You don't need to do anything for a while, and neither does anyone else.  What's going to happen is that the better replicators are going to proliferate, and mutations -- whether caused by UV damage or transcription error -- allow evolution and natural selection to take over.  What that first cell was, and what we are, are the descendents of the replicator that on average out-performed any others that might have existed.  RNA and DNA may not be the best way to transmit genetic information, but they damn skippy worked well enough, and any other replicators that might have arisen have either been driven extinct or have been subsumed into RNA/DNA's collective bag of genetic tricks.

Now, where in there do you mark a line dividing 'not life' from 'life'?  Hell if I know.  I don't think you can.  Once you have that replicator, you have a continuum that leads you closer and closer to something we can unequivocally call 'living', but there are a lot of points along the way that are sufficiently life-like to make the 'first life' question nearly unanswerable.

There is no need for 'agency'.  Time and tide will turn the trick.

[kilodelta]

/yawn

No wonder YouTube atheists have not been debunking theism as much as they used to. Theists are not presenting any new arguments, facts, or observations. Same old junk... tornado in a junkyard... science in the Korean... too complex... beauty of nature... information within cell... baaa.

[Unbeliever]

Yeah, we could use that.  But even more, we could use a bigger picture of your avatar, errrr..............girls butt.....................................

Couldn't find a larger example of that, butt I'm glad you like it!

[Hakurei Reimu]

Objection: We have never observed a being of any capacity  creating biological systems and life. 
Answer: We do not need direct observed empirical evidence to infer design.  If investigators know that someone was deliberately killed, is their conclusion invalidated because they don't yet know exactly who did it and how?
When a detective arrives at the crime scence, and sees a bullet in the chest of the victim, and no arm nearby that could be a hint to suicide, the detective can with a  degree of certainty conclude the victim was shot in the chest and killed. So its a murder crime scence.
Same when we observe the natural world. It gives us hints about how it could have been created. We do not need to present the act of creation to infer creationism / Intelligent design.

Ah, yes, the ol' "murder scene" canard. The problem is, that we know what a murder scene looks like, because we know how to kill people. You clowns are still stuck with the problem of how to identify design in creatures in the first place, because every time you point to a biological system that cannot evolve, scientists come along and explain how that biological system evolved with evidence.

1) IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX.  The requirement and existence of  individual parts of a biological system which are indispensable to keep the basic function of a system,  which have no survival advantage or functional purpose by their own, nor in a  intermediate evolutionary stage. ( biologically useful or significant genetic sequences )

Sorry, chum. Irreducable complex systems are possible to evolve, and are in fact predicted by evolution. It comes from a fundamental error that evolution cannot ratchet down complexity as well as ratchet it up â€" that it cannot dispose of now-unnecessary elements of the system. In all biological systems with "irreducible complexity," you clowns have either failed to show that the system really is irreducibly complex, or real scientists have shown how that system evolved.

2) The hability to find and recruit and select the right  materials, and to form molecules with highly specific structures, which permit to form the aggregation into tissues, organs, and organ systems in a highly complex, functional, specified, correct, spacial order.
Making the individual parts and materials available at the same construction site, perhaps not simultaneously but certainly at the time they are needed.
Coordinating and instruct  the assembly of the parts in just the right way: even if all of the parts of a system are available at the right time, it is clear that the majority of ways of assembling them will be non-functional or irrelevant.
The parts must have the right size, form and material, and must be mutually compatible, that is, ‘well-matched’ and capable of properly ‘interacting’: even if sub systems or parts are put together in the right order, they also need to interface correctly. The individual parts will be held together and connected in the right manner through various different mechanisms, like fine tuned covalent and non-covalent bonds, electrostatic forces, cell junctions etc.

Even in these "well matched" systems, there's a lot of variability. People come in all shapes and sizes, and biological systems have quite a bit of tollerance to how far they can stray from the norm before they cease function. When a system evolves, it starts out as a simple tweak to an already existing, working subsystem, whereupon improvements are accumulated through trial and error. It's not something that requires any purposeful design.

3) Establishment of communication systems. Most signal-relay stations we know about were intelligently designed. Signal without recognition is meaningless.  Communication implies a signalling convention (a “coming together” or agreement in advance) that a given signal means or represents something: e.g., that S-O-S means “Send Help!”   The transmitter and receiver can be made of non-sentient materials, but the functional purpose of the system always comes from a mind.  The mind uses the material substances to perform an algorithm that is not itself a product of the materials or the blind forces acting on them.  Signal sequences may be composed of mindless matter, but they are marks of a mind behind the intelligent design.  Acts as an informational processing system ( the interaction of a software program and the hardware can only be setup all at once through intelligent input )

Biological signals are at the base physical phenomena. All signaling molecules in the body are derived from structural and functional biomolecules. A cell can evolve a crude signaling method to (say) attract another cell of its own type by releasing food molecules into its environment, and the target cell would move in to eat it. This very basic form of signaling can be refined by evolution. Electrical signals disrupt ion channels, etc.

4) Selecting the most optimal and efficient genetic code and hability of minimizing the effects of errors.

These two are in conflict and evolution finds the golden mean between the two. An optimized genetic code is more prone to errors, and a code better able to gracefully handle errors are less efficient.

5) A system which uses a cipher, translating  instructions through one language  ( the universal genetic code) which contains Statistics, Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics and Apobetics, and assign the right triplet code to the right amino acids

cdk007 has an interesting video on that. The skinny goes like this: Some of the early ribozymes had need for cofactors, and some of them were short peptide chains. Any proto-cell that is able to synthesize those peptides themselves have compedative advantage. Ribozymes evolve to synthesize a plethora of these peptides. Refinements of this mechanism appear by getting ribozymes able to bind to specific peptides, then a structural RNA binds those specific charged ribozymes together, and helper ribozymes assist polymerization. The helper ribozymes become the cheif binders, leaving the former charged ribozymes as carriers. And you have the ancestors of mRNA, tRNA and ribosomes.

6) Appearance of highly complex dependencies thus giving the appearence of Implicit intelligence (although not intelligent itself, indicates an origin involving intelligence.. )

These are the result of evolutionary tinkering, not design. In design terms, complex dependencies are bad because they interfere with finding faults in the design, so wise engineers reduce them to the minimum necessary to do the job. In evolution, these complex dependencies are only to be expected because new structure ovolves from modifying old structure, so derived structures also tend to be dependant structures.

7  Use of molecular machinery on a scale and complexity which mankind has never IMAGINED possible - all with appearence of exact purpose, intent, function and dependencies

Again, because evolution modifies rather than creates stuff ex nihilo, such complexity and scale is only expected.

8  exhibiting logical functional layers - regulatory genes controlling gene expression - conceptually the same as a logical software layer controlling the underlying system.

Well, yeah. Proteins and the such are limited resources, as such an organism able to regluate how proteins are expressed â€"deploying them only when they are neededâ€" provides a huge advantage. So organisms with regulatory genes are only to be expected to evolve.

9) another layer of complex 3 Dimensional control and access, and adaptation to environment: Epigentics

More of the same. An organism that is more able to efficiently deploy its gene expression is at an evolutionary advantage and proliferates over those that cannot.

10) Implicit built in ERROR checking from the get go: reducing mutations to a minimal

Yes, an organism able to repair damaged DNA is able to preserve its genes more faithfully and therefore those genes will proliferate in that organism's offspring. But there are limits to the payoffs for this kind of thing. Eventually, you're going to be spending too much energy and material on repairing damage and not enough on reproducing.

11) Advanced inbuilt repair mechanisms which are essential for the proper function of certain biological systems and proteins right from the start.

Well, any organism able to recycle its amino acids from old proteins is going to be at a huge advantage, because otherwise those old proteins clog up the cytoplasm and represent lost peptides.

Also, don't think I haven't noticed that you are asserting that a lot of this stuff you described was present "right from the start," that is right from the start of life. While these mechanisms are ancient,  How do you know they were present right from the very beginning, rather than evolved along the way?

12) Precise optimisation and fine-tuning of biological, chemical, biochemical and physical  systems.

Anyone who doesn't see the evolutionary advantage to refining all these to right balance needs to stop posting now.

13) Display the DESIGN of complex software, designed to adapt and EVOLVE in a very controlled and careful way - while at the same time minimizing mutations. A system designed to EVOLVE and SURVIVE. (gene splicing )

The system would evolve regardless.

14) The hability of provide the precise instruction and coding for development of biological systems.

Because that wouldn't be an evolutionary advantage. Oh wait. It is.

15) Something which as well as exhibiting all of the above, also has no conceptual way of coming into existence through naturalistic means, : or something whose existence and origins appears to defy all known scientific understanding. Something which requires the application of alot of FAITH and IMAGINATION of some theories to describe its origins through natural means alone.

So certain are you. If it popped up all fully formed all at once, yes, that would be true. But it didn't. The genetic code, replication, error correction, and recycling were developed and refined long before cells started cooperating together, which in turn was developed and refined long before the Cambrian explosion. Four billion years is a long time.

16) So the application of COMMON SENSE and inference, from observations from the world around us (information processing systems) might indicate to us certain things having these above PROPERTIES, would fall into the category of things that have been DESIGNED.

Mere assertions.

17) One of the most intelligent concepts in the known universe is the concept of Evolution itself.

Whenever you have imperfect replication and environmental attrition, you get evolution as a natural consequence.

[aitm]

Sure. Chance does not produce Jumbos. Nor books.

Thats an assumption. Supposedly, your grand designer has been around "forever"...so when forever is over maybe indeed a book or a jumbo will simply be produced. I can wait.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Thats an assumption. Supposedly, your grand designer has been around "forever"...so when forever is over maybe indeed a book or a jumbo will simply be produced. I can wait.

Holy. Crap. That's actually brilliant!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Abiogenesis in impossible? So God could create a cell so complex even he couldn't create it? (Apologies to St. George of Carlin.)

[Mermaid]

What the.

Put your parents on the phone. I'll wait. I would like to have a word with them about how they raised you.

[challengeatheism]

There is no need for 'agency'.  Time and tide will turn the trick.

Objection:  There are 31 million seconds in a single year, meaning that if you multiply that by ten billion you get an astronomical amount of chances and don't forget just because something is largely unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible
Answer: Paul Davies once said;
How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software … ? Nobody knows …… there is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.

Dembsky : We also know from broad and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information-rich systems: we have positive experience-based knowledge of a cause that is sufficient to generate new instructing complex information, namely, intelligence.  the design inference  does not constitute an argument from ignorance. Instead, it constitutes an "inference to the best explanation" based upon our best available knowledge.  It asserts the superior explanatory power of a proposed cause based upon its provenâ€"its knownâ€"causal adequacy and  based upon a lack of demonstrated efficacy among the competing proposed causes.  The problem is that nature has too many options and without design couldn’t sort them all out. Natural mechanisms are too unspecific to determine any particular outcome. Mutation and natural selection or luck/chance/probablity could theoretically form a new complex morphological feature like a  leg or a limb with the right size and form , and arrange to find out the right body location to grow them , but it could  also produce all kinds of other new body forms, and grow and attach them anywhere on the body, most of which have no biological advantage or are most probably deleterious to the organism. Natural mechanisms have no constraints, they could produce any kind of novelty. Its however that kind of freedom that makes it extremely unlikely that mere natural developments provide new specific evolutionary arrangements that are advantageous to the organism.  Nature would have to arrange almost a infinite number of trials and errors until getting a new positive  arrangement. Since that would become a highly  unlikely event, design is a better explanation.

Even the simplest of these substances [proteins] represent extremely complex compounds, containing many thousands of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen arranged in absolutely definite patterns, which are specific for each separate substance.  To the student of protein structure the spontaneous formation of such an atomic arrangement in the protein molecule would seem as im- probable as would the accidental origin of the text of irgil’s “Aeneid” from scattered letter type.1
â€" A. I. Oparin

Mondore, The Code Word
What is the probability of complex biochemicals like proteins and DNA arising by chance alone?
The chance that amino acids would line up randomly to create the first hemoglobin protein is 1 in 10^850. The chance that the DNA code to produce that hemoglobin protein would have randomly reached the required specificity is 1 in 10^78,000.

Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D.
According to the most generous mathematical criteria, abiogenesis and monogenesis are impossible to unimaginable extremes.

Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis, 2005 Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Biology
To give you an idea of how incomprehensible, I use the following illustration. An ameba starts out at one side of the universe and begins walking towards the other side, say, 100 trillion light years away. He travels at the rate of one meter per billion years. He carries one atom with him. When he reaches the other side, he puts the atom down and starts back. In 10^186 years, the ameba will have transported the entire mass of the universe from one side to the other and back a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times. That is my definition of impossible. And what resulted from success, if it did occur would not be a living cell or even a promising combination. Spontaneous origin of life on a prebiological earth is IMPOSSIBLE!

The Criterion : The "Cosmic Limit" Law of Chance

To arrive at a statistical "proof," we need a reasonable criterion to judge it by :

As just a starting point, consider that many statisticians consider that any occurrence with a chance of happening that is less than one chance out of 10^50, is an occurrence with such a slim a probability that is, in general, statistically considered to be zero. (10^50 is the number 1 with 50 zeros after it, and it is spoken: "10 to the 50th power"). This appraisal seems fairly reasonable, when you consider that 10^50 is about the number of atoms which make up the planet earth. --So, overcoming one chance out of 10^50 is like marking one specific atom out of the earth, and mixing it in completely, and then someone makes one blind, random selection, which turns out to be that specific marked atom. Most mathematicians and scientists have accepted this statistical standard for many purposes.

[trdsf]

I repeat, since you're committing the exact same blunder again, that the fallacy in your position is that you are assuming going from zero to a fully functional cell in one go.  The only person here who asserts -- or even thinks -- that hemoglobin (much less a complete cell) spontaneously self-assembled out of clutter is you.

I repeat: the first thing to appear was a self-replicating molecule, not a complete cell.  If you continue to insist on spontaneous self-assembly of complete interlocked systems, you are deliberately absenting yourself from rational debate.  That is not by any stretch the current state of the theory, and the only people who insist that it is are those who insist on creationism in one manner or another.  If you want to debate abiogenesis, you have a responsibility to address the actual state of the field, not the nonsensical strawman you insist on creating.

I doubt you have the ability to do that, but hey, it's a very large universe and small-probability events happen all the time.

So let's start here: without copypasting, explain what hemoglobin would have to do with abiogenesis?  Considering that's billions of years before the earliest known creature with a vascualr system existed (about half a billion years ago, some three to three and a half billion years after life arose).  Prokaryotes don't require much in the way of circulation; blood is useless for unicellular life, and for the smallest protists.

Because basically, your argument boils down to "I can't imagine it, therefore it can't have happened that way".

Fortunately, the universe is not bound by the tiny limits of your imagination.