An inaccurate paraphrase .. wrong premise
The paraphrase I used was:
quote:
"so why have scientists been working on it then?"
It was referring to this response in
Message 119:
quote:
For fifty years one of the central efforts of that community at enormous expense and time investment has tried every avenue imaginable to show that abiogenesis was not just possible but inevitable...
Hundreds yea thousands of people and experiments have been tried, Nobel prizes awarded for so called life in the test tube, life on clay substrates all to show there is no problem with life from non-life just natural chemical properties of matter and a source of energy etc...
Of course, my paraphrasing wasn't 100% accurate...otherwise it wouldn't be a paraphrase but a quote.
I said that the only consensus premise proposed from Darwin forward was the naturalistic origon of life from non-living matter.
I could have
sworn that Darwin's work was regarding
The Origin of Species not The Origin of Life...since science assumes ontological naturalism to come to conclusions, it also assumes that there is a natural origin for life, so yes, that was the consensus premise...though not necessarily from Darwin onwards.
If you meant to say that the consensus of science regarding life since Darwin has been ontological naturalism, it would have probably been simpler to say just that. Especially since I don't even see where you mentioned Darwin. The closest I can see to such a statement is:
quote:
I dont see how to have a rational discussion with someone who dismisses the major emphasis of the displipline from 1920 to 2000 and continuing,
So every textbook in biology, chemistry and essentially all natural sciences contain extensive chapters on abiogenesis...
Which would make sense since abiogenesis is a biochemical natural science. How does that show it is integral to ToE?
Further such printed materials whether pop science or textbook will organize the material in the chronilogical sequence of evolutionary events beginning with such as how the universe or the solar system was formed
Indeed, it helps put things into context to show the entire history of the universe up to and including the evolution of man (and occasionally it will go beyond that, showing the sun expanding, shrinking and eventual heat death). When showing a history of the universe it is going to include the evolution of the universe and the evolution of life, it would be odd to discount the scientific hypothesis on the creation of life as well since it is a fairly important moment and happens between the universe forming to what we see and the evolution of life.
I have never seen in such material a statement such as "this abiogenesis material is not part of the evolutionary theory or presentation...
Why on earth would you? Do you ever see a star formation paper have a statement like "this star formation material is not part of the Big Bang Theory". It just doesn't make sense. What would be interesting is if you read a paper that said "The Theory of Evolution begins with the creation of life..."
Now if one should dicover that say chemical predestination were demonstrable in a universally agree valid experimental procedure under curcumstances universally agreed upon as naturalistic as regards say to a viable first replicator clearly a precursor to say dna......would the evolutionary community say ... so what.. a peripheral event to evolutionary theory.....we are not interested.. that result has no bearing on anyof our research activities.
Actually no. They would be happy that their colleagues had managed to find the holy grail of biological sciences, and their work may have revealed characteristics of life which would be useful to them. It would of course be yet another seperate theory/discipline which is congruent and in agreement with ToE, like radiodating and cosmology.
I don't think theories surrounding nuclear decay or the big bang are part of ToE.
Organic non-living material is not thought to be subject to descent with modification driven by natural selection. Organic non-living material does not have more offspring than is necessary, nor does it get reproductively isolated before diverging.
In good conscience I think not it would be trumpeted around the world as the death of God as was the case with several false starts and overblown results of "life in a test tube" etc.
Anybody claiming that abiogenesis is the death of God is either an idiot, or being colloquial.
That the logos, information cannot arise by naturalistic means not ever in the functional DNA molecule by any naturalistic matter only event or series of events.
And this of course is falsifiable.
I understand that you have personal disagreement with the concept of biology havin such logos regardless of how it got there
You may be confusing me with someone else.
it would seem very logical to conclude that an outside source of intelligence had at the beginning designed that system and "hybridized" it onto the matter.
It has logic to it and I'm not denying it. However, the problem is that we have only two types of code to judge it on so its a little early to make such logical conclusions:
1. Man-made
2. non man-made
The first ones are irrelevant. Obviously they are going to involve intelligence. The non man-made one(s) however present us with a problem. How do we tell if they were made by some other entity, or if they were made by natural processes? Well, since we like to use parsimony in science, we eliminate the hypothesized entity, leaving that to philosophers and theologians, and assume it was a natural process.
This is not without precedent. I point to the infamous "Lightening is more powerful than man could ever achieve, therefore it must be a god...enter Thor" argument. Time and again, scientific enquiry into realms of the unknown assuming that a natural explanation exists, has turned out to produce results and explanations. Those unknown realms were once ascribed to gods/djinn/angels/titans.
I don't thing your conclusion is irrational. Its perfectly lucid, logical and rational. Unfortunately, it isn't a scientific conclusion.
™ Version 4.2