Are Scientists Abandoning Evolution?

Of course not. There is no such thing as "inanimate life" !
But really, is there actually a solid definition of 'life' ?
I would be interested in hearing yours.Because within my conceptualization, molecules that by chance find a way to replicate themselves in a primordial soup of simple compounds could become increasingly abundant - and complex- - at least until they overexploited their resource base. They wouldn't really be 'alive' with consciousness the way you are, but they would have properties of life and be potential precursers to more complex iterations of 'life'.But we haven't really defined what YOU mean by life yet...This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-28-2005 08:01 PM

You will note that Mick has brought up a very good point.
We can now demonstrate various molecular processes which separately demonstrate various 'animated' properties without possessing all the properties together that would be necessary for them to be considered 'alive' in the common sense fo the word.So once again, please let us hear your definition of life if we are going to debate abiogenesis. Then we will be able to show you how various 'life' properties are exhibited by non-living things.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-29-2005 07:04 AM

I think the thread can be closed (unless someone feels compelled to get in the last word )
It is a fact, as Schraf makes abundantly clear in message 5, that scientists are *not* abandoning evolutionary theory in droves as the proponents of ID would like everyone to think.Although some ID proponents have scientific credentials in fields related to the biological sciences and medicine, they are typically not working in fields where inferences from evolutionary biology are routinely relied upon, like applied resources management, molecular genetics, community ecology, conservation, and agriculture.Furthermore, most of the discussion up-thread has crossed over to inferences from physical sciences and quotes from physicists etc. and does not relate directly to biological evolution, only perhaps to cosmological evolution in some cases. The basic Darwinian model is still the 'gold standard' for evaluating and predicting changes in living populations. Almost any applied biologist working in organismal or population biology will tell you that. Until ID theorists can come up with some testable hypotheses or solve some actual problems in applied biology, they just aren't going to be taken seriously by 'serious' scientists.
End of story.