Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8994 total)
71 online now:
Coragyps, dwise1, ICANT, jar, nwr, Pollux (6 members, 65 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,295 Year: 11,043/23,288 Month: 295/1,763 Week: 262/390 Day: 82/69 Hour: 2/11

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   From protobionts to living cells
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2676 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003

Message 46 of 48 (497440)
02-04-2009 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Cedre
02-04-2009 4:41 AM

Straying from the theme?
And to set the record straoght, I am not the one who strays from the theme

Really? And yet your Message 9 is the first time anyone brings up the topics of mutation and information. It is also you that keeps trying to use the status of research into abiogenesis as some sort of disproof of evolution. If you want to debate origins-of-life research then do so, if you want to debate modern evolutionary theory then do that. It seems a bit obtuse however to claim to want to debate the origins-of-life to then say it disproves modern evolutionary theory and to complain of others going off topic when they address your misconceptions about modern evolutionary theory because they are not addressing the origins-of-life topic. Abiogenesis is arguably the origin of evolution as it is of life, but this is just as true if the abiogenetic event was god breathing life into clay as if it was a symbiosis of disparate protogenetic and protocellular elements around a hydrothermal vent. The particular form the abiogenetic event took is obviously interesting in and of itself, but largely irrelevant to evolutionary theory.

You have failed to address the single most important critique of your OP that was raised right at the start by Bluejay, that your description of the theory of abiogenesis was a strawman not representign a theory actually held by researchers. What you describe is not a theory ascribed to by anyone researching the origins of life that I am aware of, although it seems to borrow from a few. If you still contend that it is a specific origins hypothesis put forward by those in origins-of-life research then please give us an actual reference for a research paper or review paper putting forward such an hypothesis.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 4:41 AM Cedre has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 71 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009

Message 47 of 48 (497442)
02-04-2009 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Dr Jack
02-04-2009 6:35 AM

Re: Mr Jack
Mr Jack a believe in God never hampered the scientists I mentioned earlier from conducting real, crude scientific work, as human beings it is engrained into our nature the impulse to inquire. A believe in God as you're trying to say will not only resort to the answer of God did it, but as long as intelligence and curious people exist scientific inquiry will not come to a sudden screeching halt. What harm would it do if we would understand the world from the bible's point of view, God made we want to understand it so what's stopping us, just as long as we acknowledge the creator not only as being the first cuase but also as a key factor of our lives today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Dr Jack, posted 02-04-2009 6:35 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Posts: 3923
Joined: 09-26-2002

Message 48 of 48 (497443)
02-04-2009 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Adminnemooseus
02-04-2009 6:20 AM

Re: Topic closing soon (At least for a while)
This one needs a time out (IMHO).

To be reopened later.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-04-2009 6:20 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020