Arkansas House Votes to Allow Teaching of Creationism in Science Classes

[HARK!]

You are mistaken when you rule out the possibility of .. or even the likelihood of life having emerged from collective autocatalytic sets of interacting small proteins, or even more likely: interacting peptide subsets which formed into lipid based vesicles?
I'll bet the objective results of the lab tests demonstrating that process even in present day life, wasn't part of your school lesson on Abiogenesis, eh(?)

For how many decades have we been talking about possibilities, in absence of a demonstration of the creation of even a simple single cell?

Turns out that simple cells aren't quite so simple.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Reproducibility is a major principle of the scientific method. It means that a result obtained by an experiment or observational study should be achieved again with a high degree of agreement when the study is replicated with the same methodology by different researchers. Only after one or several such successful replications should a result be recognized as scientific knowledge.

The fact of the matter, is that based on the principles of science, science has no knowledge of what created life.

LOL!

So you did not understand what you quoted.

You claimed to have credentials and yet you refute yourself.

And I am sorry, but "science" is not an entity. We do have an understanding of some of the elements of what brought life into existence but not all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For how many decades have we been talking about possibilities, in absence of a demonstration of the creation of even a simple single cell?

Turns out that simple cells aren't quite so simple.

Yes, simple cells have over three billion years of evolution in their history. Of course they are not "simple".

 

[SelfSim]

Reproducibility is a major principle of the scientific method. It means that a result obtained by an experiment or observational study should be achieved again with a high degree of agreement when the study is replicated with the same methodology by different researchers. Only after one or several such successful replications should a result be recognized as scientific knowledge.

The fact of the matter, is that based on the principles of science, science has no knowledge of what created life.

Science has the knowledge of emprical lab test results and information modelling theory backing the hypothesis which relates to the emergence of self replicating molecules based on autocatalytic sets (the latter of which, is a repeatable observable phenomenon .. in the lab and in the information models).

 

[HARK!]

Really? I doubt it. Creationists are almost never "scientists in the field".

Hmmm. I used to talk to one on a daily basis for about 15 years.

There is a notable scientist, who visits this site, who also takes an opposing position on these wild speculations.

I'm still waiting for some proof that life spontaneously popped out of a soup. Whatcha got?

 

[HARK!]

Yes, simple cells have over three billion years of evolution in their history. Of course they are not "simple".

In order for a cell to evolve, there must first be a cell. Howsabout you whip up a simple cell that hasn't yet evolved? Nothing fancy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmmm. I used to talk to one on a daily basis for about 15 years.

There is a notable scientist, who visits this site, who also takes an opposing position on these wild speculations.

I'm still waiting for some proof that life spontaneously popped out of a soup. Whatcha got?

Would you care to drop any names? And please, not Tour, he made one of the unforgivable since for scinenists.

By the way, if you call abiogenesis a "wild speculation" you have already lost the argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In order for a cell to evolve, there must first be a cell. Howsabout you whip up a simple cell that hasn't yet evolved? Nothing fancy.

I am sorry, but you are relying on a strawman version of abiogenesis. It is rather clear that you do not understand it.

 

[SelfSim]

For how many decades have we been talking about possibilities, in absence of a demonstration of the creation of even a simple single cell?

Turns out that simple cells aren't quite so simple.

So? No one said they were simple! .. However, whole cell biochemical process models have already been developed .. ie: the tested knowledge is there.

Life-functional artificial DNA has also been developed and tested in the lab.

Artificial functional ribozymes have also been created.

 

[HARK!]

information modelling

What's that? This isn't another one of those computer models, where you put garbage in; and then you get garbage out? Is it?

That hardly qualifies as empirical evidence IMO.

 

[HARK!]

I am sorry, but you are relying on a strawman version of abiogenesis. It is rather clear that you do not understand it.

Did you watch that movie that I presented from the Smithsonian?

That was a mild one, compared to what I watched in school.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What's that? This isn't another one of those computer models, where you put garbage in; and then you get garbage out? Is it?

That hardly qualifies as empirical evidence IMO.

It is a way of testing ideas.

You mentioned "qualifications".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you watch that movie that I presented from the Smithsonian?

That was a mild one, compared to what I watched in school.

I missed it. You do realize that they have to simplify ideas for lay people. Sometimes to an extreme. That does not mean that the basic principles are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Hark, if someone presents a simplified version of Christianity that is not one hundred percent accurate does that disprove Christianity? Does it prove that it is "wild speculation"? Just because an idea has not been formally presented does to you does not refute that idea.

 

[HARK!]

It is a way of testing ideas.

You mentioned "qualifications".

It has been demonstrated that it is a weak way of testing hypothesis. Are you asserting that models qualify as empirical evidence?

 

[SelfSim]

So? No one said they were simple! .. However, whole cell biochemical process models have already been developed .. ie: the tested knowledge is there.

Life-functional artificial DNA has also been developed and tested in the lab.

Artificial functional ribozymes have also been created.

Oh .. and the other key research on:

i) constraint closure in open non equilibrium systems, was done by Monteville and Mossio and;
ii) phase transitions of autocataytic sets, was done by Erdos And Renyl.

(Haven't got handy links/references to the above relevant papers/work, just yet).

Stuart Kauffman used (i) and (ii) above in his work on his Autocatalytic Set Abiogenesis Hypothesis , too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It has been demonstrated that it is a weak way of testing hypothesis. Are you asserting that models qualify as empirical evidence?

Where has that been done? I am sure that it can fail at times. That does not prove that it is a weak way of testing.

Please do not try to make people say something that they did not. Those test themselves are not empirical evidence. They are methods of evaluating the empirical evidence.

Here is an easy question for you: Is there scientific evidence for abiogenesis?

 

[HARK!]

I missed it.

See post #120.

 

[SelfSim]

It has been demonstrated that it is a weak way of testing hypothesis. Are you asserting that models qualify as empirical evidence?

When they are derived from other empirically tested concepts/ideas and then they, themselves are tested, then peer reviewed, they are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See post #120.

Oh my! That was an explanation of the Miller-Urey experiment. I can see that you did not understand it. That does not "prove abiogenesis" I doubt if they claimed that it does. But it is scientific evidence for abiogenesis.