Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Where has that been done?
Like I said, that one was tame. The ones I watched in school made outright assertions.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.
When they are derived from other empirically tested concepts/ideas and then they, themselves are tested, then peer reviewed, they are.
Yet they models are getting more and more accurate, even if Trump does try to change them with a Sharpie. It appears that you do not understand that science is a progressive process. Incomplete models are constantly replaced with better and more accurate ones. Fifty years ago there were almost no models to work with. Today our models have improved to the point that they have saved lives. Today if the model says "evacuate" you better evacuate.Have you ever heard of these wind storms called hurricanes?
It's fun to follow their projected landfall with computer models; but I wouldn't bet my life on those models.
And yet you could find no flaws with it, even though it was simplified to an elementary school level.Like I said, that one was tame. The ones I watched in school made outright assertions.
The one for the military is still good for a few laughs though.
Science fail.Are you familiar with the peer review process? Does peer review constitute proof?
And yet you could find no flaws with it, even though it was simplified to an elementary school level.
Notice how science provides all the above evidence .. whilst those folk who rely on their belief-centered notions of reality sit back and criticise it?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.
Really? What assumptions? Be specific. When you make a claim of assumptions you take on a huge burden of proof. You not only need to show that they did rely on those assumptions, but that they were unjustified assumptions to start with.The flaw is that it's a biased presentation, built on assumptions.
Yet they models are getting more and more accurate, even if Trump does try to change them with a Sharpie. It appears that you do not understand that science is a progressive process. Incomplete models are constantly replaced with better and more accurate ones. Fifty years ago there were almost no models to work with. Today our models have improved to the point that they have saved lives. Today if the model says "evacuate" you better evacuate.
Not so. It is a lot closer. But you probably do not follow the sciences. They have built cells, granted they copied parts of working cells to do so. They have answered many of the questions of abiogenesis, no one has claimed that they answered all of them .50 years later, and science is nowhere remotely close to creating life in a lab. The fact remains that science does not understand how life was created.
Let's see if you can come up with a refutation to this elephant in the room, without falling back on more ad hominem arguments.
If you have the proof; let's spill it.
Really? What assumptions? Be specific.
Are you reading my posts?50 years later, and science is nowhere remotely close to creating life in a lab. The fact remains that science does not understand how life was created.
Let's see if you can come up with a refutation to this elephant in the room, without falling back on more ad hominem arguments.
If you have the proof; let's spill it.
They have built cells, granted they copied parts of working cells to do so.
No one made that claim.That life was created from airborne chemicals exposed to electricity. If you are purporting this to be a fact; then let's see your proof.
Actually I do. But apparently you do not understand the scientific method.Apparently you don't understand the difference between creation and modification.
I thought all that was called for there, was to counter the two claims of:Actually I do. But apparently you do not understand the scientific method.
Falsified by the links to the creation of artificial life and:Hark! said:50 years later, and science is nowhere remotely close to creating life in a lab.
Falsified by numerous linked papers relating to biochemical evolutionary hypotheses(?)Hark! said:The fact remains that science does not understand how life was created.
I thought all that was called for there, was to counter the two claims of:
Falsified by the links to the creation of artificial life and:
Falsified by numerous linked papers relating to biochemical evolutionary hypotheses(?)
The silly thing here is that I'm not even sure that I like any particular Abiogenesis Hypothesis .. let alone believe any of them.He appears to be relying largely on strawman arguments. For example the claim that in the video they said that they made life in the lab. No such claim was made. The claim was that they made amino acids which were accurately described as "the building blocks of life". The Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated that amino acids could form naturally. They are the building blocks of life. Even that was denied by the creationists of that time.
I know. I am far from being an expert in the field so my opinion of what is most likely right is most likely wrong since there are several present hypotheses and other possible ones that have not even been formed yet. Saying "we don't know yet" when that is the current state of affairs is a strength, not a weakness. Denying what is known is simply a losing strategy.The silly thing here is that I'm not even sure that I like any particular Abiogenesis Hypothesis .. let alone believe any of them.
What I do know however, is that when it comes to the question of how did life start, the objective answer is simply that: 'we don't know yet'.
(I often argue the contrary position of criticising abiognesis hypotheses, because its a legitimate position to take from a scientific viewpoint).
If something resembling a 'new' lifeform, or life processes, shows up, either in the lab or via astronomical object exploration, one can bet these hypotheses will be tested on it .. and if we don't have those well thought out, evidence based hypotheses, which ask the right questions, those tests couldn't happen .. and that's why we need science education in our schools .. (and not so much Creationism).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?