Sounds good until one reads the publications that supposedly do this. I have read a few and the necessary components for the evolution of a complex living micromachine are ignored. It simply "happened" is more often the answer.
Some questions aren't allowed to be asked? Is that why there are literally thousands of biologists and chemists working on that very question right now?
Why? The definition of species has nothing to do with the difference between evolution and abiogenesis.
Depends upon the mind. But what is absolutely true is the mindless process understandings nothing whatsoever. Hence the mind is superior. It might understand the mindless process but the mindless process cannot even understand the simpliest fact.
Ah, are you a materialist? Do you think the brain and the mind are the same thing? That is what a materialist thinks, that the mind is just the physical brain.
Double standard? Now you say the origins of life are not a part of the evolutionary theory and now you admit that some scientists are assuming it is and are working on answers after what, 100 years?
If you embrace the "origin of species" surely you know what species means? How can you know its origin if you do not know what it is, which is the easier question.
Scientific articles are more than three words long. Would take a lot of work to do so and even so, unless you have access to Pub Med you would not be able to read the articles. They are not on the net for free.
I don't even understand what this is supposed to mean. Are you claiming that scientists who work on abiogenesis must also work on evolution at the same time? Even if it isn't their field of study? Chemists must also work on the differences between various species of cats?
I do have a decent understanding of what species means. For the most part it is a group of individuals who can only mate and produce fertile offspring with individuals like themselves. It is a difficult concept to put a precise definition on.
I know that giraffes and bats are different species so I can study them to determine how they have developed over time. I don't have to know the origin of the first cellular life to study bats or giraffes.
So is my Master's Thesis. What's you point?
I have access to PubMed through my university. Feel free to post any article that says that "the necessary components for the evolution of a complex living micromachine" just "happened".
Evolution is a philosophy, a world view. Cats are not. And evolution clams to be science. Cats do not.
Wrong. Different Genus can mate as well as some classes. You don’t know at all.
No you can’t because you have no examples of this in the fossil record of this. You have to make up story about it. It’s history not science at best.
I'd like to see this, too. For that matter, I'd like to any of the scientific papers on the subject @Dorothy Mae read.
If they don’t explain their origin, it’s assumed they just happened. A priori.
Ridiculous. Evolution is no more a philosophy than gravity is. Not to mention there is more evidence for how evolution happens than there is for how gravity happens.
Then you won't have any trouble giving a couple of examples of different genus' that can mate together and different classes that can mate together.
Are you seriously claiming there are no fossil records of bats or giraffes?
That's like claiming that if an architect doesn't explain where cinder blocks come from when designing a house, she assumes that cinder blocks just happen. That's one of the more ridiculous things I've ever read.
The difference is an architect CAN explain where the blocks came from. They don’t pretend isn’t not a part of building a facility and belittle anyone who asks where.
