Abiogenesis - Essential Darwinism

You're right. That's why Darwinism hasn't. Further, which biologist is a pure Darwinist today? Evolutionary Biology is a big field that has grown significantly over the years. Calling evolutionary biologists Darwinists would be like calling modern physicians Galenists or something. Science doesn't deal in philosophy. It deals with impersism. No apologetics needed. Never was associated, never has been, never will be. If you are trying to imply some sort of evasion on the part of biologists, you have plenty of targets in the field of origins without having to pick on the evolution camp. It doesn't. Have you read the definition of evolution?

quote:

---

ev·o·lu·tion Pronunciation Key (v-lshn, v-)
n.

​

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
1. The process of developing.
2. Gradual development.
3. Biology.
1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.

---

compare and contrast with the definition of abiogenesis:

quote:

---

a·bi·o·gen·e·sis Pronunciation Key (b--jn-ss)
n.

​

The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter.

---

What makes the two similar? Come on, I read them both, they have nothing to do with each other. blah blah blah Haeckel blah blah blah Urey blah blah blah I don't know what I'm talking about blah blah blahSave it. We've heard it. Your wrong.Have you read any RECENT RESEARCH!!!!!Let me put it to you this way, 50 years ago, we barely had computers. 50 years ago we didn't have color tv. 50 years ago we were in the middle of the cold war.Things change! Don't you think things have MOVED ON/ PROGRESSED/ ADVANCED???? Try reading a National Geographic, or Scientific American for christ's sake! I love crap like this:"he made only a small quantity gufaw gufaw... psh..muh muh muh muh..."WHY DON'T YOU MAKE A SMALL QUANTITY! WHEN IS THE LAST TIME YOU TRIED THE EXPERIMENT?????You act as if the man wouldn't be right less a pig crawled out of his petri dish fully formed. What the hell did you expect? An entire ecosystem???????The fact that he got ANYTHING AT ALL is a freakin ACCOMPLISHEMENT WORTHY OF ACCLAIM!Are you gonna fault Lewie Pasture for not finding the cure for AIDS as well?"he only found the cure for a few bacterial disease gufaw gufaw... muh muh muh muh...." Right... Right right. uhuh... you know what Quote mining is? I have heard Crick speak live and in person and the man by no means disputes evolution or it's validity. It is also 150 ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY!!!!! Years old! Oh boy....So, what the hell you doing here then? You obviously have tapped into some greater knowledge that the vast majority of the scientific community is missing.Why don't you write a paper, submit it to a journal, and take down evolution singlehandedly. If you got a case, I'm sure you could find a scientist to help you with the technical aspects of the endeavor.I tell ya, there is nothing like taking down an established theory to make you rich and famous. Case in point, I read an article about this girl, she was in grade school I think, and her school science experiment got published in Nature.Apparently the experiment she devised was so ingenious that it revealed new scientific knowledge about climate change. Some university professors worked with her and her mom to create an article.Now if she can do it, what the hell are you waiting for?This message has been edited by Yaro, 10-24-2005 03:31 PM

Hey Mirabile_Auditu,first off. Your reply formating could use a little work. When you wan't to reply to a particular person please use the reply button at the bottom of that persons post.When you wan't to quote something the person said, use the quote box feature by surrounding their blocks with {qs}{/qs} except with "" instead of "{}".For example: Your response is kinda hard to read because of your formatting. If you have any other questions about how formating is done, you can also hit the "peek" button at the bottom of anyones posts. Note from Adminnemooseus - you have "" when you want to have something else. You want to have the square brackets in the middle of the "", but for some reason the system won't display them (I tried to fix it by edit, but couldn't get it to work either).This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-25-2005 01:15 AM

Thank you for that. Not a native speller It is. Sorry. Nothing in science has ever been gained through non-empiricism.... can you name an example ? Also incorrect. Naturalistic phenomena is all phenomena. Can you name an unnatural one? It seems to me that everything that happens in this universe, is by definition, natural.On to the actual topic. Alright. Then your quarrel is not with evolutionists per say. You are now in the field of origins and abiogenesis.Further, it is not arbitrary. I posted a definition, did you read it? Did you see how the two things had nothing to do with each other?Evolutionists don't address abiogenesis (for the most part) because it has nothing to do with living organisms. How it got here is anyones guest, an evolutionist deals with what it is doing now. Miller Urey did nothing of the sort. Do you realize how your hopscotching all over the board of science here?Miller-Urey was basically an experiment in chemistry, Big Bang theory is related to cosmology and physics (theorized long before Urey BTW), and homo sapiens is a concern of biology. How the hell did Miller-Urey help the big bang theory, it's not even in the same branch of science?! Wow there.... science rarely speaks in absolutes. "UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE"? Where are you getting this? Because last time I checked origins was a pretty hot fields with lots of advances in the other direction. That is, we are learning more and more about what it takes for life to arise. Panspermia being an interesting hypothesis.Abiogenesis - WikipediaCan you show me some RECENT literature that has declared life's origins as "UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE"? I mean, we are here. Certainly we had an origin right Miller-Urey performed an experiment in chemistry. His experiment, while related to evolution, has nothing to do with the science. It's like cosmology, it's heavily related to physics, but the two are different fields all together.AS far as Haeckel I refuse to talk about him. His work is Over 100 years old. I don't care what he did as it is obviously outdated. You shouldn't care either. Infact, you should judge your position suspect because of it.It seems you feel forced to bring it up simply because he is one of the few things that you can misrepresent to support your cause:"Haeckel was inacurate! Thus all science since the 1800's is inacurate! QED God! YAY! I WIN I WIN!"Sorry bud, it don't work that way. Yes. And by all indication this is a basic requirement for first life. It would have likely been something like the archybacteria we find in sea vents, or even something like a virus. In any case, replication is what the chemistry of life does. No. your wrong. I refuse to talk Haeckel as it has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Your understanding of the Urey experiment, and it's significance, is flawed at best. Somehow I don't think you are. LOL! Well, I don't respect silly ideas. But if it bothers you that much, I will refrain. See, I refuse to even address this. You have misinterpreted the experiment, and again you seem to have any concept that the experiment was about chemistry not evolution. Your point is mood.Miller-Urey's point was that life molecules COULD arise from chemical processes. That's all. Weather or not the conditions were correct is moot. It's a 50 year old experiment.Updated versions, based on the same premise, have been performed to greater success. The fact is, life chemicals can arise through purely naturalistic processes given enough time.In any case, it has nothing to do with evolution. If you wanna say your sky man did it, have at it. But I take issue with the idea that this has anything to do with the validity of TOE. It doesn't. Did you read the definitions? If all Abiogeneis theories diapered tomorrow, it wouldn't change the TOE. No. You do. The fact that you put it there was to bolster your position that evolution has a problem because of the mystery associated with origins.I was pointing out that even if Crick thinks all abiogenesis theories are bunk and that the world came from a chicken fart, it has no bearing on his ideas concerning TOE. Nor should it, TOE is a different field all together. You were quote mining. I called you on it. No one is gonna tolerate that kind of malarkey. Oh that's a laugh! See what I mean? Your stuck in a time warp.The evolution of today has very little to do with Darwin's original work. Darwin only came up with the very basics of the theory, it has taken decades of research, discovery, advancement in technology, to amass the wealth of evidence and robustness that the TOE now holds. The TOE of today is vastly different from what Darwin would have ever dreamed. Good show. But I don't know why you bother, those publications are apparently filled with lies and falsehoods like Heackel. You know better apparently.This message has been edited by Yaro, 10-25-2005 12:47 AM

So uhh.... did ya forget about this topic? I, and others, replied to the last on-topic post. If you are done complaining to the admins, it would be great if we could continue this particular discussion.

oops