Well, I'm sorry to say that was just not good enough.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I would like to reply but not at the expense of you not getting answer from who you originally asked Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Not exactly. It's a speculative methodology [among others] as to how possibly Abiogenesis took hold, remembering of course, it is the only scientific answer available. Anything else, particularly promoting ID or some form of magical spaghetti monster, is unscientific mythical beliefs, handed down through the ages.
Just a quick remark and that part of England's excellent methodology of Abiogenesis. It reminds me of Einstein's SR/GR theories, SR [being formulated first] is simply a special case of GR, formulated 10 years later. And of course nether really replaced Newtonian [afterall we still emphatically and widely use it today] rather extend in accuracy in circumstances where Newtonian is too cumbersome. On his methodology itself, he should be congratulated, even if shown not to be the exact pathway...for a fact like Abiogenesis being the only scientific answer, but lacking the details of the pathway, any new proposal on that pathway, would surely add to the research that genuine biologists and scientists are undertaking with regards to Abiogenesis.
Clever Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You nailed it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Just like a well worn set of hand-me-down clothes .......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
One again, the two links from #146: https://evolutionnews.org/2020/05/on-the-origin-of-life-here-is-my-response-to-jeremy-england/ That one demolishes England's hypothesis in a scholarly invective-free innuendo-free way. https://evolutionnews.org/2012/12/top_five_probl/ A broader analysis leaving unguided abiogenesis hypothesis looking particularly fragile. Hint: it's necessary to actually read the two articles before passing any meaningful judgement. A rare event here at SF.
Only according to your own agenda, and obviously the agenda of Discovery Institute. Down to the nitty gritty, and whether England has found the correct pathway or not, Abiogenesis is the only reasonable scientific answer we have. The rest is mythical crap handed down over generation after generation. Understandable I suppose why the more gullible amongst us, still fall for those unsupported, enevidenced and unscientific myths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute_intelligent_design_campaigns Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns: Discovery Institute has conducted a series of related public relations campaigns which seek to promote intelligent design while attempting to discredit evolutionary biology, which the Institute terms "Darwinism."[1] The Discovery Institute promotes the pseudoscientific intelligent design movement and is represented by Creative Response Concepts, a public relations firm.[2] Prominent Institute campaigns have been to 'Teach the Controversy' and to allow 'Critical Analysis of Evolution'. Other campaigns have claimed that intelligent design advocates (most notably Richard Sternberg) have been discriminated against, and thus that Academic Freedom bills are needed to protect academics' and teachers' ability to criticise evolution, and that the development of evolutionary theory was historically linked to ideologies such as Nazism and eugenics,[3][4][5] claims based on misrepresentation which have been ridiculed by topic experts.[6][7] These three claims are all publicized in the pro-ID movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed; the Anti-Defamation League said the film's attempt to blame science for the Nazi Holocaust was outrageous.[8] Other campaigns have included petitions, most notably A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.[9] The theory of evolution is accepted by overwhelming scientific consensus.[10][11] Intelligent design has been rejected, both by the vast majority of scientists and by court findings, such as Kitzmiller v. Dover, as being a religious view and not science.
HINT: No it bloody well is not! Do you expect me to read or even open up the links given by Fat Freddy and his crazy nonsense into conspiracies and such? You do understand that for all the good the WWW and Internet has achieved, there is still much to be poo pooed and not worth the time of day? eg: faked Moon landings...9/11 cover up conspiracy etc etc etc. I won't mention ID, as I previously mentioned, a myth such as that, handed down by generation after generation, can be expected to have a few sympathisers, as gullible as they may be.
i.e. you can't be bothered reading either of the two articles I linked to. Instead resorting to as expected innuendo propped up by the hugely biased Wikipedia article as per #173. What's new?
Evidently you are unaware ID as such is not generations old but a fairly recent development. Not a surprise.
You mean as opposed to your own innuendo and conspiracies, propped up by some religious fanatic and discovery? Pot, Kettle Black? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! At least mine is science inspired!
Evidently your closed mind makes you unaware that ID, any form of creationist nonsense, supernatural etc goes back to ancient man, before science started to show the way.eg: Didn't the Egyptians see the Sun as God? Please excuse me q-reeus if I have that askew somewhat. I've never really made a study of such myth, even when a hairy arse altar boy at school! and being bellowed at [James Tour style] by Father Patrick at Sunday services.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well obviously that's the inference. But as I wrote earlier, one has to take the time to actually read the articles in question to realize that. So rarely happens here. Because minds are so committed to an entrenched worldview, anything outside of it 'must' be wrong. Sigh.
