Chemical evolution:

[Yazata]

Because evolution by natural selection in both chemistry and biochemistry is a demonstrable process of all things in the entire universe.

All things in the universe? Or chemical replicators in this abiogenesis" case? Once again, you seem to be making huge leaps of speculation and hence overstating your case.

The notion of "irreducible complexity" has been debunked, not just scientifically , but in a Court of Law, based on the evidence presented . (See the Kitzmiller v Dover Trial)

Scientific and philosophical questions aren't solved in courts of law. All that happened there was that a particular judge reached a decision about how he was going to treat ID in a particular court case. That doesn't solve the scientific and philosophical questions swirling around these topics.

Ask yourself this question: "Is a male sperm alive?" The answer is YES, it’s certainly as alive as any other cells in a male body. Since it can have a life of its own outside the body, each sperm is really an independent single-celled organism – like a living amoeba, but differing in locomotion and lifestyle.

I'll agree that it's alive in a cell biology sense.

Now ask yourself this question: "Is an unfertilized egg alive?". The answer to this is NO

and at the same time answers the question of the abiogenetic process which transforms a non-living (unfertilized egg) into a living object able to replicate and grow after "fertilization". What better proof can be presented?

Life is not a mysterious thing at all. Look around you and see the incredible variety of life and living organisms which inhabit this earth. And then to think that 95 % of all life on earth is extinct.

How does "the incredible variety of life" (your words, which I heartily agree with) suggest that life isn't mysterious?

Egg cells are certifiably alive in the cell biology sense. They are living cells. If an egg cell wasn't alive, it could never be successfully fertilized, could it? It's even possible to generate clones by removing an egg cell nucleus and replacing it with a diploid nucleus from another cell. In which case the egg might sometimes behave as if it's been fertilized and develop into an entire organism that's genetically identical to the organism from which the transplant nucleus came. (Inevitably it's more complicated than that, but that's the outline.)

So your argument that egg-cell fertilization represents an example of "abiogenesis" fails (and once again looks biologically illiterate).

If you ever break down and actually study biology, you would become aware of life's awesome complexity. Just explaining how relatively simple prokaryotic genomes are regulated is a work in progress and still isn't completely understood. Eukaryotes are even worse.

https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Cell_and_Molecular_Biology/Book:_Basic_Cell_and_Molecular_Biology_(Bergtrom)/12:_Regulation_of_Transcription_and_Epigenetic_Inheritance/12.02:_Gene_Regulation_in_Prokaryotes

https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Cell_and_Molecular_Biology/Book:_Basic_Cell_and_Molecular_Biology_(Bergtrom)/12:_Regulation_of_Transcription_and_Epigenetic_Inheritance/12.04:_Gene_Regulation_in_Eukaryotes

As for the definition of the word 'life', it's never been precisely defined. Once again, as with so many of our concepts , it's a matter of family-resemblance. There are things that we accept as paradigmatically alive. And if we we want to determine whether some X (a virus say) is alive, we look to see how closely it resembles what we consider to be paradigmatic lifeforms. That's going to be a matter of the biologists' judgment. And it's going to generate problem cases, like those viruses.

If we extend our scope to exobiology, away from 'life-here-on-earth' to 'all possible life anywhere in principle', then those kinds of problems will only multiply. We will probably have trouble determining whether many of the things that we might hypothetically encounter out there among the stars are life or not. They will resemble earth life in some ways but not in others. And we will find it difficult to draw any hard and final boundaries around what forms those sorta-life things might possibly take. There might always be new varieties surprising space explorers.

I don't know if any of that qualifies as 'mystery', but I'm inclined to say that it does. If we still don't fully understand it, if we can't explain or even define it, I'd personally call it 'mysterious'.

 

[Write4U]

W4U said ↑ : Because evolution by natural selection in both chemistry and biochemistry is a demonstrable process of all things in the entire universe.

All things in the universe? Or chemical replicators in this abiogenesis" case? Once again, you seem to be making huge leaps of speculation and hence overstating your case.

OK, I'll double down. All physical things in the universe are evolved from simpler stages.

Universal evolution

Universal evolution is a theory of evolution formulated by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Julian Huxley that describes the gradual development of the Universe from subatomic particles to human society, considered by Teilhard as the last stage.

Vernadsky's and Teilhard's theories[edit]

Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky influenced Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and the two formulated very similar theories describing the gradual development of the universe from subatomic particles to human society and beyond. Teilhard's theories are better known in the West (and have also been commented on by Julian Huxley), and integrate Darwinian evolution and Christianity, whilst Vernadsky wrote more purely from a scientific perspective.

Three classic levels are described. Cosmogenesis (Teilhard) or the formation of inanimate matter (the Physiosphere of Wilber), culminating in the Lithosphere, Atmosphere, Hydrosphere, etc. (Teilhard), or collectively, the Geosphere (Vernadsky).

Here progress is ruled by structure and mechanical laws, and matter is primarily of the nature of non-consciousness (Teilhard - the "Without").

This is followed by Biogenesis (Teilhard) and the origin of life or the Biosphere (Vernadsky, Teilhard), where there is a greater degree of complexity and consciousness (Teilhard - the "Within"), ecology (Vernadsky) comes into play, and progress and development is the result of Darwinian mechanisms of evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_evolution#

Evolutionary stages[edit]

Nine levels are described[citation needed], the "classical" biological stages being levels 6, 7 & 8 of the universal evolution. Stages 1 to 5 are grouped into the Lithosphere, also called Geosphere or Physiosphere, where (the progress of) the structure of the organisms is ruled by structure, mechanical laws and coincidence. Stages 6 to 8 are grouped into the Biosphere, where (the progress of) the structure of the organisms is ruled by genetical mechanisms. The actual stage, stage 9, is called the Noosphere, where (the progress of) the structure of human society (socialization) is ruled by psychological, informational and communicative processes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_evolution#

All things in the universe? Or chemical replicators in this abiogenesis" case? Once again, you seem to be making huge leaps of speculation and hence overstating your case.

Don't narrow the concept of evolution to living stuff only. That's Darwinian Evolution (Darwinism)

Darwinism is theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.

Also called Darwinian theory, it originally included the broad concepts of transmutation of species or of evolution which gained general scientific acceptance after Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, including concepts which predated Darwin's theories. English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the term Darwinism in April 1860.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

The notion of "irreducible complexity" has been debunked, not just scientifically , but in a Court of Law, based on the evidence presented . (See the Kitzmiller v Dover Trial)

Scientific and philosophical questions aren't solved in courts of law. All that happened there was that a particular judge reached a decision about how he was going to treat ID in a particular court case. That doesn't solve the scientific and philosophical questions swirling around these topics.

You're wrong. This was not a political judgement. This was a legal judgement based on available evidence as presented and confirmed by authoritative experts. Does a judge have to be a forensic expert to decided if a forensic expert is telling the truth?

W4u said: Ask yourself this question: "Is a male sperm alive?" The answer is YES, it’s certainly as alive as any other cells in a male body. Since it can have a life of its own outside the body, each sperm is really an independent single-celled organism – like a living amoeba, but differing in locomotion and lifestyle.

I'll agree that it's alive in a cell biology sense.

I understand your hesitation, although a sperm is unable to divide, one of the requirements of "life"

W4U said: Now ask yourself this question: "Is an unfertilized egg alive?". The answer to this is NO and at the same time answers the question of the abiogenetic process which transforms a non-living (unfertilized egg) into a living object able to replicate and grow after "fertilization".
What better proof can be presented?

Life is not a mysterious thing at all. Look around you and see the incredible variety of life and living organisms which inhabit this earth. And then to think that 95 % of all life on earth is extinct. ​

Egg cells are certifiably alive in the cell biology sense. They are living cells.

No they are not. They are unable to divide, a requirement for a living organism. It is an inanimate bio-molecule.

If an egg cell wasn't alive, it could never be successfully fertilized, could it?

What gives you that idea? Yes it certainly could and therein lies the crux of my argument.

It's even possible to generate clones by removing an egg cell nucleus and replacing it with a diploid nucleus from another cell. In which case the egg might sometimes behave as if it's been fertilized and develop into an entire organism that's genetically identical to the organism from which the transplant nucleus came. (Inevitably it's more complicated than that, but that's the outline.)

That does not in any way prove anything other than that you can manipulate different bio-chemical molecules and experience bio-chemical changes.​

Keep it simple. All you need is a male sperm to fertilize the egg and presto "mitosis" and "life"!

The point is that every egg in your refrigerator is a large inanimate bio-molecule. It is unable to divide by itself which is one of the qualification of a "living organism". If you take it from the refrigerator it'll start rotting in just a few days. It will NEVER develop into a chicken. An unfertilized egg lacks the double strand DNA required for growth and mitotic instructions.

There are exception to this , such as found in the "silvery salamander". But that is an "aberration", not the rule.

 

[paddoboy]

I don't know if any of that qualifies as 'mystery', but I'm inclined to say that it does. If we still don't fully understand it, if we can't explain or even define it, I'd personally call it 'mysterious'.

In my opinion a mystery over states the issues of science unexplained. Why not just unexplained?
I mean we can go back thousands of years, and laugh or wonder in awe, how much we didn't understand...the rising and setting of the Sun...why we didn't fall off the edge of the flat Earth... meteors as harbingers of death, etc etc.
Why read anything more into it then what it is?...unexplained at this time.
The theory of evolution of life is now deemed a fact. With the millions and millions of chemical reactions that take place, and limited success of some experiments, why do we need to make Abiogenesis anymore mysterious, then just something that at this stage is unexplained?
We all [I hope!] understand the mechanics of stars via nuclear fusion, but in reality we have yet to actually grab a piece of star to find out. We can though have some idea by the neutrinos that reach Earth from the stars [SUN]
Isn't it natural that something like the universe, that is not alive in the accepted sense of the word, would just be indifference to us humans and life in general? The same as a rock?
I recently posted a quote in that section, "The business of the Universe is creating life."
Cyril Ponnamperuma: my own take on that is the fact of a universe near infinite in extent and content and the stuff of life being everywhere. Or to use another great quote, "we were born in the belly of stars: Carl Sagan.
I am aware and understand how nerve racking it is to some people that the universe is so indifferent to our being and evolution...so much so that down through the ages, we have needed to construct models of supernatural/paranormal properties of inert elements and objects to explain our being, and perhaps in the case of more recent times, with the finality of death, some form of ID that will/may look after us when we finally kick the bucket.
Science imo, like the universe is indifferent to our phobias and fears, and just is.
Why shouldn't we adhere to the scientific methodology with the obvious success it has?
Why can't we see that it [science] has indeed pushed any need for any ID back to near oblivion?
Still a way to go, but we are getting there.
I use the term "we" modestly, as I am not a scientist.

 

[paddoboy]

From James Tour's own mouth...................
https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/

Based upon my faith in the biblical text, I do believe (yes, faith and belief go beyond scientific evidence for this scientist) that God created the heavens and the earth and all that dwell therein, including a man named Adam and a woman named Eve. As for many of the details and the time-spans, I personally become less clear. Some may ask, What’s “less clear” about the text that reads, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth”? That is a fair question, and I wish I had an answer that would satisfy them. But I do not because I remain less clear. So, in addition to my chemically based scientific resistance to a macroevolutionary proposal, I am also theologically reticent to embrace it. As a lover of the biblical text, I cannot allegorize the Book of Genesis that far, lest, as Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof said, “If I try and bend that far, I’ll break!” God seems to have set nature as a clue, not a solution, to keep us yearning for him. And if some day we do understand the mechanisms for these macroevolutionary changes, and also the processes that led to the origin of first life, it will not lessen God. As with all discoveries, like when the genetic code in the double-stranded DNA was discovered, they will serve to underscore the magnanimity of God.

I thought this as appropriate......

 

[iceaura]

No. A fantasy based on a wholly inadequate capacity or rather incapacity of clays and other crystaline mineral structures.

It's an observed property of certain clays - and of course many other inorganic structures, including some crystalline mineral ones, common all over the surface of the planet even now and presumably even more common in the eons before living beings took over the surfaces of almost everywhere and chewed up the more elaborate constructions.

There's very little fantasy involved in recording the existence and properties of rocks and clays and and oils and such, including whatever chirality and tendencies toward replication they display - it's a chore, in my opinion, but there are people who find it as fascinating as it is valuable.

Meanwhile, you have posted a link to some stuff you might want to actually read before endorsing: a quick skim turned up three or four assertions that are kind of - how to put it gently - not completely thought out. This, for example:

The probability of forming one homochiral polymer of n monomers by chance = 2⁻ⁿ. For a small protein of 100 amino acids, this probability = 2⁻¹⁰⁰ = 10⁻³⁰. Note, this is the probability of any homochiral polypeptide. The probability of forming a functional homochiral polymer is much lower, since a precise amino acid sequence is required in many places. Of course, many homochiral polymers are required for life, so the probabilities must be compounded. Chance is thus not an option.

Most people who write as experts about probabilities on the internet first familiarize themselves with the concept of "independence" - it's a key factor in calculating probabilities.

Meanwhile: The probability of any chiral molecule formed on a homochiral substrate (such as a clay surface formed by replication from a homochiral fragment) being homochiral itself is not necessarily small - it approaches '1' in some circumstances.

And there appeared also this:

Racemic polypeptides could not form the specific shapes required for enzymes, because they would have the side chains sticking out randomly. Also, a wrong-handed amino acid disrupts the stabilizing α-helix in proteins. DNA could not be stabilised in a helix if even a single wrong-handed monomer were present, so it could not form long chains. This means it could not store much information, so it could not support life.

in which the expert appears to have forgotten that they were talking about the origin of life - as far as anyone knows, DNA and enzymes and so forth are found only in already living beings produced by millions of years of evolution. Their presence at the origin of "life", before there were living beings to manufacture and maintain them, would be startling. We expect the first quasi-living sort-of things would compare to the simplest entity living now like a box kite compares to an SR 71.

 

[Q-reeus]

It's an observed property of certain clays - and of course many other inorganic structures, including some crystalline mineral ones, common all over the surface of the planet even now and presumably even more common in the eons before living beings took over the surfaces of almost everywhere and chewed up the more elaborate constructions.

There's very little fantasy involved in recording the existence and properties of rocks and clays and and oils and such, including whatever chirality and tendencies toward replication they display - it's a chore, in my opinion, but there are people who find it as fascinating as it is valuable.

If you had read the section on clays, it would be clear their claimed acting as effective chiral replication templates was never more than small and even that much has lately has been discredited. This then impacts your next point:

Meanwhile, you have posted a link to some stuff you might want to actually read before endorsing: a quick skim turned up three or four assertions that are kind of - how to put it gently - not completely thought out. This, for example:

The probability of forming one homochiral polymer of n monomers by chance = 2⁻ⁿ. For a small protein of 100 amino acids, this probability = 2⁻¹⁰⁰ = 10⁻³⁰. Note, this is the probability of any homochiral polypeptide. The probability of forming a functional homochiral polymer is much lower, since a precise amino acid sequence is required in many places. Of course, many homochiral polymers are required for life, so the probabilities must be compounded. Chance is thus not an option.

Most people who write as experts about probabilities on the internet first familiarize themselves with the concept of "independence" - it's a key factor in calculating probabilities.

Meanwhile: The probability of any chiral molecule formed on a homochiral substrate (such as a clay surface formed by replication from a homochiral fragment) being homochiral itself is not necessarily small - it approaches '1' in some circumstances.

Unless you can cite a reputable article establishing 'almost unity' chiral replication via clay surfaces, I will take advice from the article I cited. Even if 'almost unity' existed, interference free assembly (i.e. absence of competing chemical species surely expected to be present) AND incorporation of specified information would not be explained by such. A huge headache for unguided abiogenesis.

And there appeared also this:

Racemic polypeptides could not form the specific shapes required for enzymes, because they would have the side chains sticking out randomly. Also, a wrong-handed amino acid disrupts the stabilizing α-helix in proteins. DNA could not be stabilised in a helix if even a single wrong-handed monomer were present, so it could not form long chains. This means it could not store much information, so it could not support life.

in which the expert appears to have forgotten that they were talking about the origin of life - as far as anyone knows, DNA and enzymes and so forth are found only in already living beings produced by millions of years of evolution. Their presence at the origin of "life", before there were living beings to manufacture and maintain them, would be startling. We expect the first quasi-living sort-of things would compare to the simplest entity living now like a box kite compares to an SR 71.

Let me know if a collection of self-replicating simple achiral biopolymer molecules has ever been identified and declared to operate as a viable metabolizing protocell/precell. With or without a useful lipid bilayer somehow enveloping those molecular strands via a random event.

 

[paddoboy]

Unless you can cite a reputable article establishing 'almost unity' chiral replication via clay surfaces, I will take advice from the article I cited.

You mean from the same bible bashing fanatic that said.......
From James Tour's own mouth...................
https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/

Based upon my faith in the biblical text, I do believe (yes, faith and belief go beyond scientific evidence for this scientist) that God created the heavens and the earth and all that dwell therein, including a man named Adam and a woman named Eve.

And if some day we do understand the mechanisms for these macroevolutionary changes, and also the processes that led to the origin of first life, it will not lessen God.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

[Q-reeus]

You mean from the same bible bashing fanatic that said.......
From James Tour's own mouth..................

No fool - you have evidently already forgotten content of #219, that you responded to in the usual worthless way the very next post!

 

[paddoboy]

No fool - you have evidently already forgotten content of #219, that you responded to in the usual worthless way the very next post!

Calm down q-reeus...I mean you have been banned at the other place, I don't want you to leave here too soon.
Not sure about your 219 *shrug* but I have given a dozen reputable links that show Tour as the bible thumping religious zealot that he is.

 

[paddoboy]

content of #219,!

creation.com???? Christ q-reeus, can't you do any better then that crap?

 

[paddoboy]

Interesting letters from

and the video hits the spot also as previously posted.......

"So what we have here, is the fraud James Tour, arguing that Abiogenesis isn't true because chemists can't recreate it in the Lab....But that religion is true, even though theists can't raise the dead? "

" Jim is a liar in this regard, who discredits himself by arguing that because no one saw who turned the light off it was a ghost. He has been paid by the discovery institute to argue from authority and ignorance, it seems to be very convincing to Christians for some reason."


and this......

"Ah, James Tour. S Gloobal's go-to-guy for arguments from authority. EDIT. Yup. "This video is aimed at science-illiterate people who blindly link to Dr Tour in an empty argument from authority to confirm their own bias and push an anti-science agenda". Anyone who has watched Paulogia and Viced Rhino will know the people who do just this."

 

[Q-reeus]

Interesting letters from

and the video hits the spot also as previously posted.......

"So what we have here, is the fraud James Tour, arguing that Abiogenesis isn't true because chemists can't recreate it in the Lab....But that religion is true, even though theists can't raise the dead? "

" Jim is a liar in this regard, who discredits himself by arguing that because no one saw who turned the light off it was a ghost. He has been paid by the discovery institute to argue from authority and ignorance, it seems to be very convincing to Christians for some reason."


and this......

"Ah, James Tour. S Gloobal's go-to-guy for arguments from authority. EDIT. Yup. "This video is aimed at science-illiterate people who blindly link to Dr Tour in an empty argument from authority to confirm their own bias and push an anti-science agenda". Anyone who has watched Paulogia and Viced Rhino will know the people who do just this."

Already dealt with here: http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3655734/

 

[Write4U]

Unless you can cite a reputable article establishing 'almost unity' chiral replication via clay surfaces, I will take advice from the article I cited. Even if 'almost unity' existed, interference free assembly (i.e. absence of competing chemical species surely expected to be present) AND incorporation of specified information would not be explained by such. A huge headache for unguided abiogenesis.

I have provided you with links to THE reputable authority on chemical evolution.
If you refuse to read and learn from this foremost scientists in mineral evolution, you are willfully choosing to remain ignorant of the latest discoveries and accumulation of cutting edge knowledge.

You read Robert Hazen and I promise to read Tour . Then we can compare notes...?

 

[Yazata]

You mean from the same bible bashing fanatic that said.......

From James Tour's own mouth...................
https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/

Based upon my faith in the biblical text, I do believe (yes, faith and belief go beyond scientific evidence for this scientist) that God created the heavens and the earth and all that dwell therein, including a man named Adam and a woman named Eve.

That's ad-hominem, Paddoboy. It's really no different than refusing to consider scientific ideas proposed by atheistic scientists simply because they are atheists. It's like saying that Dawkins' scientific contributions are worthless because he's also opined (rather fanatically) on religion.

As for me, I agree with Tour that faith and belief go beyond scientific evidence. I think that it's true even for science, which is basically the subject of my latest exchange with JamesR on another thread. Though being a religious agnostic I would definitely choose different examples. (I don't believe in the Biblical Adam and Eve. In fact I'm even hugely skeptical about science's 'mitochondrial Eve' speculations.)

An example of faith and belief going beyond scientific evidence? The assertion that logic is a reliable guide for understanding reality. (Try justifying that without circular reasoning, without any appeal to logic.) There's the whole question about what relevance scientific evidence has to conclusions in the first place. It's just kind of assumed but never satisfactorily explained. How could one ever justify the connection between evidence and conclusions through appeal to scientific evidence when its precisely that relationship that's in question?

And if some day we do understand the mechanisms for these macroevolutionary changes, and also the processes that led to the origin of first life, it will not lessen God.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

What do you think is wrong with that, Paddoboy? I expect that the majority of theists around the world would agree with Tour about it. It's entirely possible to believe in God and also accept biological evolution. Most theists do exactly that.

 

[Write4U]

And if some day we do understand the mechanisms for these macroevolutionary changes, and also the processes that led to the origin of first life, it will not lessen God.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

What do you think is wrong with that, Paddoboy? I expect that the majority of theists around the world would agree with Tour about it. It's entirely possible to believe in God and also accept biological evolution. Most theists do exactly that

No, if we understand the mechanisms for abiogenesis by purely natural means, God will have become superfluous....

 

[paddoboy]

Already dealt with here: http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3655734/

Only in your dreams...dealt with indeed! Again in his own words he faithfully comforts his adoring congregation, by assuring them that even with the further progression of science, and any evidence for Abiogenesis, that again all we need to do is install what we have installed throughout the ages, ad nauseum...god of the gaps! His methodology, [and yours] of covering for all possible contingencies in the future. In your dreams q-reeus!

 

[paddoboy]

That's ad-hominem, Paddoboy. It's really no different than refusing to consider scientific ideas proposed by atheistic scientists simply because they are atheists. It's like saying that Dawkins' scientific contributions are worthless because he's also opined (rather fanatically) on religion.

Ad hominem perhaps, and likewise no different from any ad hom/s thrown the way of Dawkin's and company. The nitty gritty of the matter is that one view is theistic and being pushed back further and further, while the other is science based and being further and further validated.
Plus as I have said before, why do you claim "atheistic scientists"? Why not just scientist as per the scientific methodology and weight of evidence?
Let me make one thing clear Yazata, [to someone who at least does debates civilly and respectfully] I am not anti religious, I am just pro scientific method.

As for me, I agree with Tour that faith and belief go beyond scientific evidence. I think that it's true even for science, which is basically the subject of my latest exchange with JamesR on another thread. Though being a religious agnostic I would definitely choose different examples. (I don't believe in the Biblical Adam and Eve. In fact I'm even hugely skeptical about science's 'mitochondrial Eve' speculations.)

Good point re the biblical Adam and Eve! You need to talk to James Tour in that regard. He takes it quite literally!
On the mitochondrial Eve' speculations, at least it is based on some evidence and science...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
And teaching my granny how to suck eggs, all science is progressive and open to change. Hell's bells, we may even find out that the pathway of Abiogenesis was via Panspermia.

An example of faith and belief going beyond scientific evidence? The assertion that logic is a reliable guide for understanding reality. (Try justifying that without circular reasoning, without any appeal to logic.) There's the whole question about what relevance scientific evidence has to conclusions in the first place. It's just kind of assumed but never satisfactorily explained. How could one ever justify the connection between evidence and conclusions through appeal to scientific evidence when its precisely that relationship that's in question?

Let me make another proclamation Yazata...just as I am not anti religious, I am also not anti philosophy. But really, in some cases, philosophy can be rather self contradictory and totally confusing. The philosophy of science while certainly at its roots, the foundation of science and the scientific methodology, does imo have its limitations. The "there is no scientific method" is again imo, rather silly. As Professor Lawrence Krauss put it, it appears that some philosophers are threatened by science.
Me, as a non scientist, simply see science as a practical aspect based on the basic philosophical concept we call the scientific method.
Back to Lawrence again, has physics made religion and philosophy redundant? With religion, I say yes...philosophy, again it has limitations imo.

What do you think is wrong with that, Paddoboy? I expect that the majority of theists around the world would agree with Tour about it. It's entirely possible to believe in God and also accept biological evolution. Most theists do exactly that.

Yes, the Catholic church not only recognise the theory of evolution of life, but also the BB. Why is that? Obviously because of the weight of scientific evidence. From that point obviously, they hang their hat on the lack of knowledge in how life first started and put that as the work of God. Tour though says "and also the processes that led to the origin of first life, it will not lessen God."
So obviously Tour seems to be saying that if evidence for Abiogenesis comes to light, he'll do what theists have done throughout the ages, and conveniently and again, hang his hat on the God of the gaps, despite there being no more gaps.
[Other then that first quantum/Planck era of the evolution of space and time]
I mean it just seems like a game of convenience to many theists, who despite having their deity, IDer pushed back further and further, will never rest and accept the inevitable.

 

[Write4U]

Tour makes it clear the syntheses in question have to be done under assumed prebiotic conditions!

Q-reeus, are you listening to yourself?

Are you proposing that the Universe does not produce prebiotic conditions and that it requires an Intelligent Designer to synthesize pre-biotic conditions, or the Universe would forever remain a bleak void, without cosmic clouds, colliding galaxies, super-novas, stars, planets, interstellar dust?

Your perspective is so skewed by the assumption of a Mystical Universal being that loves humans, that you cannot recognize the logical nonsense that assumption produces.

 

[Q-reeus]

Q-reeus, are you listening to yourself?

Are you proposing that the Universe does not produce prebiotic conditions and that it requires an Intelligent Designer to synthesize pre-biotic conditions, or the Universe would forever remain a bleak void, without cosmic clouds, colliding galaxies, super-novas, stars, planets, interstellar dust?

Your perspective is so skewed by the assumption of a Mystical Universal being that loves humans, that you cannot recognize the logical nonsense that assumption produces.

Or your commitment to atheism clouds YOUR thinking badly. Anyway given you have read/viewed so much of Hazen's presentations, save me much trawling and YOU point to where Hazen offers evidence that inorganic chiral templates act as such even weakly let alone at anything near 100% efficiency needed to produce the necessary fully homochiral polymeric molecules.
Which feat btw as mentioned numerous times, would still be far from sufficient given the extant multi species molecular soup environment will quickly poison growth to the needed lengths for biological usefulness. And - the big one - chiral templates even if they worked offer no mechanism for incorporating specified information content!

 

[paddoboy]

Or your commitment to atheism clouds YOUR thinking badly.

Or more likely, your own commitment to unscientific ID/Gods/Aliens/Paranormal/extradimensional nonsense is clouding your own thinking with regards to science.

Abiogenesis is still the only scientific answer available for the origin of life.

Some advice, "If you believe in ID of any flavour, you should look at and examine any other unconventional beliefs and conspiracies you adhere to.