Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Well, I'm sorry to say that was just not good enough.....I explicitly told you in no uncertain terms that I gave your Post #65 the response it deserved
Well, I'm sorry to say that was just not good enough.....I explicitly told you in no uncertain terms that I gave your Post #65 the response it deserved
I am still waiting for an answer......W4U said; Now answer me this question: "Is an unfertilized egg alive?".
OK. yes or no? Is an unfertilized egg a living object?
I am still waiting for an answer......
see #161 at top of page ^I would like to reply but not at the expense of you not getting answer from who you originally asked
Not nearly good enough. Try again.see #161 at top of page ^
n'hésitez pas, Michael 345
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.Hand waving.
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.more..............
https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122/
England’s theory is meant to underlie, rather than replace, Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, which provides a powerful description of life at the level of genes and populations. “I am certainly not saying that Darwinian ideas are wrong,” he explained. “On the contrary, I am just saying that from the perspective of the physics, you might call Darwinian evolution a special case of a more general phenomenon.”
One again, the two links from #146: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.
Only according to your own agenda, and obviously the agenda of Discovery Institute.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.
HINT:Hint: it's necessary to actually read the two articles before passing any meaningful judgement. A rare event here at SF.
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?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.
Evidently you are unaware ID as such is not generations old but a fairly recent development. Not a surprise.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.
You mean as opposed to your own innuendo and conspiracies, propped up by some religious fanatic and discovery?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 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.Evidently you are unaware ID as such is not generations old but a fairly recent development. Not a surprise.
As opposed to "guided" abiogenesis? i.e Intelligent Design?A broader analysis leaving unguided abiogenesis hypothesis looking particularly fragile.
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.As opposed to "guided" abiogenesis? i.e Intelligent Design?