Correct. But how is this a refutation of Naturalism? Indeed, how is this a refutation of the theory of common descent? Neither predict such rapid and artificial production of life, nor evolution of new phyla. If anything, if someone did demonstrate the evolution of new phyla over, say, a decade, that would hurt evolutionary theoryGman wrote:You have stated numerous times that you CANNOT produce life nor reproduce the evolution of new phyla in a lab.DD_8630 wrote:I've refuted Naturalism? Where?
First, as I have stated before, it is only the evolution of new phyla which takes many thousands of years. Speciation, on the other hand, can occur well within a human lifetime.Gman wrote:Again…. There is no testable evidence for Darwin's theory.. As you said it takes millions of years to reproduce it.. You cannot say that it is factual… It is simply a belief system based upon a set of presuppositions...
Second, being unable to reproduce the the underlying claim of the theory ("All life is descended from a common ancestor") does not preclude the citation of evidence. The whole point is that organisms (both the extant and the remains of the extinct) provide evidence of the claim.
No theory can be proven, only evidenced by observation and experimentation.
They are the same thing. "No need for God" doesn't mean "God doesn't exist"; I really don't know how you got that one. The theory of abiogenesis has no need for the theory of gravity or the Magna Carta. So what?Gman wrote:This video is a horrible summary of abiogenesis…DD_8630 wrote:That's where the theory of abiogenesis comes in. Simple self-replicating molecules in rudimentary phospholipid membranes. This video is a brilliant summary of abiogenesis.
1. First off it contradicts what you stated earlier.. You stated earlier that spontaneous generation, etc., has nothing to do with the existence of God. This video, however, states that there is NO NEED for God to produce life or in this case amino acids.. It's clearly anti-God…
On the contrary, montmorillonite has been shown to catalyse RNA synthesis in aqueous solution.
You sure do like your strawmen. We have a lot to learn about everything, be it abiogenesis or quantum mechanics. This doesn't mean they are unevidenced, that they are pure guesswork, nor that they are a religion (Good grief...).Gman wrote: 5. The narrator CLEARLY states that they still have a lot to learn about this process. There are many steps that they haven't discovered yet. In fact he states that scientists probably never will understand how life got stated… This is HARDLY factual information. Guess work at best.. A belief system.. Your religion..
It does nothing of the sort: we know lateral gene transfer occurs in 'primitive' organisms, so it is no surprise that the tradition 'tree of life' blurs at the very beginnings (along with the very definition of 'species'). Nevertheless, this is simply a refinement of the theory. It does not remove it from criticism, but rather presents another angle from which evolutionary theory could potentially be falsified.Gman wrote:Many evolutionists are now suggesting that gene transfers were so common in the past (a convenient non-provable hypothesis) that a tree of life for microbial species can never be discerned from existing species. Such proposals remove evolutionary theory from being tested, and remove it from scientific criticism.DD_8630 wrote:And the fact remains that the theory of common descent is falsifiable. The discovery of fossil bunnies in the Pre-Cambrian, for instance, would deal a heavy blow to it.
Neither did I, so what's your point?Gman wrote:Reread what I stated before.. I said “public” science… I never said private..DD_8630 wrote:You thought wrong. What I thought you were talking about appears to be wrong: when you said "It is currently illegal to view any other theory accept naturalism based on chance..." if appears you in fact meant "It is illegal to teach any form of Creationism in the science classroom in any public school in the USA". The latter claim I agree with: it is indeed illegal to teach Creationism as science in public classrooms.
Yes, because it's unconstitutional: there are no alternatives in science to the origin of modern biodiversity. Biology doesn't make sense without it, and it is an exemplary example of the scientific process. More to the point, science classrooms are to teach children about science. Since Creationism (in any guise) isn't science, it has no more place there than PE.Gman wrote:It's against the law to teach anything but Darwin's theory of evolution in public schools..
No one has taken the debate away. We teach children science in the science classroom. This says nothing about what goes on outside: children are free to accept or reject the theory, to believe whatever they want.Gman wrote:Science was meant to be debated and when the debate is taken away from it, people may learn about evolutionary theory but in the end they don't always believe in it because they were never allowed to debate it..
Because that's what we're talking about . Just because it takes a long time doesn't mean there is no evidence for it, or that there are no experiments which we can run to test it.Gman wrote:Ok then why are scientists trying to replicate life in a lab?? Why did you present a video on abiogenesis??DD_8630 wrote:Correct. But neither I nor any scientist on Earth claims to be able to do so. The theories which you so vhemently oppose are quite explicit in their time dependancy: it took 4.5 billion years to get the biodiversity we have today, and you're demanding we replicate that in a lab?
How so? Neither Darwin's theory nor the modern theory of common descent posit that E. coli can evolve into something else. The whole point is that everything is related by a single common ancestor: the descendants of vertebrates will always be vertebrates. The descendants of giraffes will never evolve into rhinoceroses.Gman wrote:Then it's hardly evidence for Darwin's theory..DD_8630 wrote:No: no one claims "that [E.coli] can evolve into something else…".