"I'll cite one: Miller-Urey.
FAILED TO PROVE ABIOGENESIS."
It was never intended to *prove* abiogensis. No theory is ever *proved*; the experiment was still an important first step in the study of how life began.
posted on 12/05/2005 1:49:24 PM PST
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
Please try to understand my point: If Science can't prove abiogenesis, it has failed miserably, and should be held accountable.
This will be the ultimate yardstick--abiogenesis shown to be possible under the rigorous standards of a laboratory experiement, peer-reviewed and duplicatable.
Hasn't happened. And we've had DECADES in which to affect a satisfactory result, haven't we?
Has anyone ever wondered why? What's the current view of this in biochemistry?
Do they just dismiss it as "not important" (because they're secretly embarrassed by an inability to explain the process)?
Serious repsonses only, please. ;)
posted on 12/05/2005 2:04:05 PM PST
("Truth is hate to those who hate Truth" --unknown)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson