Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: sauron
"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.
278 posted on 12/05/2005 1:49:24 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies ]


To: CarolinaGuitarman
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. ;)

286 posted on 12/05/2005 2:04:05 PM PST by sauron ("Truth is hate to those who hate Truth" --unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson