Posted on 01/17/2009 3:04:35 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Details, details....
Please answer the question in post 74.
It’s not nice to clue the clueless...
Comparing a solution in a beaker to the complexity of the human body does fall into the clueless category.
==Brian Thomas, M.S., has outdone himself this time: a lie in the first part of his first sentence. “Scientists attempting to demonstrate random evolution in the laboratory...
What are you talking about? Joyce’s “origin of life” research is an attempt to demonstrate how life could have arisen from non-life.
“What we’ve found could be relevant to how life begins, at that key moment when Darwinian evolution starts.”
—Gerald Joyce, 2009
Unfortunately for Joyce et al, all they succeeded in doing was to strengthen the argument for intelligent design.
Thanks for the ping!
I wouldn't say "demonstrate," I'd say "examine," but that's not really the point. Joyce does not pretend to be demonstrating "random evolution," whatever that is. There's no claim that this was random, or that it exactly represents prebiotic chemistry. Thomas sets the story up as though Joyce was trying to show something and failed, and that's not what happened at all.
Hypotheses of how life began involve multiple processes. One of them is that RNA copied itself. Joyce was investigating if RNA--any RNA, not something he claimed was the original RNA--could do that. If it couldn't, that would have been a step toward falsifying that hypothesis. But that's not what happened.
Ever seen Mythbusters? They break problems down in the same way. They figure out what individual parts of the myth would have to work for the whole thing to be true, and they test each part. What Joyce managed to do was declare RNA duplication "plausible."
Also note in his quote that he refers to the beginning of life as "that key moment when Darwinian evolution starts." See, no life = no evolution. Abiogenesis not part of evolution. Evolution covers back to the beginning of life, not before. Can we stop claiming otherwise now?
The Origin and Evolution of Life
That book was cited by top evolutionary scientists. You'll need WinDjvu to read it. Well worth going through at least the first third.
And science has proved that we are indeed living beings in the womb. As we become more intelligent, the pieces start falling into place. The stubborn still will not care...they want us as slaves and organized religion is a threat to power.
Apologize for your personal attacks and I will do so.
You have proof of that yes?
Can this field be detected with our instruments? How far above and below sea level does it extend?
"I have seen zero evidence that this ever happened, and what few theories that have been put forth are shamefully flimsy coming from such learned scientists and academics. "
GodGunsGuts:"Which makes them, by their own definition, “anti-science.”
Two points:
First of all, the theory of evolution is NOT a theory of origins. Darwin had no theory of origins, he merely speculated that something important may have happened in a mud puddle somewhere long ago.
And I'm not certain if even today there is an actual scientific "theory of origins." I suspect there are a number of hypotheses (aka: SWAGs) being worked on, but none that have yet "graduated" to the level of scientific theory. By the way, these more recent hypotheses have more-or-less abandoned Darwin's mud puddle for more exotic locations, such as deep sea volcanic vents. Really interesting work, imho.
Second of all, these researchers are all real scientists doing real scientific work, trying to develop real scientific theories -- some of which may or may not pan out long term.
By contrast you guys are only doing your d*mndest to convince people that real science is just another religion, and then impose your own strictly religious beliefs on science. Imho, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves!
Who needs television when you have entertainment like this?
First detected in the 1930s by Royal Rife, and also by Fritz A Pop. - These days you can buy instruments that can not only detect them, but trace paths through the body, for $300 or less. A common digital multimeter from Radio Shack with a freq count function, and a small coil of wire, can measure the frequency for about $75
But if you were interested in facts, you would be spending all your time reading, since you are so far behind the pace.
Sounds like you’re about due for your next enema.
You’re the FReeper expert on coffee enemas, so you must be right.
Because really, where better to get insight into current scientific thinking than a book written in 1916? Of course one might wonder why, if origins is part of evolution, Osborn felt the need to separate them in his title, and to write in his Preface, "Some day a constellation of genius will unite in one laboratory on the life problem. This [is not] possible at present..." But that might just confuse things.
You’re beyond coffee
Sorry but I can generate any frequency that those devices can pick up with a handful of electrical components.
“specific electromagnetic field that results from the life that God created, within a living cell; no place else”
If I can create such a field doesn’t that make your statement wrong?
You obviously lack the intelligence to carry on any conversation on this subject. If man could create life, you would not be so frightened, would you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.