They feel they have evidence of design (you keep mentioning designer but really it is about design); that complexity and information, meaningful design, comes from intelligence.
It is like you see a painting in a room, yet you ultimately conclude design is not present because the Painter doesn't make herself available to you.
Still no answer? Not even a simple minded one?
Oh my...It is like you see a painting in a room, yet you ultimately conclude design is not present because the Painter doesn't make herself available to you.
Sure thing. I have collected them all, and here they are, in order of importance, nothing omitted:
You ignored the humility part.
Dermott Mullan sets forth my position pretty well in this paper http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2003/2/1-2/mullan_primitive_cell_2.php
It was me who was involved, but I missed the evidence part. Carl Sagan stated: "‘The Miller–Urey experiment is now recognized as the single most significant step in convincing many scientists that life is likely to be abundant in the cosmos." And here is some of what the NY Times had to say about the experiment in a May 17, 1953 editorial titled "Life and a Glass Earth": [Miller] "actually synthesized some amino acids and thus made chemical history by taking the first step that may lead a century of so hence to the creation of something chemically like beefsteak or white of egg. Miller is elated, and so is Professor Urey, his mentor . . . Miller . . . dwells on the possibility of improving his technique so that amino acids may be produced in factories, which would in itself be an extraordinary accomplishment."
The experiment certainly seemed remarkable at the time. Now, however, we know that it did not accurately simulate the early atmosphere of the earth, and subsequent experiments have not advanced the ball.
Some of the greatest minds in biochemistry may be working on the problem, but what have they accomplished? And Cairns-Smith's hypothesis has now been around for more than 20 years, with no experimental support that I know of.
According to Loren G. Martin, professor of physiology at Oklahoma State University:
First, if the appendix "serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults", it may be that a number of children would have been impaired in -- or perhaps not even survived to -- adulthood without an appendix. Second, someone can also live "just fine" without an arm or a leg or an eye, depending on how you define "just fine." If you have a certain type of reconstructive surgery one day, you may be glad that your appendix is still there.
Sorry, I like how right off the bat you imply that those who support your position are smart and humble, and thereby also imply that those who differ from your position are not smart and are also arrogant.
Please point out where I made the assumption that Earth is the only planet in the universe on which abiogenesis has occurred.
I still don't see how this supports your assertion that the experiment in question was hailed as one of the greatest discoveries of all time by the majority of the biological science community and that research into the origins of life from organic molecules has ground to a halt. Urey/Miller was certainly seen as a promising and tantalizing result but you've failed to support your claim that scientists seriously thought that this placed them at the brink of solving the abiogenesis problem. The quote you give above even states "...taking the first step that may lead a century or so hence to the creation of something chemically like beefsteak or white of egg."
You're right. They should all just give up. If they haven't yet discovered it then it's plain that it will never be discovered. All meaningful scientific advances have been accomplished, from start to finish, in just a few years. Biologists should stop investigating the matter and simply shrug and say "I guess Goddidit".
If that's true then you should be able to find evidence of it happening.
