Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous Experiment

[articulett]

I think the line between abiogenesis and evolution is laregly artificial and created for PR purposes. The mainstream scientific community have not proposed any realistic mechanism of abiogenesis. This distinction allows evolutionary theorists to evade obvious questions by claiming that the two problems are different.
In logic, a satisfactory theory of abiogenesis must cohere with the theory of evolution which means that there will be no formal dividing line between them.

I agree about the PR purposes--but I think it's so kids can learn evolution just so long as they can still be taught "god" is behind it all. The manistream scientific community has proposed and now demonstrated a very realistic mechanicsm for abiogenesis. Nobody is evading anything except you. You never did tell us how your competing explanation is better, and you've come nowhere near running the test on par with the link in the OP. But I agree with you that the two go together, I just can't fathom your inability to see that the evidence is so much stronger in reality than it appears to be in your head. Also, were you ever able to get any of our very smart forum members to understand your theory and it's usefulness. I admit, I gave up. I pegged you as a creationist, and your inability to acknowledge the evidence reminds me much like Behe at the Dover trial.

I know you want your theories taken seriously, and you don't like being called a creationist. But you all have some little bugaboo about evolution that can't be cleared up no matter how much evidence is presented or how many ways it is said. And then you pretend your bugaboo (which is often murky) means that some other theory might fit better. But you never give evidence of any other theory--nothing testable--ever--just dampening or ignoring all the latest information brought to us thanks to evolution--DNA--radiometric dating--and science. You are incurious and never excited about such findings or discoveries--and I can only guess that it's because that you are hanging on tightly to a particular belief.

I am often curious about why such people would hang out on a skeptics forum. No matter how much you dismiss the facts--the facts are still the facts, you know. Those who understand the facts, find this experiment to be a very exciting clue.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I didn't follow what DrKitten was saying but things are not as simple as one might hope. It is worth reemphasising that the phrase "theory of evolution" has different meanings for different readers and different contexts.

We do know many things about the path down which the processes of life have taken and the "theory of evolution," in its first meaning, the theory that living things have evolved is not something I would dispute.

Nonetheless, that is not a theory for evolution as a process. The generally received "theory of evolution" as a process, is more or less identical with population genetics; as such, it is not applicable to abiogenesis and cannot cohere with it. One is therefore left with a fundamental disjoint between abiogenesis and evolution that cannot be resolved without reconstructing the theory of evolutionary as a process.

Accordingly, I think you are wrong to think of evolutionary theory as a jigsaw puzzle with just a few pieces yet to be added. Theories are intellectual constructions, better compared with buildings than jigsaws. One cannot tell, from its foundations, how big a construction will ultimately become, but the foundations are still very important. Abiogenesis is not the last piece in the construction of evolutionary theory, it is the first and must largely shape the theory that is built from it. It matters a great deal that we do not understand how abiogenesis works. (Though I, partial observer as I am, feel that my own work on abiogenesis offers the best insight into the evolutionary process that led to life as we now know it.)

It's a scientific theory for Pete's sake, John, not some philosophical problem. There is overwhelming evidence and there are no intellectual dilemmas. Considering we have more than enough evidence to say without flinching, evolution occurred from the first organism ~3.5 billion years ago and resulted in the vast array of living organisms we see today you are then left with 2 options, either life arrived in the Big Bang or after. Since we know that it took a few supernovas for the elements needed for life to develop, it couldn't have always been here.

Now you are down to the last piece in the overall puzzle (allowing for all the genetic research yet to come), how did you go from all those molecules formed in the supernovas to that first organism ~3.5 billion years ago. Cosmologists and planetary astronomers can get us close to their end and biologists can get us close to our end and you merely have one last gap to fill.

I'm sorry, but to claim some vital information is missing is like saying you can't drive your car until you figure out how they made the steel in it.

That's not to say the question doesn't need to be answered. But we certainly can't claim the theory is still in question because of it.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I care about sharing it and celebrating it with others who understand how exciting this is. I imagine that those who discovered the nature of the cosmos and the shape of the earth felt similarly thrilled--

I've often wondered if we need a new interpretation of the Parable of the Talents for the 21st century. Assume for second that there is a God who gave us the ability to question our surroundings and arrive at conclusions based on the evidence. And just suppose that is the money that the master gives to each of his servants. At the great reckoning, if we were to increase our money and pass it on, it would be those who used their minds and talents to see reality for what it is, see the utter beauty of it all, and teach it to others. Wouldn't that be a kicker, seeing all the fundies being lead off to doom in their stupidity..........