When if ever did it go “on trial”?
From the moment it was published and offered for consideration.
Is Einstein’s general theory of relativity “incontrovertible”?
So far so good. It has withstood every challenge. As we learn more it will undoubtedly be incorporated into a larger more exhaustive synthesis. The way Einstein absorbed Newton.
Questions such as what?
The processes by which individual cells transition to forming complex, multicellular organisms is not completely understood.
Epigenetics.
Interspecies evolution.
Sexual selection in multicellular organisms.
Human Consciousness and its evolutionary mechanisms.
Just a few.
Do you know how life could have come from non-life via totally-mindless processes?
Yeah everyone knows. We just didn’t tell you.
David you obviously don’t understand the difference between evolution and what’s called abiogenesis, the process by which chemistry became biology. Evolution accounts for the diversity of life on earth. Evidence for it abounds but if you think for just a few minutes you’ll see why such an abundance of evidence would not be available for a process that took place 3.8 billion years ago and may have only happened once. On the other hand evolution has been happening ever since and is in fact happening now.

“evolution has been happening ever since and is in fact happening now”
Meaning of “evolution”? (‘change over time’?)
“When if ever did it go ‘on trial’?”
“From the moment it was published and offered for consideration”
When if ever did “the theory of evolution” cease to be “on trial”?
“Is Einstein’s general theory of relativity ‘incontrovertible’?”
“So far so good. It has withstood every challenge. As we learn more it will undoubtedly be incorporated into a larger more exhaustive synthesis. The way Einstein absorbed Newton”
Do you consider Einstein’s GTR to be:
“incontrovertible”?
controvertible?
“Questions such as what?”
“The processes by which individual cells transition to forming complex, multicellular organisms is not completely understood”
Are “the processes by which… complex, multicellular organisms” came to first exist:
“completely understood”?
“not completely understood”?
“_abiogenesis_, the process by which chemistry became biology”
Experimental evidence that “chemistry became biology”?
“Do you know how life could have come from non-life via totally-mindless processes?”
“Yeah everyone knows. We just didn’t tell _you_”
Did anyone tell Koonin?
Eugene Koonin, _The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution_ (2012), 516pp.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
amazon .com/Logic-Chance-Biological-Evolution-paperback/dp/0133381064/
Page 391
The origin of life is one of the hardest problems in all of science, but it is also one of the most important.
Origin-of-life research has evolved into a lively, interdisciplinary field, but other scientists often view it with skepticism and even derision.
This attitude is understandable and, in a sense, perhaps justified, given the “dirty,” rarely mentioned secret:
Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure– we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth.
Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem.
A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)
