Though that's what I personally believe and that's what the research evinces, I never said, in terms of science, that abiogenesis couldn't be true. And with regard to known life, the supernatural is not the only option, Thick-as-Brick geauxtohell.
You keep making this statement, and then offer absolutely zilch to back it up (even though you have been asked).
What intelligent, natural process could guide natural selection for every living organism throughout the history of this planet?
That should be rich.
BTW (and again), don't think that it's not completely obvious that you have attempted to steer this issue away from discussions on natural selection in favor of abiogenesis. Intelligent Design as put forth by it's proponents was proposed as a competing theory to natural selection. It had little to do with abiogenesis. Though, I suppose if you are gong to start evoking the supernatural, their is no limit to what you can pretend to explain scientifically.
Again, you aren't fooling anyone.
But even if the supernatural appeared to be the only alternative, so what?
It is the only alternative. And the "what" is exactly the problem. You can't disprove the existence of a supernatural force, therefore you can't construct a hypothesis support the notion of a supernatural force. It's that simple. Once you incorporate an all powerful entity into your methodology, then you have an automatic trump card to every question and the answer always becomes "<insert supernatural force here> did it.>
Perhaps you've never actually done scientific research or formally studied biostatistics and understand how a hypothesis, p-values, etc work. Either that, or you are being intentionally dense.
You guys think you are being sly by saying "It doesn't have to be God!". In fact, it becomes even more silly. So now you won't even name the force you claim to believe or can prove scientifically is guiding evolution.
In that light, your argument can be boiled down to "This is too difficult to be explained through natural processes alone." which is not a scientific statement at all. It's an opinion (and a rather academically lazy opinion at that).
Theological implications are not part of the scientific equation. If they were, then the constructs of the evolutionary paradigm would not be valid science. You guys just pretend they don't exist as you deny the nature of the constructs' apriority.
You know, the apriority whose name you will not speak.
You mean you insistence that this all borders on the "metaphysical" while (quite hilariously) stating that the actual answer is that some magical force guided the process?
It's not that we dare not parrot your idiotic opinion, it's just that we find it too absurd to entertain without laughing.
Currently, as far as science is concerned, we do not know how life arose in the first place. Currently, as far as science is concerned, all we know is that all life comes from life. That theory has theological implications, too, but it cannot be credibly argued that the Pasteurian law of biogenesis is not a scientific fact and will remain one until it is falsified, if ever. It currently stands. It has not been falsified.
How absurd. You act as if Pasteur's refutation of "spontaneous generation" is now applicable to refute the "RNA world" model. It does not. Pastuer's experiment was rather simple and didn't even touch on biochemistry. Pastuer never made claims that his theory explained the origin of life on this planet. He just showed that spontaneous generation was bunk. Furthermore, the double helix wasn't even discovered until the fifties. Only the most disingenuous of hacks would try and evoke Pasteur supporting I.D.
Again, you seem to want to discuss abiogenesis as opposed to natural selection. Is that so you can keep prattling on about Pasteur as if he is the Godfather of Intelligent Design?
Initially, Darwin, a Deist, supposed that God created the first living organism to get things rolling. He latter regretted that, supposing that the first viable cell was a primitive blob of protoplasm. Of course, that was the first hypothesis of abiogenesis to be falsified. The second to be falsified was the hypothesis that amino acids were the initial prebiotic precursors of life. Hence, the RNA-world hypothesis, the metabolism-first hypothesis, or a synthesis thereof. Actually, both of these hypothesis are in trouble, too, for a long list of reasons.
Actually, the debate continues to rage and probably will until the end of time. Some theories (Miller-Urey) that were thought to be disproven have come back into vogue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/science/18conv.html
Miller and Urey's experiment was just repeated (because good scientific work is reproducible) with better results than the original.
Through each process, scientific methodology has either supported or argued against a notion.
Again, your logical canard is insisting that anything short of a 100% answer for any one theory automatically proves yours. In fact, your theory is so goofy, it's not even being considered.
On the other hand, it looks like we might be able to eventually engineer life under laboratory conditions using biopolymers harvested from extant cells. Naturally, that would not account for the origins of their monomeric precursors or the polymerization of the same, and would necessarily entail a directed process based on known biotechnology, namely, a process of intelligent design in accordance with a blueprint that appears to have been drawn out by an intelligent designer.
I bolded your massive logical leap. The impetus is on you to support such a radical statement.
BTW, who is the "intelligent designer"? I would assume you would have to know him before you could comment on how he did something.
I've followed this issue for years. Until you showed up, I never met anyone who mentioned Pasteur's work relating to this in the least.
