Joined: Mar. 2008
|Quote (FloydLee @ April 15 2010,09:51)|
|Are you seriously suggesting that the descriptions of chemical evolution in high-school biology textbooks are not mechanistic? Is it your assertion that such textbook descriptions do not reference physical or "natural" causes?|
Here's an example:
|Miller & Levine, Biology Prentice-Hall (1993), pp.342-348: |
"From the jumbled mixture of ... in Earth's oceans, the highly organized structures of RNA and DNA must somehow have evolved."
And you guys are still in "somehow" mode, btw, wrt your chemical evolution OOL hypothesis.
Another example: many problems and Not-Known Mechanisms associated with the "RNA World hypothesis", but that hypothesis that is presented to science kids (with no mention of problems or blankspots) within Glencoe's latest high school edition of "Biology-The Dynamics of Life."
That's your OOL life from-nonlife mechanism, effectively: "Somehow."
So, you DO accept hypotheses as scientific WITHOUT having or knowing of any mechanism.
And I notice that this item remained unanswered:
|So where's the published proof that a scientific hypothesis needs to be mechanistic in order to be science? |
So I'm just saying, rational and scientific consistency demands you treat the ID hypothesis the same way.
I wonder why the question asked was never answered. You go off on a tangent about a description (not, as others said, a hypothesis), which has nothing to do with chemical processes being mechanistic.
Even if your description was accurate, what does that have to do with chemical processes that are either within or without a living organism? What is the difference?
Also, what is the "ID hypothesis"? What are it's predictions, how is it testable and how is it falsifiable? Can you do JoeG/IDGuy one better and actually calculate (and show your work) the CSI of anything?
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G