Natural Selection?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Oh, the melodrama. This man has a political agenda. Pray tell his name, I can tell you within about 5 minutes if he's published anything scientifically about it, or is just another Micheal Behe, trying to give credibility to his political viewpoint using his scientific credentials.

His name is John Sanford. Funny how its only the side we don't agree with that we depict as having a political agenda. What's your agenda, Scott? 😉

Incidently, among his 75 publications and 25 inventions, here are his academic credentials:

Minnesota-St. Paul BS 1976 Horticulture
Wisconsin-Madison MS 1978 Plant Breeding/Plant Genetics
Wisconsin-Madison Ph.D. 1980 Plant Breeding/Plant Genetics

And here, a link for more information:

http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/hort/faculty/sanford/

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
His name is John Sanford. Funny how its only the side we don't agree with that we depict as having a political agenda. What's your agenda, Scott? 😉

Incidently, among his 75 publications and 25 inventions, here are his academic credentials:

Minnesota-St. Paul BS 1976 Horticulture
Wisconsin-Madison MS 1978 Plant Breeding/Plant Genetics
Wisconsin-M ...[text shortened]...
And here, a link for more information:

http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/hort/faculty/sanford/

Yes I saw that. I also checked up his record of publishing. 3 papers in 2004, nothing since then (all on raspberries). Less than 10 papers in the preceeding 9 years. Published alot in 1995, and before that. I guess he was research active then, doesn't seem to be now.

My agenda? Well I guess the promotion of rational thought would be the best description. You prove gods existance and I'll believe in him.

[edit; I would like to know how someone can be arguing for creationism and not have a political agenda though? Surely someone arguing AGAINST the evidence must have an agenda.]

Originally posted by scottishinnz
All things are possible, it just comes down to a lack of attributable evidence.

Kind of like abiogenesis.

Originally posted by whodey
Kind of like abiogenesis.

Got a better, testable, more parsimonious, hypothesis?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Got a better, testable, more parsimonious, hypothesis?

You make it sound as if abiogenesis is testable and a more persimonious hypothesis.

Originally posted by whodey
You make it sound as if abiogenesis is testable and a more persimonious hypothesis.

All the precursors are known to have existed at the time f the inception of life. Put them together in a test tube and you get the spontaneous generation of DNA bases, amino acids etc. It's not no life to life, but it abiogenesis IS testable. God is not.

Originally posted by whodey
You make it sound as if abiogenesis is testable and a more persimonious hypothesis.

It is. Now, there is a LOT of testing still to be done, but it is very testable. It is also more parsimonious since it does not require the God factor.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
All things are possible, it just comes down to a lack of attributable evidence.

indeed!

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
It is. Now, there is a LOT of testing still to be done, but it is very testable. It is also more parsimonious since it does not require the God factor.

You mean less parsimonious, right?

Damn! I can't find a dictionary.

Originally posted by whodey
You make it sound as if abiogenesis is testable and a more persimonious hypothesis.

Now you should mean "less" as well. Surely?

Can someone please explain what 'parsimonious' means.

Parsimonious: Excessively sparing or frugal.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parsimonious

More parsimonious means more frugal means less - in this case, fewer factors involved; less complexity to the explanation.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
It's not no life to life,.[/b]

Correct. If it is not forming nonliving matter to living matter, abiogenesis is not testable. For it to be testable, you should at least be able to create the most basic of living structures which is a cell.

Originally posted by whodey
Correct. If it is not forming nonliving matter to living matter, then it is not testatble. For it to be testable, you should at least be able to create the most basic of living structures which is a cell.

That's a good test. It hasn't been done yet. There's too much background work that needs to be done. The background work that's been done has been highly encouraging, but we're not yet at the life creation stage.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
That's a good test. It hasn't been done yet. There's too much background work that needs to be done. The background work that's been done has been highly encouraging, but we're not yet at the life creation stage.

It seems to me in order to test the theory you must test the theory, no?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
That's a good test. It hasn't been done yet. There's too much background work that needs to be done. The background work that's been done has been highly encouraging, but we're not yet at the life creation stage.

If people would think about it , we haven't tried all that hard, either.