Natural Selection?

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

That's probably because there is to much background work that needs to be done and not enough funding to do so. At least, thats just a hunch.

Originally posted by whodey
It seems to me in order to test the theory you must test the theory, no?

Do you have a couple of billion dollars to spend on this?
Or enough influence to get the big research laboratories to do the needed work.
BTW a couple of billion is a very conservative number when it comes to big projects like abiogenesis seems to be.

edit ---Wasted post

Originally posted by whodey
That's probably because there is to much background work that needs to be done and not enough funding to do so. At least, thats just a hunch.

yes , and I wasted a post.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Do you have a couple of billion dollars to spend on this?
Or enough influence to get the big research laboratories to do the needed work.
BTW a couple of billion is a very conservative number when it comes to big projects like abiogenesis seems to be.

edit ---Wasted post

Really? I'll make a deal with ya. Give me a mere million dollars and I'll prove God's existence for ya instead. At least I'm a cheaper date.

Originally posted by whodey
Really? I'll make a deal with ya. Give me a mere million dollars and I'll prove God's existence for ya instead. At least I'm a cheaper date.

ha ,, any attempt to get money from a parsimonious guy like me will not prove the existence of anything , especially a fattening of your bank account.

see even I know the meaning of parsimonious

Originally posted by frogstomp
ha ,, any attempt to get money from a parsimonious guy like me will not prove the existence of anything , especially a fattening of your bank account.

see even I know the meaning of parsimonious

Oh yea? Just keep in mind that you will get no obsequious honorariums from the likes of me either.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
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.

I thought this too.
But we also tend to use the word 'parsimonious' to say there is not enough evidence. So God is parsimonious and I would also think that evolution is not parsimonious.

Whatever.

Originally posted by whodey
It seems to me in order to test the theory you must test the theory, no?

Currently there is no reason why abiogensis cannot happen.

Go look up reductionism.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Currently there is no reason why abiogensis cannot happen.

Go look up reductionism.

And there is no reason why creation could not have happened. Just go look at a Bible. Both abiogenesis and creationism are unprovable and require equal amounts of faith. That does not mean that both do not have evidence to support their respective positions, however.

Originally posted by whodey
.... most basic of living structures which is a cell.

No it's not. An RNA strand, similar to a virus, is the simplest living thing. We can easily make RNA strands.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I thought this too.
But we also tend to use the word 'parsimonious' to say there is not enough evidence. So God is parsimonious and I would also think that evolution is not parsimonious.

Whatever.

You're getting it the wrong way round. More parsimonious = simpler.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No it's not. An RNA strand, similar to a virus, is the simplest living thing. We can easily make RNA strands.

Come on now Scotty, you know what I mean. A cell is the smallest structual unit of an organism that is capable of independent functioning. We are not talking about the "building blocks". At first you said you needed a million dollars and a hundred years to create life and now you telling me this? I guess thats a bargin compared to Frogstomp who said a billion dollars is needed.

Originally posted by whodey
Come on now Scotty, you know what I mean. A cell is the smallest structual unit of an organism that is capable of independent functioning. We are not talking about the "building blocks". At first you said you needed a million dollars and a hundred years to create life and now you telling me this? I guess thats a bargin compared to Frogstomp who said a billion dollars is needed.

Depens on your definition of "living". Technically a virus isn't alive, although it fulfils many of the conditions for classification as a living thing. My point is that your compartmentalisation is not truely valid, life / non-life is a continuum.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Depens on your definition of "living". Technically a virus isn't alive, although it fulfils many of the conditions for classification as a living thing. My point is that your compartmentalisation is not truely valid, life / non-life is a continuum.

So what you are saying is that the scientific classifications for living and nonliving organisms are not valid? You must because I am merely going by them.

Originally posted by whodey
So what you are saying is that the scientific classifications for living and nonliving organisms are not valid? You must because I am merely going by them.

Depends in the definition of life you use. I use a 7 point classification. The definitions are perfectly valid. Perhaps you'd care to share the one that you are using?