(April 1, 2016 at 4:13 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:(April 1, 2016 at 2:43 pm)AAA Wrote: No, I read the actual research article. You read the tertiary article. Tertiary articles distort science to try to gain attention. No, glycolysis did not accidentally occur in a lab. They put known intermediates in test tubes, added thermal energy, and noticed that some other glycolytic intermediates as well. It is still speculative to say that this explains how glycolysis metabolic pathway developed. Or are you talking about a different preliminary evidence that I did not see?
Okay...so...for abiogenesis we have preliminary (though speculative), observable, measurable data. For the Christian God we have...zilch. And some how you think this research detracts from the likelihood of abiogenesis and enhances the likelihood of God? ...What?!
No, there is not measurable data for abiogenesis for several reasons.
1. It occured in the past, and is therefore immeasurable/unobservable unless it is still occurring, which I don't think anyone believes to be true.
2. We were talking about the origin of glycolysis. And the measurable data were just that molecules changed from one type to another. This is hardly evidence for the origin of glycolysis, let alone abiogenesis.
I do not think that this research detracts from the likelihood of abiogenesis, and I do not think that it enhances the likelihood of God. I think it is pretty irrelevant to both. I was just responding to it because you seemed to think that glycolysis had been created in the lab by some sort of accident, which is incorrect.
