(February 17, 2015 at 2:06 am)snowtracks Wrote:(January 19, 2015 at 9:29 pm)JuliaL Wrote: You mean outside like, in the same room but not in the experimental chamber?An example from synthetic biology that took a team of researchers 15 years: The engineering of an alien based pair (prototyped after the nucleotide structuring configuration of the famous double helix) into an bacterium E. coli. A substantial scientific achievement, but it’s just a single pair of foreign DNA bases out of millions. Lab accomplishments like this supports the creation model since it requires researchers using pre-planning creativity, rethinking, and redoing using preexisting functional material and working models. None of which is available by just physical means.
How far away does the experimenter have to be to satisfy your demand that he not be involved?
Setting up some situation that plausibly might have been found on the early earth doesn't invalidate the demonstration that abiogenesis could have happened that way.
It isn't overcoming a 10^-50 barrier. It is just setting up the experiment so that you can have results in less than a lifetime instead of a billion years.
I do differ with the article's calling DNA life's software. Firmware maybe.
http://www.nature.com/news/first-life-wi...na-1.15179
No, it doesn't. This is just Heywood's stupid argument again.
Just because an intelligence can do something doesn't mean intelligence is required to do it.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.