Replies

papertyger: "In order to be legitimate, the rival conjectures must be appropriate to the 'current thesis,' not its historical antecedents. "

But you seem locked in the past, in 1954 with George Wald.
Why wouldn't you first like to learn where the science has gone in the past 63 years?
My guess is that alone will answer some of your sharp-shooter questions.

But nobody pretends that science today can answer every question, far from it.
Just more than George Wald in 1954.

papertyger: "I challenge the assertion that further 'stirring of the pot' is 'progress' until a meal is served.
The history of science is replete with such 'progress' in refining failed paradigms."

So, I take it you believe there's been 63 years of "stirring the pot" since George Wald in 1954?
And you are certain of this because you refuse to read any recent books on the subject?

Sure, that makes sense.

not

So, I take it you believe there's been 63 years of "stirring the pot" since George Wald in 1954?

I'd suggest your studious avoidance of providing even the shirt-tail equivalence of an abstract for some unprecedented discovery addressing abiogenesis demonstrates you're sticking with the rope-a-dope strategy I suspect.

As for your apparent incredulity at my skepticism, it's not as if such a state of affairs is unprecedented in the history of science.

Prior to Einstein, the prevailing opinion of physics was that there was nothing left but further refinement of "measurements." I certainly do not deny there have been grand discoveries in the biological sciences, but if there has been progress in abiogenesis, I've yet to hear of it aside from those proposing such nonsensical magics as "life is cooked into matter at the quantum level."

I suggest that if there were indeed some "Relativity" level breakthrough, the layman would not be able to avoid hearing about it's implications, rather than advocates avoiding elaboration of their esoterica.

But nobody pretends that science today can answer every question, far from it. Just more than George Wald in 1954.

I think it important reinforce the point YOU are the one questioning the author's thesis, therefore it is incumbent on YOU to demonstrate what has substantively changed from George Wald's original comments as opposed to the author's maintaining nothing has substantively changed with regard to said thesis.

Any other response from you apart from addressing this dynamic would be prima facie evidence of obfuscation on your part.