Talk:Biopoiesis

New paragraph moved for discussion

I removed the following three paragraphs by 203.220.145.117 from the article:

It is often complained by antievolutionists that the experiments had 1. highly idealised condtions, which geology seems not to support 2. did not create the more complex proteins or DNA chains which are the real barrier for biopoiesis and most definetly did not create the complex synthesis of the two needed for life.

It is unclear if biopoiesis is possible and hence their is much creationist liteature attacking this concept and hence naturalism. However these critcisms are often attacked on the ground that they greatly caricture the proposed processes of biopoiesis.

biopoiesis is technially speaking not part of the theory of evolution however the two are usually linked together by supporters and critics alike, partly because biopoiesis has great signficance for evolution, as it deals with its possible begining and partly because the concept is linked to the larger issue which is at stake, naturalism or "supernaturalism".

The author is introducing external issues that have no bearing on this topic. Creationism, supernaturalism, and the idea that the concept is linked to the larger issue which is at stake is POV, and perhaps better suited to philosophy. Also, as I see no good reason to post criticism by biologists on a religious page, likewise, I see no good reason for posting religious criticism on a biology page. --Viriditas | Talk 09:48, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Response to above: December 25, 2005

I disagree with removal of the above three paragraphs.

My perspective is atheistic, scientific and opposed to Intelligent Design. However the section that was removed is an essential point of the discussion of Biopoiesis. There is a qualitative difference between life and non-life that is important to articulate in an article on this subject. Darwininan evolution, and its modern manifestation has validity based on empirical evidence; it is the only viable theory that explains the world of life that now exists.

As this article (or it may be another in Wikipedia) states, there is no viable theory of the transition from non-life to life. There are detailed analyses of the precursers to this at a level beyond my competence, and beyond the level of this article. But, unlike the I.D. demand to be considered as an alternate to evolution, which is nothing (faith) against something (evidence), we scientists have no explanation for life arising from its precursers, therefore while affirming that it must be part of natural phenomona, this is not based on specific evidence. The removed paragraphs appropriately stated this clearly. If this is an opening for supernaturalism, then so be it.

Al Rodbell blog: Alrodbell.blogspot.com

Do you have good citations for the content? I suppose it should be added to a criticism section. Add it back in if you can source it. --Viriditas 03:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)