Mmm, no I didn't, I think you might be imagining things.
Really, it wasn't you who had written this earlier?
I cannot imagine that a molecular biologist doesn't actually know how speciation works or even that you believe mutations cannot possibly under any circumstances confer any benefit.
Just how does the happy muslim explain away the gradual change in life represented in the fossil record?
I believe such a strong statement deserves some technical backup!
It doesn't surprise me that you're not familiar with logic or it's lexicon.
One mechanism has been disproved, therefore abiogenesis could not happen. It's a flaw in your argument, a logical fallacy. (There's the Oparin/Haldane hypothesis by the way)
I keep telling you, that there is more to 'disproving' then simply alleging it.. there is backing it up.. do you enjoy going in circles in every thread?
That is what Dr. Mullan in fact has done, take known science, and utilize it and leave it open to interpretation!
as for your Oparin/Haldane, well again, they seem to be missing alot of variables.. You can't say, organic compounds have undergone a series of of reactions leading to more complex molecules, without going over a mechanical or chemical reaction, or the sea is a soup powered by solar energy eventually leading to first cells .. I can't begin to tell you what a hypocrite you are, for rebuffing aside someone who took all those proposed mechanisms down to every last finite detail, every variable and say it is unscientific, but by the same token expect us to subscribe that the sea powered by the sun gave us life..
Do you understand how biochemistry works? do you understand how cell machinery works? do you understand that you need to account for each structure and function in a progressive pattern to give us complex life?
here is a brief video, perhaps before your next reply you can do a quick recap on DNA transcription and translation.
[MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41_Ne5mS2ls&feature=related[/MEDIA]
I'm saying that it could happen, given that it appears there was no life on Earth before 3.8 billion years ago it must have come from somewhere. There's no evidence for a creator and you readily admit it is simply belief, so scientifically speaking that leaves us with the 'something else', not random assembly of cells, not a creator, not anything specific, just something else.
There is nothing scientific about what you propose.. you are simply substituting one belief for a lesser belief.. at least with creation you start with complex organisms.. what you want to start with is a single cell and carry it to a complex organism, then have it differentiate into species, plants, animals, noble elements as well account for its directionality and sentience etc .. simply because you don't like what others have to say not because what you propose is logical!.. you have not done yourself a favor in either direction.
you have neither proven what you propose with that scientific rigor and integrity you love to propose only in words of course, as you've exempt yourself from common sense with each post, and yet expect folks to believe it as face value while pounding on your chest like a monkey!
nor have you taken a moment to ponder how insignificant you're for all we unlock in the universe, we know absolutely nothing but the superficial of the very deep!
Until you can a) find evidence for a creator or b) prove that abiogenesis could not happen at all by any natural means, we're stuck with 'something else'.
Evidence of the creator is in the creation.. until you come up with something completely logical, or the something else, I suggest you take a hike, as I seem to be this close to invalidating my fast every day just contemplating how under-educated you are!
all the best
