I'm guessing abiogenesis- life started by chemical processes creating bio molecules which became self replicating and evolving. Not actually that controversial as several key parts have been demonstrated in the lab.
Judging by the Institute for Creation Research's piece "The Myth of Chemical Evolution" (not linking), the people who drafted this sentence probably do take "chemical evolution" to mean abiogenesis. I've been out of the field for long enough that I don't know whether that's what sensible people also mean by it, if indeed they mean anything by it.
A hypothesis is a proposition, no? Trivially related to a question about the truth value of that proposition, but not itself a question.
1 - We've got proof of principle for parts, but not a demonstration of what actually happened. I'd say the one sensible thing about the trainwreck sentence in the OP is that the awkward theory/hypothesis split suggests a recognition that what we know about biological evolution is on much more solid ground than what we think we know about the origins of life.
we know about biological evolution is on much more solid ground than what we think we know about the origins of life.
I agree with this. Nice paper about thermodynamics of self-reproducing molecules.
I don't agree that the sentence is thoughtful-- it's likely the result of a chain of edits like the one outline in the LL post, without careful attention to epistomology or the state of research into possible RNA-based early life.
Anti-darwinists consider chemical evolution to be the weakest part of the case for evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_Black_Box
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/evolution/Why-are-So-Many-Chemists-Creationists-.html
It's certainly not as much fun as the part with the dinosaurs and all.
5. Well, there's an epistemological problem with talking about the past-- inference from current observations is all that's available. The origin of life was a long time ago, and not much is certain.
But early RNA-based life looks more than plausible both thermodynamically and biochemically. Thomas Cech is the name I start with to read about RNA-based origin of life, which I don't keep current with.
Anti-darwinists consider chemical evolution to be the weakest part of the case for evolution
It's also the most threatening to them as it addresses the creation of "life from non-life", rather than the diversfication of forms of pre-existing life.
Full-on scientific Frankensteinism would be more fun than dinosaurs.
Apparently a new popular book on dinosaurs is coming out in November (scroll down or search the page).
Correction: Full-on scientific Frankensteinism would be more fun than fossils of dinosaurs.
8: I had a close run-in with one of the more sophisticated creationist types. They have a whole system by which species can evolve within their "kind" but the kinds are created by god. This is how they get around the Noah's Ark problem of fitting everything in. It's cool to see the creativity with which they maneuver around the problems of literalism.
They have a whole system by which species can evolve within their "kind" but the kinds are created by god
It's called baraminology.
It's cool to see the creativity with which they maneuver around the problems of literalism.
More funny than cool. After all, they cannot fathom how fish could evolve into tetrapods over hundreds of millions of years, but have no problem with extraordinary, far-faster-than-observed-today speciation within kinds since the Flood.