Faizal_Ali
January 18, 2026, 8:21pm
229
You are perpetually confused.
You were asked to provide examples of OoL researchers claiming that, in the near future, they will be able to synthesize living organisms in the lab from simple, non-living components.
That paper makes no such claim.
lee_merrill:
We have been discussing Douglas Axe’s response to Art Hunt’s initial comments on Panda’s Thumb, in the thread about this topic. And I made some comments to Art Hunt about what he said were his central concerns, that had gone unaddressed, and he dropped the conversation after a few exchanges.
You were asked to cite when Douglas Axe had responded. You are not Douglas Axe. Are you?
The rest of your comment illustrates that you are either a pathological liar, or have a very poor memory. Arthur responded in the comment below:
Seeing as this topic is still active, I thought I would provide a response, here in this thread, to the article @lee_merrill thinks refutes my 2007 essay . I would ask @lee_merrill to read and make reference to my essay - without this, my response and most of this discussion won’t make much sense.
First and foremost, Points 1, 2, and 4 in Axe’s essay refer to criticisms made by others and are not to be found in my essay. Point 3 is the only one that touches on my essay, and Axe’s discussion completely avoids the point. This point is explained (with reference to my original essay) in the following.
The crux of my essay can be gleaned from the first 3 figures in the essay. My main point - that remains unanswered by Axe TO THIS DAY! - is that Axe assumes an equivalence in the bases of the hills depicted in Fig. 1 and Fig. 3 . The base of the hill in Fig. 3 is the parameter Axe purports to measure, while the base of the hill in Fig. 1 is the parameter that relates to the frequency of prot…
And you even replied to him (irrelevantly and ineffectually, of course) here:
No, I’m seeing that Axe was responding to a request for comments on his 2004 paper: “In August of 2004 I received an email inquiry from plant biologist Art Hunt. He had written a draft for a blog piece aimed at reviewing a research article of mine that had just appeared in the Journal of Molecular Biology [1], and he wanted to know whether he had understood my work correctly. He clearly aimed to refute claims that were beginning to surface that my paper supported intelligent design, but he also wanted to make sure he wasn’t misconstruing my work in the process. He didn’t expect me to oblige—’I will understand if you decline; in fact, I would probably do the same…’—but I did.”
Then we read: “Here I summarize what appear to be the four most common objections to using my 2004 paper in support of ID, three of which trace back to Hunt’s blog entry, the fourth perhaps originating with Steve Matheson, who joined Art Hunt last summer for critical dialog with Steve Meyer in front of an audien…
2 Likes