Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is not Abiogenesis
Warthog
Member (Idle past 3968 days)
Posts: 84
From: Earth
Joined: 01-18-2012


(3)
Message 121 of 251 (654137)
02-27-2012 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by marc9000
02-26-2012 10:07 PM


Re: persecution issues again?
quote:
And in year one of those 150 years, it didn't have a list of requirements to pass.
Marc, I can't figure out what list of requirements you are referring to. In year one and onwards, Darwins ToE was one of the most hotly contested theories around. It went through the same purge by fire that ID is having now. The difference between the two is that the ToE gradually built up a huge amount of evidence to back it up, while ID doesn't seem to have any. What science has been done regarding ID?
In a nutshell, the scientific method is the basic yardstick that scientists use to validate methodology. Is this the list of requirements you are referring to?
Both creationists and IDers approach the argument using an engineering design process, beginning with the assumption of a creator, which science does not do. Because of this they construct an argument that must include a creator. ID is not simply another viewpoint - it depends on faith in a creator. Without evidence of this, how can we call it science?
Science accepts only that which can be observed. No assumptions are inviolate in science. Even evidence is subject to verification and if a flaw is found in methodology, it is diminished in usefulness or rejected entirely. The beauty of this principle is that it uses petty human rivalries to weed out mistakes - people universally like being right and will usually find holes in weak arguments to do so.
and regarding your question...
quote:
How would any study of ID be affected if the designer was;
*The Christian God
*The Flying Spaghetti Monster
*Allah
*Spacemen from another planet
*Any other idea
It would be affected thus, most likely...
The Christian God - Backslapping and self-congratulations on being right when the end times come. As long as they've picked the right Christian God.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster - Don't be silly, the FSM is merely an atheist diversion to trick us into forsaking the one true God (see above and below)
Allah - The word terrorist may never be spoken again as the righteous celebrate in their moral victory over the infidel. ID would be unaffected mostly, except that it would include the phrase the Americans were wrong. Oh, and Adnan Oktar would look even more smug and self satisfied.
Spacemen from another planet - We would then live in fear of the coming harvest...
Any other idea - Such as life developed on a natural path and no observable evidence of direction or design were noted?
On a more serious note, ID would change according to the faith of ID advocates i.e. whether they believe in the christian god (as the huge majority do) or in the Great Green Arkleseizure. This is exactly the problem.
Edited by Warthog, : fixed link

Ignorance is a Tragedy
Willful Ignorance is a Sin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by marc9000, posted 02-26-2012 10:07 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by marc9000, posted 02-28-2012 8:30 PM Warthog has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(4)
Message 122 of 251 (654152)
02-27-2012 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by marc9000
02-26-2012 9:50 PM


Re: Analogies
marc9000 writes:
What double standard?
The two claims are perfectly comparable. Evolutionists claim that evolution doesn't need to identify origins of life, and IDists claim that ID doesn't have to identify the designer. If one is true, the other is true. If one is false, the other is false. Evolutionists claim that one is true, and the other is false. It's a double standard - I can't make it any clearer than that.
I'm sorry but what is clear is that what you posted and I quoted above is not true, but false.
I will try once again to explain it to you. If you do not understand some of the words I use, please just ask and I'll try to explain their meaning for you.
There is no double standard.
There is evidence life exists. The Theory of Evolution describes the model and method for that life to evolve, the model and method that explains the diversity of life that we see evidenced over time.
The question of how that life changed is entirely unrelated to the origin of that life; but that does not mean that the origin of life is not something worthy of study and in fact there is the whole area of Abiogenesis that does study just that, the Origin of Life. And as of this moment Abiogenesis says "We don't yet know how life started".
Now Intelligent Design though makes a claim that there is some Designer and that that Designer uses some unspecified model and method to create the diversity of life we see evidenced over time. Intelligent Design claims a Designer, yet presents no evidence that Designer exists.
No double Standard.
Intelligent Design only wants a special pleading for special creation; it does not want to have to play by the same rules the big kids have to follow.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by marc9000, posted 02-26-2012 9:50 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by marc9000, posted 02-28-2012 8:38 PM jar has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 123 of 251 (654156)
02-27-2012 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by marc9000
02-26-2012 8:59 PM


Re: Analogies
I can’t say that it would be affected, and don’t claim that it would be. But the reason I don’t mind seeing that question asked is because I never see the following question being answered by evolutionists;
How would any study of ID be affected if the designer was;
*The Christian God
*The Flying Spaghetti Monster
*Allah
*Spacemen from another planet
*Any other idea
Well, the first thing that comes to my mind is that each of those possible answers raises the question, "What was their motivation?" Because of their shared history, I might expect that the answer for the Christian god and for Allah would be similar. A second question that comes to mind is, "How did they accomplish this?"
There, now you can cross that off the list of questions that you never see "evolutionists" answer.
I think many (such as myself) claim that evolution, that is ~all claims about evolution~ are less factual/believable THAN THEY WOULD OTHERWISE BE if evolution had more scientific facts about naturalistic origins of life.
Why?
The things that we believe we know about evolution are based on the evidence we see. Evolution is about biology. It is about how organisms that recreate imperfectly in an environment of scarce resources compete and change over time. Questions about how life began deal with chemistry, how different elements and molecules combine together, and with what the conditions were on the planet billions of years ago. They are quite simply two different fields of inquiry. What do unanswered questions in one field have to do with evidence that we now have in hand in the other?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by marc9000, posted 02-26-2012 8:59 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by marc9000, posted 02-28-2012 8:49 PM subbie has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 124 of 251 (654162)
02-27-2012 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by marc9000
02-26-2012 8:59 PM


Re: Analogies
Hi marc,
How would any study of ID be affected if the designer was;
*The Christian God
*The Flying Spaghetti Monster
*Allah
*Spacemen from another planet
*Any other idea
Well, I note that the first three are essentially the same possibility three times; a supernatural deity. Also, numbers 1 and 3 are actually the same god. So they wouldn't differ much on account of being the same.
Certainly all three would have a huge effect upon ID, as they would all open the doors to the supernatural.
In the case of the FSM, we would see a very profound change. The FSM is an entity that we know is imagined. It was thought up by a bloke named Bobby Henderson as a satirical joke in 2005. That this could seem to be the case even whilst the FSM was found to be real would have profound effects on all science; we would have discovered that Bobby Henderson is a prophet who can divine the truth about the universe merely by thinking up silly jokes.
On the other hand, if the spacemen theory were true, it would both close off the possibility of magical effects and rule in the usefulness of space research in the search for the origins of life.
You've had quite a lot of replies for a question that evolutionists don't want to answer haven't you?
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by marc9000, posted 02-26-2012 8:59 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 125 of 251 (654171)
02-27-2012 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by marc9000
02-26-2012 11:04 PM


Re: persecution issues again?
marc9000 writes:
Because it's already in the public realm of science, and is of great interest to atheists. 93% of the National Academy of Sciences are atheists. They are in control of science.
I think you are incorrect....it is the only thing that interests atheists. Atheist and Abiogenesis both start with "A". Coincidence? I think not. Atheists have already taken over science and business, schools and churches, Congress, the World, even the Galaxy, so you better watch your step!
And even more amusingly, 'Origin of Species' was NOT peer reviewed material, something that's always required of ID! Still another double standard.
Actually, it has been under review for 150 years. It has to be one of the most reviewed books in history.
1) How would studies of ID be affected depending on the identity of the designer, and
2) Where is documentation that shows that the scientific community was trying to separate evolution from abiogenesis before 1953?
1) So far, there have not been any studies of ID, so if any of your listed designers were actually shown to exist, someone might actually want to study ID.
2) As others have already pointed out, by Darwin in 1860, in Origin of Species.
I have to ask you, are you pissed because no ID supporters are interested in doing any scientific research into ID (they are only interested in saying evolution is wrong), or are you pissed because no actual scientists are interested in conducting research on ID?
Scientists, at least the ones I know, go into the fields of research that personally interests them. Do you think someone should order scientist to study ID? I seem to remember some foundation (Templeton?) that was offering to fund research into ID. Any Nobel winners yet?
-

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by marc9000, posted 02-26-2012 11:04 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 126 of 251 (654172)
02-27-2012 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Portillo
02-25-2012 3:56 AM


Re: Message from Buzsaw
There are other forms of evolution such as sociobiology, evolutionary psychology, stellar evolution, quantum evolution, galaxy evolution, evolutionary epistemology, evolutionary ethics, evolutionary logic, Darwinism, cultural evolution, social evolution, postbiological evolution. Evolution is change!
When creationists claim that we should not separate abiogenesis and evolution what do you think they are referring to? Do you think that before we can understand the evolution of internet media that we need a model of how life originated? Do you think that before we can understand the evolution of Middle English to Modern English that we need to understand the origin of life through abiogenesis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Portillo, posted 02-25-2012 3:56 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(6)
Message 127 of 251 (654173)
02-27-2012 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by marc9000
02-26-2012 8:59 PM


Re: Analogies
I’ll gladly stand corrected if anyone can prove me wrong, but the adamant separation of evolution from abiogenesis seems to be a very recent occurrence only.
Fine then. Let's blend them into the same thing. Abiogenesis and evolution are now the same. I don't think you will like this result, however.
So have we observed abiogenesis? Yep, sure have. Here is a great paper demonstrating abiogenesis:
Replica Plating and Indirect Selection of Bacterial Mutants (Lederberg and Lederberg, 1952)
In this paper they do a great job of outline how bacterial mutation is random with respect to fitness and how these mutations are selected. This is a direct observation of abiogenesis (remember, you are not allowed to separate the two).
Does this work for you? Are you going to argue against this and claim that we should separate evolution and abiogenesis?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by marc9000, posted 02-26-2012 8:59 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by marc9000, posted 02-28-2012 8:53 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(6)
Message 128 of 251 (654174)
02-27-2012 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by marc9000
02-26-2012 11:04 PM


Re: persecution issues again?
2) Where is documentation that shows that the scientific community was trying to separate evolution from abiogenesis before 1953?
From Darwin's own work:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."--"Origin of Species", Charles Darwin
Darwin himself spoke of the origin of life and evolution as two separate processes. There was a beginning of life, and then life evolved from there. Two separate things.
Of course, we can always combine the two which actually works in our favor. Here is another paper on an observed abiogenesis event:
Mutations of Bacteria from Virus Sensitive to Viruse Resistance, (Luria and Delbruck, 1943)
They clearly show that random mutations result in bacteriophage resistance which is selected for in an environment containing bacteriophage. This is another clearly observed abiogenesis event.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by marc9000, posted 02-26-2012 11:04 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(5)
Message 129 of 251 (654184)
02-27-2012 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by marc9000
02-26-2012 9:50 PM


Re: Analogies
Hi, Marc.
marc9000 writes:
The two claims are perfectly comparable. Evolutionists claim that evolution doesn't need to identify origins of life, and IDists claim that ID doesn't have to identify the designer. If one is true, the other is true. If one is false, the other is false. Evolutionists claim that one is true, and the other is false. It's a double standard - I can't make it any clearer than that.
First, I will agree that you don't technically have to identify the Designer. However, you do have to give some sort of explanation as to how he/she/it/they did the Designing, and how we could clearly and legitimately distinguish things that emerge from this Design process from things that emerge through non-Design processes. The work in this area so far has been... unconvincing, to say the least.
Second, as you have undoubtedly been told by evolutionists before, there are two separate phenomena representing two separate phases of the history of life: the origin of life, and its subsequent development/modification.
Obviously, no hypothesis should be required to explain both phases, since it is perfectly valid to propose that the two phases of life's history functioned on different principles.
To that end, evolutionists don't demand that ID/creation models explain everything as a result of a Design process. For example, we don't expect you to explain antibiotic-resistant bacteria as the result of de novo creations of the Designer: we are perfectly happy to let you explain them through mutations and natural selection, if you want.
In contrast, you are requiring our model to explain both phenomena with one hypothesis, so much so that you refuse to accept our explanation for one phenomenon unless we have a similar explanation for the other phenomenon.
This seems like a double standard to me.
Edited by Blue Jay, : cosmetics

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by marc9000, posted 02-26-2012 9:50 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by marc9000, posted 02-28-2012 9:09 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 130 of 251 (654280)
02-28-2012 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Tangle
02-27-2012 4:01 AM


Re: Analogies
I think you need to ask yourself though, what you will think when science starts building life from chemistry and has some credible models for how life started? To be honest, I don't think it would make a difference to what you feel about evolution.
You seem confident that they’re going to do that, in spite of the recently discovered complexity of the simplest forms of life. I’m not saying they absolutely won’t, (intelligent designers, whether they’re scientists or God, can do amazing things) but it won’t make much difference to what I feel about evolution, or fundamental Christianity. Just because scientists finally figure out a way to create life doesn’t automatically mean life happened naturalistically.
But your question goes both ways, would what you feel about religion or evolution change if ID proponents get on a roll with a lot of peer reviewed papers? If the scientific peer reviewers had no choice but to take them seriously, or risk an obvious exposure of being biased? After all, many feel they're already doing that, and the number of those who feel that way may be increasing.
marc9000 writes:
How would any study of ID be affected if the designer was;
*The Christian God
*The Flying Spaghetti Monster
*Allah
*Spacemen from another planet
*Any other idea
It wouldn't be affected at all. Does that help?
Yes it does — I appreciate your honesty. I don’t claim a major victory because you said it, it just shows that there is some disagreement among evolutionists about what ID is, how it is defined, how serious a threat it could be to current scientific studies. It could make a difference in future court cases, when ID is painted as strictly religious by only some evolutionists, not all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Tangle, posted 02-27-2012 4:01 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Omnivorous, posted 02-28-2012 9:32 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 148 by Tangle, posted 02-29-2012 3:29 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 149 by Trixie, posted 02-29-2012 4:11 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 131 of 251 (654281)
02-28-2012 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Warthog
02-27-2012 5:32 AM


Re: persecution issues again?
Marc, I can't figure out what list of requirements you are referring to.
ID is always accused of not being science, because it's claimed by evolutionists that it isn’t testable, repeatable, observable, falsifiable, and several other things. But many things that it can do as defined by its prominent proponents like Behe and Dembski can meet some of that criteria to a better extent than a few current scientific disciplines do, such as the SETI Institute.
The list from your link;
quote:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
This seems to be one of many 'scientific method' lists, and is subjective in how it’s applied. SETI hasn’t yet gotten past number 2, yet there are always rationalizations about how it is still science. ID in some cases does them all, and is still not accepted as science.
In year one and onwards, Darwins ToE was one of the most hotly contested theories around. It went through the same purge by fire that ID is having now.
It wasn’t the same. Those were simpler times, it didn’t have to face costly court battles to be accepted as science. It was hotly contested by a large percentage of the population to be sure, but it wasn’t kept from public scientific inquiry like ID is today. As evolutionists constantly claim, the Discovery Institute or any private organization is free to study ID on its own all it wants, but in this day and age, it isn’t as simple as it was back then. The Discovery Institute may be making more progress on it than is being publicly disclosed right now.
Both creationists and IDers approach the argument using an engineering design process, beginning with the assumption of a creator, which science does not do. Because of this they construct an argument that must include a creator. ID is not simply another viewpoint - it depends on faith in a creator. Without evidence of this, how can we call it science?
Current science does the same thing. It begins with an assumption that there can’t be a creator. They take some evidence, disregard other evidence, and construct an argument that cannot include a creator.
On a more serious note, ID would change according to the faith of ID advocates i.e. whether they believe in the christian god (as the huge majority do) or in the Great Green Arkleseizure. This is exactly the problem.
ID would not change its method of study. It is a materialistic study that is defined, and not just any religious zealot isn't automatically authorized to define it. Behe and Dembski aren't zealots.
But what we’re seeing evidence of is that today’s accepted scientific study has changed according to the faith (atheism) of the majority of its advocates.
Edited by marc9000, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Warthog, posted 02-27-2012 5:32 AM Warthog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by dwise1, posted 02-29-2012 4:57 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 132 of 251 (654282)
02-28-2012 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by jar
02-27-2012 9:43 AM


Re: Analogies
I'm sorry but what is clear is that what you posted and I quoted above is not true, but false.
I will try once again to explain it to you. If you do not understand some of the words I use, please just ask and I'll try to explain their meaning for you.
There is no double standard.
There is evidence life exists. The Theory of Evolution describes the model and method for that life to evolve, the model and method that explains the diversity of life that we see evidenced over time.
Irrelevant. We’re comparing IDENTITIES, of life’s origins, and of a designer.
The question of how that life changed is entirely unrelated to the origin of that life; but that does not mean that the origin of life is not something worthy of study and in fact there is the whole area of Abiogenesis that does study just that, the Origin of Life. And as of this moment Abiogenesis says "We don't yet know how life started".
Agreed. The steps/requirements of following the scientific method aren’t working for it. Still largely irrelevant though.
Now Intelligent Design though makes a claim that there is some Designer and that that Designer uses some unspecified model and method to create the diversity of life we see evidenced over time. Intelligent Design claims a Designer, yet presents no evidence that Designer exists.
It makes a claim that we may be able to identify evidence of that designer, without necessarily identifying the designer. It’s the same as if a person buys an old house, with the intention of gutting it and rebuilding it, taking note of its design along the way. He doesn’t necessarily know, or care, who the original designer was.
No double Standard.
You never really addressed the ~identity~ issue, but you still insist there is no double standard in my analyzation of that issue. If you and I were having this face-off in a court, I think I’d win. (unless of course, the judge was the honorable John Q. Jones) Future ID case judges may not be just like him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by jar, posted 02-27-2012 9:43 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by jar, posted 02-28-2012 8:45 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 133 of 251 (654283)
02-28-2012 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by marc9000
02-28-2012 8:38 PM


Re: Analogies
There is no evidence of the Designer you claim exists.
There is no evidence of either the method or model that your asserted without evidence designer used.
We know the designer of this old house was a human just like you and me and we know the method and model used by the designer of this old house used.
Intelligent Design can lose in the courts but can NEVER win in reality until and unless you present evidence that your asserted Designer exists and evidence that supports the method model that Designer critter used.
It really is that simple.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by marc9000, posted 02-28-2012 8:38 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 134 of 251 (654284)
02-28-2012 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by subbie
02-27-2012 10:31 AM


Re: Analogies
Well, the first thing that comes to my mind is that each of those possible answers raises the question, "What was their motivation?" Because of their shared history, I might expect that the answer for the Christian god and for Allah would be similar. A second question that comes to mind is, "How did they accomplish this?"
There, now you can cross that off the list of questions that you never see "evolutionists" answer.
Not really, because you don’t show enough knowledge of what ID actually is. Motivation of a designer isn’t formally involved. If a diverse group of scientists are studying for signs of intelligence in nature, and they form personal opinions of the designers motivation, that’s their own personal business. But the entire group of scientists aren’t going to be in enough of an agreement about motivation to settle on a criteria to study it, or identify the designer. IMO there would be far more diversity in this regard among ID scientists that there currently is in evolutionary scientists about atheism.
marc9000 writes:
I think many (such as myself) claim that evolution, that is ~all claims about evolution~ are less factual/believable THAN THEY WOULD OTHERWISE BE if evolution had more scientific facts about naturalistic origins of life.
Why?
The things that we believe we know about evolution are based on the evidence we see. Evolution is about biology. It is about how organisms that recreate imperfectly in an environment of scarce resources compete and change over time. Questions about how life began deal with chemistry, how different elements and molecules combine together, and with what the conditions were on the planet billions of years ago. They are quite simply two different fields of inquiry. What do unanswered questions in one field have to do with evidence that we now have in hand in the other?
Some claims that are made about evolution can be more acceptable/factual than others. 'Change over time' is more factual than is common ancestry/common descent. As more and more conclusions are drawn about what evolution is, what it has done, more and more philosophy creeps in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by subbie, posted 02-27-2012 10:31 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by subbie, posted 02-29-2012 12:20 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 135 of 251 (654285)
02-28-2012 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Taq
02-27-2012 2:31 PM


Re: Analogies
Fine then. Let's blend them into the same thing. Abiogenesis and evolution are now the same. I don't think you will like this result, however.
So have we observed abiogenesis? Yep, sure have. Here is a great paper demonstrating abiogenesis:
Replica Plating and Indirect Selection of Bacterial Mutants (Lederberg and Lederberg, 1952)
In this paper they do a great job of outline how bacterial mutation is random with respect to fitness and how these mutations are selected. This is a direct observation of abiogenesis (remember, you are not allowed to separate the two).
Does this work for you? Are you going to argue against this and claim that we should separate evolution and abiogenesis?
Haha, I really have no opinion on it. I'm wondering what this threads opening poster thinks about your link!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Taq, posted 02-27-2012 2:31 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Taq, posted 02-29-2012 11:46 AM marc9000 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024