Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is not Abiogenesis
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 5 of 251 (653577)
02-22-2012 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tangle
02-22-2012 1:37 PM


quibbles
Hi Tangle, hope this takes off.
How would the ToE be affected if a pair of replicating molecules got here by the many different ways we can think of? Including:
1. God did it
2. A meteor brought it
3. Aliens planted it
4. Alphabet primordial soup cooked it up
5. any other idea
(It will be necessary for the creationist to put aside their belief that evolution isn't true and treat this as a puzzle in logic and reason.)
Or any one of the above ... ? [/quibble]
How would the ToE be affected if a pair of replicating molecules got here ...
Which doesn't mean that you have life, just molecules, not a cell structure yet, not a breeding population ... [/quibble]
If anyone wants to discuss where we are scientifically on the development of self replicating molecules see Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II).
This would also be a good place to introduce what science says the ToE is ... feel free to borrow from Introduction to Evolution (which has not been promoted yet ).
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tangle, posted 02-22-2012 1:37 PM Tangle has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 39 of 251 (653633)
02-23-2012 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Portillo
02-23-2012 12:05 AM


when does life begin?
Hi Portillo,
Is prebiotic evolution evolution?
You realize that stated this way you are begging the question, yes?
It would be better to term it pre-biotic pre-evolution ... ie the elements of evolution would begin to work as various elements of life come together.
Once you have self-replicating molecules you have the possibility of some of the mechanisms of evolution to work.
Copy errors (mutations) would either mean a non-functional no longer self-replicating molecule or a different self-replicating molecule.
Ones that replicated faster would dominate over those that are slower, ones that are better protected against environmental damage would last longer. Thus some elements of natural selection would begin to operate.
But these elements of evolution do not cause the self-replicating molecules to exist, they come into existence after these molecules exist.
These chemical and pre-evolutionary mechanisms can certainly cause increased complexity in the replicating systems (in part due to the simple truth that simpler systems lose the ability to replicate).
Message 17: If lifeless self-replicating chemicals coalesced together to form a living organism. That is a spectacular example of evolution.
In your opinion, however the mechanisms of evolution would not be causing this to happen, rather the mechanisms of abiogenesis would be responsible. These mechanisms involve chemistry rather than biology.
Of course one of the problems here is defining when life actually begins in this process of developing complexity. This is a much bigger question than it first appears - we have had threads on just this issue (see Definition of Life):
RAZD Message 69: There are examples that we can all agree belong to the category "life" and there are examples that we can all agree belong to the category "non-life" ... and then there are examples where we cannot agree that they belong in "life" or in "non-life" categories, and there are no currently known criteria that can make this distinction.
Personally, I think the best working definition I've seen, is that life is some physical arrangement of atoms and molecules that is potentially capable of evolution (the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities) and the formation of nested hierarchies of descent.
Note that this allows self-replicating molecules to meet this definition of life, and this falls into the category of {examples where we cannot agree that they belong in "life" or in "non-life" categories}.
In one sense you could define life to occur once the mechanisms of evolution come into effect, but even there it is a gray area, not a cut and fast delineation.
Message 19: Does that mean that an intelligent agent is a valid alternative theory for the origin of life?
For the appearance of life on earth, not for the origin (obviously, as the life is imported by this intelligent agent). This could either be god/s or aliens.
Do you agree that evolution and the theory of evolution would still apply just as they do today once they have imported life here?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added quote from other thread

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Portillo, posted 02-23-2012 12:05 AM Portillo has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 52 of 251 (653671)
02-23-2012 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Jefferinoopolis
02-23-2012 12:28 PM


back to the definition of life again
Hi Jefferinoopolis, and welcome to the fray.
I think if we make the assumption that life started from a replicating molecule ...
Well that is part of the problem isn't it? What characteristics are necessary before we can say life has developed?
quote:
Message 39: Of course one of the problems here is defining when life actually begins in this process of developing complexity. This is a much bigger question than it first appears - we have had threads on just this issue (see Definition of Life):
RAZD Message 69: There are examples that we can all agree belong to the category "life" and there are examples that we can all agree belong to the category "non-life" ... and then there are examples where we cannot agree that they belong in "life" or in "non-life" categories, and there are no currently known criteria that can make this distinction.
Personally, I think the best working definition I've seen, is that life is some physical arrangement of atoms and molecules that is potentially capable of evolution (the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities) and the formation of nested hierarchies of descent.
Note that this allows self-replicating molecules to meet this definition of life, and this falls into the category of {examples where we cannot agree that they belong in "life" or in "non-life" categories}.
In one sense you could define life to occur once the mechanisms of evolution come into effect, but even there it is a gray area, not a cut and fast delineation.
It would be like assembling an alphabet, you can start with a number of letters, but at which point does the protoalphabet become useable?
quote:
Message 25
See wikipedia
Life - Wikipedia
particularly the "conventional definition
Life - Wikipedia
While there is no universal agreement on the definition of life, scientists generally accept that the biological manifestation of life exhibits the following phenomena:
1. Organization - Living things are composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
2. Metabolism - Metabolism produces energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (synthesis) and decomposing organic matter (catalysis). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
3. Growth - Growth results from a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
4. Adaptation - Adaptation is the accommodation of a living organism to its environment. It is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
5. Response to stimuli - A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion: the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
6. Reproduction - The division of one cell to form two new cells is reproduction. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.
(bold in the original)
Thus we may have adaptation (copy error mutation and some selection), and we may have reproduction (replication), but we don't know about response to stimulii, metabolism, etc.
It is more than a single step, it is an accumulation of steps that add the different elements that we associate with life.
In addition, as NoNukes pointed out in Message 43, we are in danger of equivocating the process of evolution with the theory of evolution:
The process of evolution is the change in the frequency distribution and composition of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.
Likewise, the process of speciation is the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations that then evolve independently of each other, and creating diversity.
The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of evolution, and the process of speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.
The reason science makes a distinction between evolution and abiogenesis is that we don't know how life started. All we have are hypotheses and some circumstantial evidence but nothing conclusive. We do have overwhelming evidence for evolution so we have no choice but to separate them. To combine them would be presumptuous on the part of scientists.
Another analogy would be to say that abiogenesis is like micro(quantum)physics while evolution is like macro(relativity)physics: scientists would love to delineate where one becomes the other, but this has not been done yet. Even when it is done, however, these are likely to remain as branches within the (new) overall theory. One won't grow to swallow the other.
Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0
Edited by RAZD, : more, ps

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Jefferinoopolis, posted 02-23-2012 12:28 PM Jefferinoopolis has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 72 of 251 (653801)
02-24-2012 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Chuck77
02-24-2012 3:53 AM


Re: Creation theory.
Hi Chuck77
My whole problem with the TOE and abiogenesis is that they are seperated when (as Modulous pointed out) the Bible isn't. I can't seem to wrap my brain around seperating it all when it comes to life, how it works, how it came to be, where it is going.
It seems to me that abiogenesis is closer to creation than evolution, and that evolution is embodied in kinds and descent within kinds.
And the question then comes down to when and how many original species there were.
If that helps.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Chuck77, posted 02-24-2012 3:53 AM Chuck77 has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 111 of 251 (654102)
02-26-2012 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by marc9000
02-26-2012 8:59 PM


persecution issues again?
Hi marc9000, still carrying that conspiracy theory baggage around?
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
Curiously, I can't recall that question ever being asked. I can recall such concepts being discussed in the presentation of ID as a "get out of creationism" card (ie that because the designer is not identified it could be a god, aliens or space debris falling on earth). This is usually presented as a wink-wink nudge-nudge attempt to palm the pea by the proponents, that then, amusingly, go on to describe how their god is the designer.
To answer you question, no, it would not make the slightest difference to whether or not ID was actually science rather than a philosophical\religious dog and pony show -- that would actually be determined by ID proponents actually doing science (rather than yammering away with pseudoscience and complaining that they weren't admitted to the club of science because of discrimination).
... I think many (such as myself) claim that evolution, that is ~all claims about evolution~ are less factual/believable ...
Curiously, science doesn't care if you find science believable, it cares whether or not there is objective evidence to test the hypothesis, validate it, falsify it, and whether it can make useful predictions for further tests.
Evolution has done this for 150+ years, so if you don't find the results of those tests believable, it is of little concern to science. You can lead a hoarse creationist to water.
If, however, you can falsify evolution then by all means step forward and do so - because then science will pay attention.
What is of concern to scientists, is when people put beliefs before evidence, especially when this affects the public school curriculum in general, and science classes in specific.
How would ID be affected? Put-downs of ID aren’t an answer, any more than put downs of evolution are an answer to your question. Can anyone explain the evolutionist double standard to me?
There is evidence for evolution. Over 150 years of accumulated evidence from scientific testing involving fossils, genetics and the observable world. There has not been one instance where evolution was shown to be false.
Where is the comparable evidence for ID (er ... any evidence for ID)?
Without producing a similar mountain of evidence, it should be painfully clear to any impartial observer that there is no double standard here.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

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 113 by marc9000, posted 02-26-2012 10:07 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 114 of 251 (654110)
02-26-2012 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by marc9000
02-26-2012 10:07 PM


Re: persecution issues again?
Hi marc9000
Just like abiogenesis is presented as a wink wink nudge nudge attempt to declare that there is no God, and that we'll somehow figure out naturalistic abiogenesis, if given enough time and public money?
Except that science has already been done in the field of abiogenesis, hypothesis have been tested and some have been discarded. Much has been done in the area of replicating molecules (there are now several known self-replicating molecules).
And it can't do that with abiogenesis, and that's why references to, and even entire threads are started, to shout over and over and over again that evolution and abiogenesis dont' have a thing in the world to do with each other.
Including the one you started on abiogenesis ....?
Curiously though, hypothesis ARE being tested. Results ARE being obtained. Hard to conceive how that is possible if what you say is true. I can point you to a thread that discusses some of them: see Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II). Some of the people involved in those studies even posted on it.
And in year one of those 150 years, it didn't have a list of requirements to pass.
And amusingly, once again, if what you say is true, that there was no "list of requirements to pass" ... they somehow actually were passed: Darwin in year one of those 150 years listed objective evidence and tests of his theory in his book on the origin of species.
We've had this discussion before marc9000, where you agreed that abiogenesis met the standard for science, even ones found in pre-Darwin dictionary definitions, but could not show that ID did, nor could you show that the definition of science changed substantially in order to exclude ID -- as you had claimed.
Do you want me to pull them out and reference them?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

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 115 by marc9000, posted 02-26-2012 11:04 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 177 of 251 (654729)
03-03-2012 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by marc9000
03-02-2012 8:11 PM


the slippery slope to understanding when opinions are false
Hi marc9000,
You’re making it too complicated, it’s really quite simple. For ID, the designer is a big deal. For evolution, the common ancestor is a big deal. Both big deals can be shelved, and study about their existence (or actions) can be shelved. Both can, or neither can.
Except that the pattern of descent from common ancestors is testable and observable. We don't need to hypothesize a single original common ancestor to talk about common descent from common ancestors in the fossil record or the DNA record, nor do we need to hypothesize a single original common ancestor to see how the pattern of descent forms a nested hierarcy of clades within clades.
Not teaching about the formation of nested hierarchies of clades within clades would be a serious major omission in the study of evolution, like teaching math without addition.
Message 162:Just like we all know that the naturalism in evolution is atheism. All I ever hear is that the mere existence of theistic evolutionists disproves that. It doesn’t, especially since theistic evolutionists clearly agree with atheists on just about everything. ...
But clearly NOT on a non-existent god. Naturalism in evolution is the secular\agnostic study of life according to either purely natural laws or created natural laws: there is no test that can distinguish one from the other without having examples of both. The theistic evolutionist recognizes this as much as the atheists recognize this: science is the tentative explanation of things according to what we see around us, as we see it, whether it is a purely natural universe or a created one. We can't test for one versus the other so this particular question is left unanswered.
Message 163: The whole of science has clearly proven that when it’s presented with something from ID that is completely non religious, it does not get excited, it gets ANGRY. Because that’s exactly what it did when the book ‘Darwin’s Black Box’ came out. Evolution being challenged by a new thought concept called irreducible complexity did nothing but make them angry.
No, they invalidated it and then were understandably dissappointed (though not surprised) that this invalidated hypothesis was not discarded by a group claiming to do science rather than theology. One can get understandably dissappointed in people that continue to hold a false belief (such as belief in a flat earth or a young earth, as examples of such delusions).
quote:
de•lu•sion -noun
1.
    a. The act or process of deluding.
    b. The state of being deluded.
2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
3. Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.
(American Heritage Dictionary 2009)
The clinical aspect, delusion3 of being deluded depends on how firmly one maintains a belief in the face of invalidating evidence, while delusion1b,2 are curable via education and presentation of the invalidating evidence to an open mind.
If you've been told by a source you respect that President Obama was not born in the US and you believe it then you have been deluded and being shown the birth certificate would be enough to cure this. If you came to the conclusion by yourself that President Obama was not born in the US then you have a false opinion, and being shown the birth certificate should be enough to cure this. If you continue to believe that President Obama was not born in the US after being shown the birth certificate then you are delusional.
Message 164: It (ToE) only works depending on the real existence of the common ancestor that it claims all life on earth arose from.
Nope, it works at any level of a tree of life, whether there is a single tree rooted in a single species, a single tree rooted in multiple cross-breeding species (horizontal transfer in single cell life), multiple trees arising from multiple sources that developed independently from DNA replication systems, or multiple trees due to creation of original species.
(1) The process of Evolution (also called "micro-evolution" in biology) involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.
This does not depend on where one is in a tree of life.
(2) The process of Divergent Speciation involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.
Neither does this depend on where one is in a tree of life.
(3) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of (micro) evolution, and the process of divergent speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.
Nor does this depend on where one is in a tree of life, or how much life is being studied at any one time. If one is studying the process of divergent speciation occurring in the Blackcaps in europe (An example of speciation in action?) and the formation of the clade of blackcaps with the new species, one does not need to look further than the common ancestor Blackcaps.
Message 167: Wow, I’ve seen somewhere on the net the statement that evolution is a slippery word. Now it’s reached new slipperyness — I’ve never seen a claim that it can dance its way out of the common ancestor, until now. I wonder how that would do in court
The judge could look at you blankly for even asking the question. You have a common ancestor with your siblings, and your birth is in no way dependent on whether the tree of life had one origin or many or on how many different trees are involved. Common descent is accepted in creationist circles, and is a necessary element of special creation and descent from created kinds, so the only real argument is where the tree/s started, not on their existence or the manner in which they form.
Message 171: Hmmm, "atheism" must be a slippery word too!
Perhaps, rather than a "slippery slope" occurring on every topic you disagree with, you are seeing the inevitability of the conclusion that you have been holding false opinions and beliefs.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : tweaked
Edited by RAZD, : added a bit

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by marc9000, posted 03-02-2012 8:11 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by marc9000, posted 03-04-2012 8:51 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 187 of 251 (654880)
03-05-2012 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by marc9000
03-04-2012 8:51 PM


Re: the slippery slope to understanding when opinions are false
Hi marc9000,
So how are all those conspiracy theories working out for you?
How about if, considering the time lapses and dragging out the process of producing the birth certificate was, there is opinion/evidence that the birth certificate was FAKED? See how accusations of delusional by a strong presence of a one-sided worldview are largely meaningless?
Yes, obviously it is a part of the vast atheist conspiracy. They must have done the faking after all. Not content with taking over science, they are now intent on taking over politics, Obama is not really a muslim but an swedish socialist atheist agent, secretly "turned" by his grandmother, working to force religion back into homes and churches ...
Cognitive Dissonance predicts that the first reaction to information that contracts your pet beliefs is denial and the second is to attempt to discredit the source of the information in order to imply that the evidence is untrustworthy. Congratulations on reaching this level.
The next step for those attempting to hold onto their delusions is to see vast conspiracies trying to force false information on you.
This includes your conspiracy theory regarding atheists taking over science and plotting to take over the world by their imposition of teaching science.
It’s not left unanswered because everyone has a worldview. Promotion/justification of a person’s worldview is a significant part of most humans personal interest, whether they’re religious or non religious. A desire to make oneself look good, or to sway others to adapt, is a (some would say unfortunate) part of human nature. And it’s not always done directly, it can be done by IMPLICATION. Many/most people who take in interest in science choose to imply atheism.
Including the signers of the clergy project?
Belief in naturalistic abiogenesis has also been invalidated. That atheists continue to hold that false belief is disappointing. See how subjective, and largely meaningless, the word invalidated really is?
Curiously, you have omitted any evidence of such invalidation. It certainly would be news to all the scientists that are currently working in that field. Perhaps you could share this ground breaking news with us?
Or are you confused about spontaneous generation and the work of Pasteur ... ?
For the second time in this thread, the original form of life on earth has been compared to a parent. I can’t waste time on some of this stuff.
And that would be because you continue to conflate and confuse common descent with origins. The term common ancestor applies to all levels of descent from parents, species from genera, genera from families, etc etc etc.
Simply stated the concept of common descent states that related groups of organisms share a common ancestor, and this is born out by cladistic analysis of homologous traits.
The term "common ancestor" is not a synonym for an original population of life.
That’s your worldview. Curiously, reality is in no way dependent on your personal worldview.
Correct, but the less one needs to deny and ignore the objective evidence of reality the closer that world view to reality it is likely to be. One either assumes that objective evidence represents actual reality or one takes the slippery slope to assuming that all is illusion.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : add
Edited by RAZD, : mre
Edited by RAZD, : image
Edited by RAZD, : turned

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by marc9000, posted 03-04-2012 8:51 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2012 8:19 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 207 of 251 (655273)
03-08-2012 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Percy
03-08-2012 10:48 PM


Re: Analogies
and then there's geology and the age of the earth and the lack of a global flood.
Things to deny keep cropping up for some believers ...
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Percy, posted 03-08-2012 10:48 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 210 of 251 (655292)
03-09-2012 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by marc9000
03-08-2012 8:19 PM


Re: the slippery slope to understanding when opinions are false
Hi marc9000
Just a couple of points
This includes your conspiracy theory regarding atheists taking over science and plotting to take over the world by their imposition of teaching science.
Like you believe ID is a plot to establish religion in the U.S.?
Actually, I take the Wedge Document as an admission of the plot by the creationists of the ID movement. Evidence of such a conspiracy means it is not a theory.
marc9000 writes:
Belief in naturalistic abiogenesis has also been invalidated. That atheists continue to hold that false belief is disappointing. See how subjective, and largely meaningless, the word invalidated really is?
Curiously, you have omitted any evidence of such invalidation. It certainly would be news to all the scientists that are currently working in that field. Perhaps you could share this ground breaking news with us?
It’s not ground breaking at all, naturalistic abiogenesis has not reached the level of theory yet. It’s only a hypothesis, with lots of gaps.
Curiously, you did not provide any evidence to support your assertion and now are back-peddling?
It is, concerning discussions of evolution.
quote:
Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some ONE primordial form, into which life was first breathed
(bolded mine) That’s from ‘Origin of Species’, and it’s stilll the centerpiece of the TOE. You’re the first one I’ve ever seen try to dance away from it.
(bold revised)
Who gave the breath of life into that hypothetical (you do realize he was talking hypothetically yes?) "primordial form" proposed by Darwin as a possibility? An atheist?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2012 8:19 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 215 of 251 (655593)
03-11-2012 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by marc9000
03-11-2012 3:41 PM


Re: Summary too
The essential difference between abiogenesis and evolution is simple:
Abiogenesis involves chemical processes, evolution does not.
Evolution involves biological processes, abiogenesis does not.
They cannot be the same thing nor can one be a subset of the other.
The rest of the post is filled with misunderstanding and misrepresentation, such as:
Message 210
RAZD writes:
marc9000 writes:
It's not ground breaking at all, naturalistic abiogenesis has not reached the level of "theory" yet. It's only a hypothesis, with lots of gaps.
Curiously, you did not provide any evidence to support your assertion and now are back-peddling?
You can call it back-peddling if you want, but I’m sure not chasing you and your goalpost moving for miles and miles. It’s common knowledge that there is nowhere near a complete theory on how life can naturalistically originate. One of the other evolutionists here could easily explain that to you. But they won’t.
The full dialogue is:
marc9000 writes:
Belief in naturalistic abiogenesis has also been invalidated. That atheists continue to hold that false belief is disappointing. See how subjective, and largely meaningless, the word invalidated really is?
Curiously, you have omitted any evidence of such invalidation. It certainly would be news to all the scientists that are currently working in that field. Perhaps you could share this ground breaking news with us?
It’s not ground breaking at all, naturalistic abiogenesis has not reached the level of theory yet. It’s only a hypothesis, with lots of gaps.
Curiously, you did not provide any evidence to support your assertion and now are back-peddling?[/qs]
And yes, changing from a position that abiogenesis was invalidated to it is just an hypothesis is back-peddling, at high speed.
Nobody here has claimed that abiogenesis is demonstrated and has reached the level of theory, but that is different than saying it is invalidated.
Meanwhile the additional assertion of moving goal-posts is not substantiated. Typical.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by marc9000, posted 03-11-2012 3:41 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Panda, posted 03-11-2012 6:53 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 217 of 251 (655614)
03-11-2012 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Panda
03-11-2012 6:53 PM


Re: Summary too
Hi Panda
Surely chemical processes are a subset of biological processes?
There are clearly processes in abiogenesis that are different from processes in evolution, for instance population dynamics is not a chemical process, it is a biological process and it affects evolution.
That there may be some processes in common does not rule out processes that are exclusive to the two sciences.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Panda, posted 03-11-2012 6:53 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Panda, posted 03-11-2012 10:03 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 219 of 251 (655618)
03-11-2012 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Panda
03-11-2012 10:03 PM


Re: Summary too nitter natter noo
Hi Panda,
But that does not negate the fact that chemical processes are a subset of biological processes.
Would you not agree that there is a majority of chemical processes that are not biological and have nothing to do with biology?
I agree. But that is not what you originally said.
"Abiogenesis involves chemical processes, evolution does not."
This is simply incorrect.
Evolution does involve chemical processes.
Your explanation of "the essential difference between abiogenesis and evolution" is faulty.
Biology uses some chemical reactions.
Abiogenesis involves purely chemical processes, evolution does not.
You get the nit-picker award, happy?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Panda, posted 03-11-2012 10:03 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Panda, posted 03-11-2012 10:37 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 227 of 251 (655641)
03-12-2012 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Panda
03-11-2012 10:37 PM


Re: Summary too nitter natter noo
Hi Panda
Would you not agree that chemical processes are a subset of biological processes?
some, but not all, chemical processes are part of some, but not all, biological processes.
some chemical processes are not biological
some biological processes are not chemical
chemistry is not biology, they are different sciences.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Panda, posted 03-11-2012 10:37 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Rahvin, posted 03-12-2012 2:03 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 230 of 251 (655662)
03-12-2012 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Rahvin
03-12-2012 2:03 PM


Re: Summary too nitter natter noo
Hi Rahvin,
Biology is a specific subset of chemistry.
So now we have one claim that chemistry is a subset of biology and your counter.
Which ones?
Population dynamics, changes to the ecology, stochastic processes, neutral drift ...
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Rahvin, posted 03-12-2012 2:03 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Rahvin, posted 03-12-2012 3:21 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 233 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-12-2012 3:41 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024