Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is not Abiogenesis
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 40 of 251 (653635)
02-23-2012 9:21 AM


Resolving Some Confusion
Hope the message subtitle isn't too ambitious.
Back in Message 14 Portillo asked if prebiotic evolution was evolution and received several answers, but what I think Portillo was really asking was why evolution did not operate on pre-life, and why pre-life had to first become life before evolution shifted into gear.
Evolution, most simply, is descent with modification filtered by natural selection. I think the primary reason we don't feel comfortable saying that evolution operated on pre-life is because we really have no idea if pre-life had a mechanism of descent. Certainly there must have been replication, and certainly the mechanisms of that replication changed over time due to replication error and were filtered by natural selection, but we don't know much else. Pre-life must have gone through many stages, and maybe some of those stages had a recognizable process of descent and some didn't. We just don't know.
But whether one agrees with this characterization or not, or perhaps feels it is insufficiently detailed (e.g., maybe I should have included some clarification about why I don't think replication and descent are necessarily synonymous), Portillo's suspicion that the core principles of evolution (copying error and selection) apply as much to pre-life as they do to life must be labeled correct.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Taq, posted 02-23-2012 11:43 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 50 by Jefferinoopolis, posted 02-23-2012 12:28 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 248 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-18-2012 10:10 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 70 of 251 (653776)
02-24-2012 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by dwise1
02-24-2012 2:27 AM


Re: Message from Buzsaw
dwise1 writes:
A large part of my position is that, if they are indeed redefining the terminology out from under us, they must at least inform us of just exactly what their definitions are. But then, that would work against their standing operating procedures of trying to generate confusion.
In their defense (sort of, as this defense is somewhat like a left-handed complement), I don't think creationists are *trying* to foster confusion. Views at such great odds with reality are necessarily the product of confused minds (or at least of ignorant minds), so of course their arguments create confusion. This confusion works to their advantage, and since being ignorant and confused is not the same thing as being stupid they of course continue to use the simple tactic of merely talking about their confused ideas.
School boards and legislatures can become convinced of any a number of loony ideas, especially when voting constituencies are involved, so these confused ideas *are* dangerous in social, cultural or educational contexts, but not in science. The distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is obvious to probably all legitimate biologists, and I'll bet much less than 1% of scientists in fields as far from biology as could possibly be, such as cosmology or quantum theory, are confused on this point.
Shifting now to more directly address the topic, virtually all creationists accept microevolution. For them God created life, and only after life was created could microevolution, evolution within kinds, begin. So creationists obviously understand, were they to think things through, that the creation of life is one thing and microevolution is quite another.
For scientists, life came about through natural processes, and only after life was created could evolution begin. The only difference is that scientists accept both micro and macroevolution. We all understand that the creation of life, whether by natural or supernatural processes, is not the same thing as evolution. Buz, Chuck, Portillo, et. al., will continue to direct their efforts to trying to maintain their confusion, but like many ideas in the creationist portfolio, it runs counter to reality, and in this case even to simple consistency.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by dwise1, posted 02-24-2012 2:27 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 75 of 251 (653813)
02-24-2012 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Chuck77
02-24-2012 3:53 AM


Re: Creation theory.
Hi Chuck,
Great post, but I'm going to comment on one thing:
I think ID has come a long way and so has Creationism...
ID and creationism have not "come a long way" in any scientific sense whatsoever. You're going to have to get your mind wrapped around that before you'll be able to make any real progress. Absent that realization you'll just continue to trudge through ID and creationist websites searching for genuine evidence that you'll never find. For the course you say you're now choosing, answers do not lie in those places.
The answers lie in a direction that I suspect does not interest you much: science. Most creationists come here out of a love of God, not science, and it's the rare creationist (or IDist, if you prefer) who has the love of science necessary for learning enough to hold his own in a scientific discussion.
Understanding science isn't easy. It takes time, effort and study, and the only way someone will stay the course through all that work is with great love and interest. Of those of us here who have developed an understanding and feel for science, I'm sure some came by it easily and naturally, but I'm sure many are like me who if it weren't for the love of discovering an understanding of how the universe works would never have read science for years and years and years before getting pretty good at thinking scientifically.
You're going to need your strong belief that the universe *was* created and that therefore evidence for it must exist, because only that will sustain you through the reams of scientific information you will be sifting through that contains no overt hints of design or a designer.
--Percy

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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 88 of 251 (653888)
02-25-2012 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Portillo
02-25-2012 6:30 AM


Re: Try to debate without using swear words.
Hi Portillo,
This is sort of off-topic, but why are you doing this? To the rest of us this looks like a purposeful attempt to confuse and obfuscate. It looks like, having perhaps decided that the battle in this thread can't be won, that you've decided to destroy any focus and clarity the thread might have.
It is rare that people act out of base motives, so I have to believe that you have a clear conscience and do not believe you're doing any such thing, but I have to wonder what the heck you're thinking. You really believe that Dwise1 is saying that we evolutionists only accept one definition of evolution, no matter the context? Really? Even if you really and truly believe this in your heart of hearts, wouldn't it be a better strategy to hide this fact so that people don't think you're, uh, comprehensionally challenged, or worse, lying?
Last night I heard a BBC interview with a Syrian minister who employed simple denial in his responses to question after question, for example (this is paraphrased from memory):
"What's your reaction to the death of the two journalists yesterday?"
"We have no evidence they were even in this country. You can fake anything on the Internet."
"What's your reaction to the video of the father who blamed your attack on Homs for the death of his two year old son?"
"People can say anything. Videos can be faked."
etc...
Obviously he's lying. He doesn't really believe that wholesale faking of videos of Homs being bombarded is taking place. But his job is to put the damning evidence in the best light possible, and so he is attempting to cast doubt. Probably at least some people will believe him, but that he's lying is obvious to most of the world.
You've participated here with sincerity and integrity, but my problem with your supposed interpretation of Dwise1's words is that while I don't believe you're lying, the other interpretations of your behavior are not particularly flattering, either.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Portillo, posted 02-25-2012 6:30 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Portillo, posted 02-25-2012 6:19 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 92 of 251 (653966)
02-25-2012 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by dwise1
02-25-2012 4:51 PM


Re: What is Evolution?
According to the Wikipedia article on The Origin or Species, the 6th edition was the first to use the word evolution.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by dwise1, posted 02-25-2012 4:51 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Dr Jack, posted 02-25-2012 5:53 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 99 of 251 (653996)
02-25-2012 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Portillo
02-25-2012 6:19 PM


Re: Try to debate without using swear words.
Portillo writes:
Im not trying to confuse anyone. A term like evolution has many meanings, even in science. These meanings can change very rapidly. Evolution occurs when a baby is born, evolution occurs when dogs breed, evolution occurs when a farmer sprays crop with pesticide, evolution occurs when theres been change over time, the beginning of the universe is evolution.
You're not causing any confusion about the definition of evolution.
You're causing confusion by accusing Dwise1 of claiming that we evolutionists always use the biological definition of evolution no matter the context. I don't understand why you're doing this. You're not fooling anyone, you're just distracting from the topic by accusing someone of saying something so incredibly stupid that everyone has to respond.
Of course, we all know that when creationists say religion they always mean Christianity, no matter the context.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Portillo, posted 02-25-2012 6:19 PM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Portillo, posted 02-25-2012 9:52 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 102 of 251 (653999)
02-25-2012 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Portillo
02-25-2012 9:52 PM


Re:
Hi Portillo,
All Dwise1 was saying was that in the context of the dialog you were involved in, biological evolution was meant. It apparently seemed to him that you weren't taking context into account in deciding which definition of evolution was in play. Why on earth you would conclude that someone said something so stupid as insisting on a single definition regardless of context I have no idea.
Congratulations - I no longer recall what we were talking about originally.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Portillo, posted 02-25-2012 9:52 PM Portillo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Trixie, posted 02-26-2012 6:06 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 185 of 251 (654823)
03-04-2012 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by marc9000
03-04-2012 8:46 PM


Re: Analogies
marc9000 writes:
Your opener, and many of the following messages by others, attempted to show a clear distinction between evolution and abiogenesis. Then, just as an opposition to me, messages 127 and 128 showed writings that clearly combine them. You and 26 (count em, 26) other evolutionist posters have taken no exception to that combination whatsoever.
Message 127 and Message 128 were explaining why combining abiogenesis and evolution is a bad idea and makes no sense. I think you must have misunderstood something.
The resurrection and the ascension are two different things. The sermon on the mount and the sermon on the plains are two different things. The immaculate conception and the virgin birth are two different things. The Father, the Son and the holy ghost are three different things (and one thing, too, but we won't get into that). What is so hard about understanding that abiogenesis and evolution are two different things?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by marc9000, posted 03-04-2012 8:46 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2012 8:10 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 205 of 251 (655263)
03-08-2012 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by marc9000
03-08-2012 8:30 PM


Re: Analogies
Hi Marc,
Since we have to use English to describe how you're misunderstanding English, I don't think this can ever be accomplished.
But I guess if abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing, then since there's micro and macro-evolution there must also be micro and macro-abiogenesis. There you go, now you can go around announcing that not only did Taq agree that abiogenesis and evolution are the same, providing a paper as a reference, now Percy is saying so too. And sarcasm and other rhetorical devices can just keep flying right over your head.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2012 8:30 PM marc9000 has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 206 of 251 (655270)
03-08-2012 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by marc9000
03-08-2012 8:26 PM


Re: Analogies
marc9000 writes:
I accept every theory in science that we can directly observe, and practically apply in our daily lives. None of it is used as a philosophical weapon against religion, so that makes it less atheistic than evolution.
So if atheists began using Newton's three laws of motion as a philosophical weapon against religion, you'd become reluctant to accept them, too? Einstein's theory of relativity is often used as the basis for arguments against creationist views on cosmology, so are you going to reject relativity?
The overall point that EvC tries to make is that creationists do not use evidence as their criteria for deciding which theories to accept, and all you're doing is confirming that in spades.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2012 8:26 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by RAZD, posted 03-08-2012 11:08 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 214 of 251 (655583)
03-11-2012 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by marc9000
03-11-2012 3:41 PM


Re: Summary
Wow! I never knew denial and misconstrual could be a lifestyle choice!
It would be fine if you understood but disagreed, but you're leaving while still understanding very little.
--Percy

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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 231 of 251 (655664)
03-12-2012 3:10 PM


Chemistry, Biochemistry, Abiogenesis, and Evolution
Biochemistry is a subset of chemistry.
Both abiogenesis and evolution involve mechanical and chemical processes. The chemical processes of abiogenesis would be called chemistry. The chemical processes of evolution would be called biochemistry.
--Percy

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024