Evolution is not Abiogenesis

The thing is that what Buz just wrote to "clarify" his position is precisely what we had all seen him state before that that is precisely what we were all asking him about: what does Buz base that statement on; why does he hold that biopoesis (AKA "abiogenesis") is required for evolution to work? And that is precisely the simple direct and pertinent question that Buz repeatedly and persistently ducked and dodged and refused to even begin to answer.In general, I would have no problem with him joining. However, I have very little doubt that he will simply continue his blatantly dishonest tricks, making his participation here worse than useless.

You are indeed being way too generous.According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/...esis#.22Primordial_soup.22_theory and the Britannica Online Encyclopedia http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/66167/biopoiesis, biopoesis is synonymous with abiogenesis; from Wikidpedia:

quote:

---

the study of how biological life would arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth has arisen.

---

But what you are leaving out is the key phrase from the definition: through natural processes. Now examine our two positions.Our position is that the prerequisite for evolution is the existence of life. Of course this requires, or at least strongly implies, that life had to have started somehow. There is a plethora of ideas for how life could have started, some of which are through natural processes, many (or most) of which are through supernatural processes, and some that postpone that question by having had it transplanted here from elsewhere (eg, the "cosmic slime" mentioned in the original "ten things" list that started that discussion). But the point of our position is that evolution would operate the same regardless of how life had started. Life had to have somehow started, but how it started has no bearing on the question of how evolution works or even whether evolution works.Buz' position, which is a standard creationist position, is that evolution depends on one and only one scenario for how life started: abiogenesis, for which he now substitutes the synonym "biopoesis" and which he had originally referred to as "primordial soup". In his position, if life did not arise through natural processes (vital part of the definition of biopoesis/abiogenesis), then evolution does not exist.So, in summary:
Our position -- if there's no life, then there's no evolution.
Buz' position -- if there wasn't abiogenesis, then there's no evolution.Now, if we were to accept Buz' position as a given, then that would prove abiogenesis:
Premise -- Evolution can only exist if abiogenesis is true.
Premise -- Evolution does exist
Conclusion -- Ergo, abiogenesis is true.Of course, that's a bit of a cheat, but that is the conclusion that Buz' position leads us to.the formation of life from non-living matter .

However, neither abiogenesis nor its, as far as anyone can tell, identical synonym, biopoesis, means merely "life from non-life." A key component of both (ie, the one) is "through natural processes." Buz is assuming the exact same position that I've seen so many other creationists assume in the past, that abiogenesis is the atheistic explanation, which is completely different from their supernaturalistic explanation.I think that a very large part of the question is that Buz, Chuck, Portillo, and other creationists apply an entirely different definition to "evolution" than we normals do. For us, evolution is biological evolution only, the natural consequences of life doing what life naturally does. But for them, "evolution" is something entirely different, a complete atheistic worldview that demands the inclusion of abiogenesis -- the standard meaning, not your redefinitions. 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.Biological evolution does not require abiogenesis; it only requires that life exists -- regardless of however life may have possibly arisen, be it by natural or supernatural means, biological evolution would have still operated as we have observed it to operate. Creationist evolution does require abiogenesis and creationist evolution cannot exist unless abiogenesis is found to exist. But then creationist evolution doesn't exist, what with it being a strawman figment of creationist imagination.Here's an analogy that might help. About 13 years ago, a local creationist activist once presented an argument presented at a local creationist club's presentation which he expanded upon. At question was depletion of the ozone layer due to CFC's (refrigerants), which are heavy molecules. This was an attempt at discrediting science as performing "bad science" by claiming that this was a case where scientists falsely extrapolated lab results to the real world. He repeated a number of "unanswerable" questions that he personally took to the "experts": air-conditioning salesmen at a trade show. 13 years ago, after 15 minutes on Google, I was able to present to him the FAQ pages of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the real experts in this subject which not only answered each and every one of his "unanswerable" questions, but also stated unequivocably demonstrated that the presence of CFC's in the upper atmosphere has been directly and empirically sampled and measured. His entire claim was and had always been completely and utterly false.Finally a few months ago, I was able to get him to remove that demonstrably false claim from his web site. His last defense was the issue of how those heavy CFC molecules were able to migrate into the atmosphere. Fluid dynamics is well understood, even by mechanical engineers (which this particular creationist is by trade and training). For that matter, nickel particles are even heavier than CFC molecules and it was those nickel particles rising up in the Far East industrial areas and contaminating Pettersson's 1960 samples that led to creationist Dr. Henry Morris' false moondust claims (though Harold Slusher's misrepresentation of a 1967 NASA document contributed -- http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/moondust.html).Here's his last redoubt. Despite my own and NOAA's statements that fluid dynamics would have transported those CFC molecules, he held fast to this position: if he personally could not understand how those CFC molecules had gotten up to the upper atmosphere, then those CFC molecules were not there. Even though direct atmospheric samples taken by sounding rockets directly and empirically detected those CFC molecules at those altitudes and in those concentrations. His final attempt at a defense: if he cannot personally understand it, then it does not exist.I believe that that is the kind of magical thinking that our creationists are trying to employ.

Good idea. I wish you luck.In 1984 I heard "creation science" described as a book with two chapters: Chapter One is "Evolution" and Chapter Two is "Everything That's Wrong with Chapter One." And indeed, in all these 30 years I have seen creationists boast of having "mountains of evidence"* for creation and yet all they would ever present has been attacks against evolution and other sciences. During that time, I and others have repeatedly asked creationists for some of their positive evidence FOR creation, which they never would provide. When I wrote to Dr. Henry Morris of the ICR I included that same question, to which he responded that negative evidence against evolution is positive evidence for creation; he also stated that the "evolution model" includes "most of the world's religions, ancient and modern." And when creationists pressuring a school board offer a "compromise" to having "creation science" taught in the public school, that "compromise" being that negative evidence against evolution be taught, I have to roll my eyes because that "compromise" is the exact same thing! "Creation science" consists entirely of negative "evidences" against their idea of evolution.And at the 1998 International Conference on Creationism, Dr. Kurt Wise, widely regarded as one of the few honest creationists and who has had to repeatedly correct other creationists, gave an assessment of the state of creationist theory in his closing presentation as reported by Robert Schadewald:

quote:

---

Saturday afternoon, speaking on "A College Creation Curriculum" at an Educators' Symposium (nontechnical) session, Wise presented an impressive review of global plate tectonics, hitting most of the highlights and pointing out the consilience between several independent lines of evidence. He told the audience that evolution is a powerful theory, and that anyone who claims otherwise simply doesn't understand evolution. He said point blank that if it weren't for his religious beliefs if he had only the scientific evidence he would accept evolution himself.

​

Saturday evening, Wise gave the closing presentation for the conference, and among other things, he reviewed the state of the creation model in various fields. Astronomy? No creation model exists. Biology? Same. Paleontology (his own field)? Same. He thinks a couple of other fields, such as the development of a Flood model, are making slow progress.

​

Despite this seemingly gloomy summary, Wise sent people away fired up. His message was that creationists have an enormous amount of work to do, and it is time for them to get cracking. He appealed to everyone present to pitch in and do whatever they could. One prominent creationist told me later that he thought the Wise windup was the best presentation of the conference.

---

One of the things that article brings out is that there is a difference between higher-level creationists, such as Schadewald would meet at these conferences, and the grass-roots creationists, such as we encounter on-line and at school board meetings. It is possible that you might find someone out there who has made serious attempts to develop a model. That someone will be hard to find, since his work will not enjoy anywhere near the same popularity as the claims of the likes of Kent Hovind. The creationist community does not judge claims on their truthfulness or quality, but rather on how convincing they sound, since the purpose of those claims is to convince people, especially themselves. And the more sensational a claim is, the more convincing it will sound. An honest researcher's work will not be sensational nor will it sound convincing and so it will not be deemed worthy by the creationist community. For you to find that work, you will have to work hard at it.When you find a claim and are trying to assess it, do not ignore what "evolutionists" have so say about it. Through their critiques of a creationist claim, you can learn whether it has been refuted, something that creationist sources will never tell you. Most creationist claims have been around since the 1970's and 1980's and they were refuted in the 1980's, but creationists continue to use them ignorant of the facts. talkorigins.org and other sites will bring you up-to-date on a claim's status and history. And you will learn some science in the process. It's a win-win.And if you find that what you're learning starts to conflict with your theology, keep in mind that theologies are created by fallible humans. Indeed, we each create our own theology which, even though it's based on another theology, consists of our own misunderstanding of the theology we want it to emulate. Finding your own theology to be faulty and in need of correction should come as no surprise and should never be viewed as "questioning God", because it isn't.Again, good luck on your quest. If you even begin to succeed, you will be doing a great service.

---

{* FOOTNOTE: In 1985, I attended a debate between the ICR's greats, Gish & H. Morris, and two professors from San Diego State University, Thwaites and Awbrey. It was at that debate that I heard Morris' false claim about moondust and a "1976" NASA document (see my page on it), which prompted me to write him for more information. A creationist co-worker, who regarded Gish and Morris as his heros, also attended that debate and we sat together. On our way out, he was stunned and kept muttering, "We have mountains of evidence that would have blown them away. Why didn't they present any of it? We have mountains of evidence ... " Within the year, we both went our own professional ways and I didn't see him again until 1991. He was still a fundamentalist Christian, but he wanted nothing whatsoever to do with creationism and he hated creationists with a passion. }Edited by dwise1, : marked footnote with color

As a retired US Navy chief, I tell you that the US Navy uses evolution countless times every single day on all its ships and in all its commands. In fact, without evolution the Navy could not possibly function, let alone be a Global Force for Good.What I just told you is absolutely true. In the Navy, an evolution is when a group of sailors, sometimes all hands, is organized to turn out and perform a task together. Of course, it also has nothing to do with biological evolution, but if we were to apply your faulty reasoning then we would have to. Kind of a pity we can't, because there's no way you could possibly ignore the existence of Navy evolutions. Words mean something! In fact, many words mean more than one thing, in which case context becomes paramount in determining the word's meaning. Specialized disciplines (including the sciences, the humanities, the military, engineering, hobbiest communities, and just about every profession and trade and activity) have their own specialized vocabularies, often called with mistaken disparity "jargon". Rather then invent completely novel and unique new terminology, most of these "jargons" take common English words and give them the new meanings that they need. If you are a student or have been a student, especially on the college level or even in a military technical school, then you will have sat through many first lectures in which the instructor gave you a list of terms that would be used in the course and their specialized definitions that are different from those words' common English usage. And that are different from one discipline to the other, a source of confusion when people from different disciplines get together (eg, dancers and musicians when they talk about rhythm, electrical engineers and technicians disagreeing over which direction current flows).Jargon is vitally important for communication within a discipline as it enables the exchange of concise and accurate information, but knowledge of that specialized is required to understand those exchanges (eg, trying to communicate programming structures and operations to another programmer is very easy, but to a non-programmer is incredibly difficult). As a result, outsiders disparage the use of these specialized vocabularies, even though they are themselves insiders in other groups with their own specialized jargons.In the meantime, creationists have worked to take full advantage of jargon to generate and spread confusion. The most common example is the one that you just used yourself, the widespread practice of semantic shifting, in which a word is taken from one specialized usage and the definition from another usage is substituted instead. This is frequently used in quote-mining. It is also used in deceiving creationist followers by redefining words such as "theory" and "evolution".I'm sure you don't know this, but Darwin took a pre-existing word, "evolution", and applied a new and different meaning to it, creating a jargon. Here's the entry from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution:

quote:

---

evolution

​

—noun
1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.

​

2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.

​

3. Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Origin:
1615—25; < Latin evolution- (stem of evolutio ) an unrolling, opening, equivalent to evolut ( us ) ( see evolute) + -ion- -ion

​

Synonyms
1. unfolding, change, progression, metamorphosis.

---

Look at the date of its origin: 1615-25. At least two centuries before Darwin's theory. What did it mean? The growth and development of something, anything, by whatever means. None of which has anything to do with Darwin's theory.Darwin derived his own specialized meaning of the term long after it had been established, not the other way around. Terms like "stellar evolution" derive from the older meaning, not from Darwinism.This standard creationist "kinds of evolution" argument that you're trying to foist off on us is false and pure deception.And, yes, because of the context of this topic's subject matter and of the "discussion" (one-sided, because we had been trying to dialogue with a creationist), it is abundantly clear and inescapable that we have been talking about biological evolution and only biological evolution. The problem that I was touching on when you quote-mined me is that while we are talking specifically about biological evolution, you (plural) are most likely applying your own special jargon meaning that includes an entire atheistic philosophy and social agenda, none of which has anything at all to do with biological evolution. Kind of like your term "evolutionist" which some of us have accept as meaning "not a creationist" whereas the creationist meaning applies it to everybody who accepts evolution and is overloaded with a mountain of perjoratives including atheism, God-hating, anti-religion, even though the majority of these "evolutionists" are believing Christians and other forms of theist.

Interesting. Do you know the history of the adoption of the term? Would be interesting to know. For example, I believe it was Spencer who came up with the term "survival of the fittest."For the sake of creationist lurkers, whether it was Darwin himself or somebody else who adopted the pre-existing term, "evolution", to its use in biological evolution does not detract from the point I was making.

Because their mission is to deceive the public and themselves and to fool the public into supporting their political agenda. That requires decreasing precision and clarity and increasing ambiguity. That is the only way that they can keep the public (and themselves) totally confused.

Please try to wrap your brain around this idea.When you ask for a towel, you expect a cloth towel, but when you ask for a paper towel, you expect a towel made out of paper. The same holds when you ask for either a napkin or a paper napkin, though paper napkins have become so much more common that saying "napkin" has become more commonly recognized as "paper napkin". BTW, since adjectives, adverbs, and adjectival nominatives are generally termed modifiers, I will refer to such names as "paper towel" as being modified by the word "paper", or by whatever modifies them. If you have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about, then for frak's sake learn a foreign language! Because, as Lessing noted, we do not know our own language until we have studied a foreign one (das heit, "Man kennt die eigene Sprache nicht, bis man eine fremde lernt." -- eg, I learned immensely more about English grammar through two years of high school German than I had ever learned in 12 years of English classes).Similarly, catsup was a Malaysian fish sauce which had never included tomatoes since they're a New World vegetable (well, actually a fruit, even though most people don't realize that simple fact). So the preparation that includes tomatoes is modified to "tomato catsup", because it is something different. Though since most Americans and probably Europeans as well only know tomato catsup, they've taken to just calling it "catsup".So then, Portillo, try to wrap your brain around this. If we normals are talking about stellar evolution, then we will say "stellar evolution". If we are talking about cosmic evolution, then we will say "cosmic evolution". If we are talking about chemical evolution, then we will say "chemical evolution." And if we are talking about social or cultural or linguistic or whatever other kind of evolution, then we will apply the appropriate modifier! IOW, we will (or at least should) always be as unambiguous as possible in our wording. But since the central idea that is under discussion in the entire so-called "creation/evolution controversy" is biological evolution, when we say "evolution" then we are talking about biological evolution! If we were talking about any other conceivable kind of evolution, then we would apply the appropriate modifier to identify unambiguously what we are talking about!My next line was "What part of that do you not understand?" But then I caught myself. That is something that would be meaningful to a normal, but then you are not a normal, are you? NOTW, right? "Not of this world". I have "ears to hear" and "eyes to see", the mystery-religion catchwords that have survived in Mark. Normals are of this world and aware of reality. But you fancy yourself "not of this world" and are similarly detached from reality. You even pride yourself on not understanding reality; watch out for being prideful! Because through that you blind yourself to reality, to the truth, and embrace a blatantly obvious lie.The simple truth is that when we normals are talking about evolution without any modifiers, then we are talking about biological evolution, Darwinian evolution, neo-Darwinian evolution. If we were to talk about anything else, then we would tell you that we are talking about something else. Pure and simple.And the simple truth is that you not-normals ... OK, let's restrict that to creationists, and further restrict that to the YEC, "creation science" types, since many if not most true creationists in existence (ie, believers in a Divine Creator) also accept evolution ... are applying an entirely different meaning. Normals are talking about a specific scientific idea, while creationists are talking about so much more, a far-reaching all-enveloping philosophy and more. Normals' response is properly "Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot?" And the creationists' "response" is to gloat at the confusion that they have caused. Some, such as Buz, actually mark that confusion as a victory. And just what is your response? The same? Any way that you would care to try to justify it?

Complete and absolute nonsense!No scientific idea has to run any gauntlet of costly court battles. Because no scientific idea is trying to promote any kind of political or social agenda in which it tries to force itself into the public school classroom. Yet that is exactly what ID and creationism repeatedly try to do.You have expressed the desire to see ID research published. We are all also awaiting the exact same thing. OK, so whenever are we ever going to see such a thing? Is it the same thing as "creation science's" "mountains of evidences"? Forever promised to the faithful, but never ever delivered?