Biogenesis

Alasdair writes: Attaching an insult to an otherwise sound argument doesn't make it an ad hominem. When the insult is a premise of an argument, it is. For example: You are a stupid closed minded religious nut. therefore, you are wrong. That's an ad hominem. This isn't: You're wrong for reasons A, B, and C, you stupid closed minded religious nut.

With all due respect, I know what ad hominen attacks are. They can take a myriad of forms. If you want to stand by your argument that's fine. You would fail a logic class with that reasoning though.

Ad hominen

Wiki does a much better job of explaining this than you did. I will stand by my claim.

quote:

---

For all of you who keep referring to Pasteur's experiments, I have not made a claim about Pasteur's experiments. This is strawman argument. My claim was about the law of biogenesis being taught in schools.

---

Pasteur's experiments is the basis of the "law of biogenesis" you are referring to. It's true, yes - fully developed organisms cannot spring from non life.

quote:

---

Again, another strawman argument. I certainly said nothing about magic. If you are referring to God, or the supernatural, I personally don't think there is anything "magical" about God. In fact He condemns magic. Magic is about illusions not reality.

---

I was being a bit silly - what I meant is that there is nothing inherently different from a molecule that is part of a living organism and a molecule that is not. There's nothing special.

Now to address your point, Life is not "essentially just self replicating molecules." In any life form, even the smallest known living cells, most of the molecules are not self replicating. If this is indicative of what you have been taught, then you are making my case well.

What? The defining quality of life is self-replication.

I'm afraid the law of biogenesis (which came from science) does say that life cannot come from non-living mater. I'm sorry, but that is scientific. You may mean that there is nothing in science that makes any law of science absolute. If that's what you meant, then maybe I'll agree with you. However, the law does exist, and it does stand until further observations refute it.

I still haven't seen the existence of this law except from your assertion. All experiments and observations made have been "fully developed life doesn't just pop out of nowhere" - IE spontaenous generation - never "organic matertial cannot form from non organic material". Can you find an up to date, relevant source that says that biogenesis is indeed a scientific law?.

That's a nice try, but again a strawman. I have said nothing about spontaneous generation. But since you brought it up, I will. Abiogenesis is the theory that life can come from non-living chemicals. Spontaneous generation is the observation(s) that supported that theory. You don't falsify observations. You falsify theories. Abiogenesis was falsified.

The "law of biogenesis" that you keep on bringing up is referring to spontaenous generation.

There is no law in science that says that organic matter can't form from inorganic matter.

Content hidden because topic derailment happening. Use "peek" to see "hidden" content, but don't reply to it. - Adminnemooseus

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide content, add note.

Why is the law of biogenesis which states that "all life comes from preexisting living matter" not taught in any modern textbook today?

That's not what the law of biogenesis states.

quote:

---

Pasteur's (and others) empirical results were summarized in the phrase, Omne vivum ex vivo (or Omne vivum ex ovo), Latin for "all life [is] from [an] egg". This is sometimes called "law of biogenesis" and shows that modern organisms do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life.

source

---

How can we justify teaching abiogenetic science which is full of faith and little evidence and not teach biogenesis which is full of science and no faith?

Abiogenesis isn't full of faith :rolleyes:

quote:

---

There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life. But most currently accepted models build in one way or another upon a number of discoveries about the origin of molecular and cellular components for life, which are listed in a rough order of postulated emergence:

1. Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.

2. Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.

3. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis).
4. Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity result in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. Thus the first ribosome is born, and protein synthesis becomes more prevalent.

5. Proteins outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer. Nucleic acids are restricted to predominantly genomic use.

source

---

Phail.

...and not teach biogenesis which is full of science and no faith?

What scientific evidence suggests that life cannot arrise from non-living matter? The LoB is based on the idea that we haven't observed life arrise from non-living matter, not that something prevents it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense. It seems there is faith in biogenesis.

Also, Creationists love the LoB and try to use it against evolution. That's how I know its B.S.

Wow....

You gotta read more that the first paragraph in your links.

From your own source:

quote:

---

A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false

---

:laugh:

Just because an argument insults you personally doesn't mean that it is a fallacy. The insult has to be one of the premises that the conclusion is based on.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add off-topic banner.

quote:

---

Huxley's address can be found Here

---

And I note that it supports my points. Huxley clearly argues against the view that modern life forms regularly form from inorganic sources.

It is a matter of everyday experience that it is difficult to prevent many articles of food from becoming covered with mould; that fruit, sound enough to all appearance, often contains grubs at the core; that meat, left to itself in the air, is apt to putrefy and swarm with maggots. Even ordinary water, if allowed to stand in an open vessel, sooner or later becomes turbid and full of living matter.

However he does not rule out the possibility that it might happen or have happened:

But though I cannot express this conviction of mine too strongly, I must carefully guard myself against the supposition that I intend to suggest that no such thing as Abiogenesis ever has taken place in the past, or ever will take place in the future.

quote:

---

Now clearly Huxley was looking into the far distant past for this event. He was looking for it to be a chemical event. He was looking for some sort of chemical evolutionary pathway. He was looking for a "simple" form of life. But he was honest enough to adreess that this was his reasoning, and not a matter of observation. It was his opinion based on philosophical faith. All of the abiogenesis theories today have the same elements that Huxley declared defeated by the law of biogenesis.

---

It is absolutely clear that Huxley did NOT make such a declaration. Even your quote makes that clear. In fact he explicitly states that the evidence is not strong enough to come to such a conclusion.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Rahvin writes: First, the so-called "law of biogenesis" actually states that "all modern, cellular life comes from pre-existing life." Note the bolded terms. It is true that a living bacterium will never spontaneously form from non-living matter; it is not necessarily true that no life may arise spontaneously.

Actually that's not what the law of biogenesis states. But you can rewrite history if you want to. Let's just remove the equivocating language about "modern" and "bacteria" and "mice" and "maggots". All life is made up of cells. A cell is the smallest known form of life. Let's use biological terms, and clarify the law of biogenesis. It states that all cells come from pre-existing cells. And the contrary would be that no cell has arisen from any non-cellular chemical arrangement. I think this would be a more accurate clarification of the theory. Part of this has made its way into what is called "Cell Theory".

Rahvin writes: Second, since Louis Pasteur's time (Pasteur being the best-known originator behind biogenesis), we've added a lot to our library of biological knowledge. It is now known that there is nothing fundamentally different between "living" and "non-living" matter - that is, the water you drink is not "alive," and yet becomes part of your living cells. It would be impossible to differentiate between an water molecule in the ocean and a water molecule in your body given no context. It's awfully hard to make statements like "life can only arise from life" when we know that there really isn't anything separating living matter from non-living matter beyond participation in a series of complex chemical reactions.

You are correct that we have learned much since Pasteur's time. But we haven't learned that "life" is nothing but a bunch of complex chemicals. What we have learned is that cellular life is made up of vastly complex molecular machines. These machines are like the Eveready Rabbit. They keep going and going, and they keep having more and more rabbits. Someday they run down and die (then they are just chemicals). The cell is a factory of molecules, not just a bunch of molecules. And a cell is a factory building factory.

Rahvin writes: The problem is that you've simply interpreted the actual principle of biogenesis to mean something far broader in scope than what scientists currently agree on. Basically, you've constructed a strawman.

Actually you are the one mis-interpreting the law of biogenesis. I provided the citation of it's wording, and a complete historical record of it's acceptace as being a well established law of nature. You haven't cited anything but your thoughts. If this is what is coming from your education, then that is the subject of my concern.

Rahvin writes: This is simply an inaccurate statement, AlphaOmegakid. Abiogenesis is not taught as a factual explanation for the origin of life on Earth. When it is taught at all, it is approached as one possibility being explored. Further, there is no faith involved in abiogenesis - rather, the entire field consists of questions, with the evidence so far pointing towards "maybe."

Well I beg to differ on this. Most textbooks say something like this...

Scientists believe that life started on earth about 3.8 billion years ago....

We are not sure how it started, but we have several theories...
M/U experiment is discussed. Thermal vents are discussed. Clay and mica sheets may be discussed. RNA replicating molecules may be discussed....

In every book there are mystical undefined things mentioned like "primordial life", "the building blocks of life", and "pre-biotic life". None of these terms are defined, but the books are full of them.

You are correct that no claims are presented that life actually arose from chemicals, but is is presented as a "must be" scientific process.

All the while, the truth is that this is all philosophical faith, and there is no mention that all life comes from pre-existing life. Why is that?

Rahvin writes: Certainly you don't think that any and all hypotheses undergoing rigorous experimentation and testing are based on faith, do you?

Certainly not, but hypotheses that are falsified form the start are based on philosophical faith. Don't you believe that the young earth theory has been falsified? Yet YECers have a philosophical faith that the earth is young. That's why abiogenesis should not be taught in schools!

quote:

---

For all of you who keep referring to Pasteur's experiments, I have not made a claim about Pasteur's experiments. This is strawman argument. My claim was about the law of biogenesis being taught in schools.

---

In other words the important material is covered. In that case I'd say that you have no valid complaint.

Actually you are the one mis-interpreting the law of biogenesis. I provided the citation of it's wording

Where did you provide this? I must have missed it. All you have provided is the definition "all life comes from preexisting living matter", which is wrong. You certainly haven't provided a link to back up your definition of the LoB.

I'm sorry, but you just have hold of the wrong end of the stick. The LoB is not what you think it is. If I'm wrong, provide a citation.

---

Mutate and Survive

Hello, AOkid. Welcome to EvC!

AlphaOmegakid writes: I'm afraid the law of biogenesis (which came from science) does say that life cannot come from non-living mater. I'm sorry, but that is scientific.

Actually, it's not scientific: what gives Pasteur (great scientist that he was) the right to say, "because I failed to see it after experimentation, it is therefore categorically impossible"? The best he can actually say is, "I found no support for the hypothesis that life can arise from non-life." He cannot step out and tack on that other clause scientifically. Tacking on that extra clause is decidedly unscientific, because he does not have the data to make a sweeping statement like that.

AOkid writes: Abiogenesis is the theory that life can come from non-living chemicals. Spontaneous generation is the observation(s) that supported that theory.

Two points:

(1) Spontaneous generation was itself a theory, not an observation.

(2) If spontaneous generation was observed, it would be support for the hypothesis of abiogenesis, but it would not be definitive proof, nor is it the only observation that could possibly support the hypothesis of abiogenesis. For instance, if we somehow managed to find a pre-Cambrian fossil of a complex system of interworking molecules that is clearly not like life today, that could also be support for abiogenesis.

The failure of scientists to find a specific observation that would have supported a hypothesis does not constitute falsification of that hypothesis.

AOkid writes: You don't falsify observations. You falsify theories. Abiogenesis was falsified. Now falsification doesn't mean that it cannot be true. It means that the theory is falsified based on the observations that we have.

Nonsense: "falsified" means "it's false." If our experiments yield no support for a theory, the RESULTS section of the write-up says: "we found no support for Theory X," not "we found no support; therefore, Theory X is false." This is not falsification: it is failure to find evidence.

On the other hand, if you find a bit of evidence that directly contradicts a hypothesis, there is no way that that hypothesis can be true in that form. This requires a reworking (or, possibly, rejecting) of the hypothesis in question. If the theory cannot be reworked (and the contradictory evidence can be confirmed), it is falsified.

Please note that any statement containing the word “cannot” should not be taken as a viable, testable, falsifiable scientific theory in the first place: there is really no way to scientifically prove that something is categorically impossible. The best we can prove is whether or not something does happen.

---

Darwin loves you.

That's a nice try, but again a strawman. I have said nothing about spontaneous generation. But since you brought it up, I will. Abiogenesis is the theory that life can come from non-living chemicals. Spontaneous generation is the observation(s) that supported that theory. You don't falsify observations. You falsify theories. Abiogenesis was falsified.

No it hasn't Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are two differnt things. As was brought out in another answer, SG is life coming from something that was living ie rotting flesh. AbiG is life coming from the polimerisation and chemical bonding of simple substances ie Amino acids, purines, pyrimidenes, pentoses and phosphates. SG was falsified AbioG hasnot as yet been falsified.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Well I think the hypothesis that Redi proposed that "all living matter has sprung from pre-existing living matter" is a very well known fact. It can be observed very easily, and it is observed all the time.

And yet we know that it cannot be a universal law, because once there wasn't life and now there is.

These facts were considered by the scientific community some years later to have such a universal application that Thomas Huxley declared this theory as an "established law of nature."

Huxley's address was given in 1870.

Being no fool, he wrote:

quote:

---

I must carefully guard myself against the supposition that I intend to suggest that no such thing as Abiogenesis ever has taken place in the past, or ever will take place in the future. With organic chemistry, molecular physics, and physiology yet in their infancy, and every day making prodigious strides, I think it would be the height of presumption for any man to say that the conditions under which matter assumes the properties we call "vital" may not, some day, be artificially brought together. All I feel justified in affirming is, that I see no reason for believing that the feat has been performed yet.

---

These prodigious strides have been taken. For example, the polio virus has been synthesized from scratch. Vitalism is exploded.

All of the abiogenesis theories today have the same elements that Huxley declared defeated by the law of biogenesis.

As we have seen, he made no such declaration, and said that to deny the possibility of abiogenesis would be "the height of presumption".

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

For all of you who keep referring to Pasteur's experiments, I have not made a claim about Pasteur's experiments.

They are, however, usually held to be relevant to the subject.

Again, another strawman argument. I certainly said nothing about magic. If you are referring to God, or the supernatural, I personally don't think there is anything "magical" about God. In fact He condemns magic. Magic is about illusions not reality.

Yes, that was another strawman argument.

Now to address your point, Life is not "essentially just self replicating molecules." In any life form, even the smallest known living cells, most of the molecules are not self replicating. If this is indicative of what you have been taught, then you are making my case well.

And that was the Fallacy of Division.

I'm afraid the law of biogenesis (which came from science) ...

An odd, tortured phrase, designed, I presume, to avoid the fact that modern scientists think that it's rubbish.

Yes, it "comes from science". So did the phlogiston theory of combustion. But that should not be taught in schools, 'cos it turned out to be wrong.

I'm sorry, but that is scientific.

I'm not in the least sorry to point out that it is unscientific, which is why scientists, who, unlike you, study science, think that it's unscientific, and why it isn't put into science textbooks, which are meant to be scientific.

That's a nice try, but again a strawman. I have said nothing about spontaneous generation. But since you brought it up, I will. Abiogenesis is the theory that life can come from non-living chemicals. Spontaneous generation is the observation(s) that supported that theory.

Well, that was ... weird.

You don't falsify observations. You falsify theories. Abiogenesis was falsified. Now falsification doesn't mean that it cannot be true. It means that the theory is falsified based on the observations that we have. It still stands falsified today.

How, please, has abiogenesis been falsified?

That's why it shouldn't even enter the textbooks, because there is no observation to support the theory.

Wrong. See my previous post.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Actually that's not what the law of biogenesis states. But you can rewrite history if you want to. Let's just remove the equivocating language about "modern" and "bacteria" and "mice" and "maggots". All life is made up of cells. A cell is the smallest known form of life. Let's use biological terms, and clarify the law of biogenesis. It states that all cells come from pre-existing cells. And the contrary would be that no cell has arisen from any non-cellular chemical arrangement. I think this would be a more accurate clarification of the theory.

In that case, it is easy to falsify, since the evidence shows that once there were no cells and now there are.

Therefore, we know for certain that some cell must have arisen in some other way.

You are correct that we have learned much since Pasteur's time. But we haven't learned that "life" is nothing but a bunch of complex chemicals. What we have learned is that cellular life is made up of vastly complex molecular machines.

A distinction without a difference.

Actually you are the one mis-interpreting the law of biogenesis. I provided the citation of it's wording, and a complete historical record of it's acceptace as being a well established law of nature.

I must have missed your "complete" historical record. I missed the bit where you brought it up to 2008. In fact, I can't see where you've mentioned any scientific developments after 1870.

Scientists believe that life started on earth about 3.8 billion years ago.... We are not sure how it started, but we have several theories... M/U experiment is discussed. Thermal vents are discussed. Clay and mica sheets may be discussed. RNA replicating molecules may be discussed....

Yes, this is because scientists aren't dogmatic jerks.

In every book there are mystical undefined things mentioned like "primordial life", "the building blocks of life", and "pre-biotic life". None of these terms are defined, but the books are full of them.

If the substance of your complaint is that you don't understand what the terms in biology textbooks mean, then that would be your problem.

Certainly not, but hypotheses that are falsified form the start are based on philosophical faith. Don't you believe that the young earth theory has been falsified? Yet YECers have a philosophical faith that the earth is young. That's why abiogenesis should not be taught in schools!

Abiogenesis shouldn't be taught in schools ... because YECs have a philosophical faith that the earth is young?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Hey everybody,

Since many are arguing that the law of biogenesis does not make abiogenesis impossible, let me clearly state that first that this is a straw man argument. It certainly isn't mine.

No scientific law makes anything impossible. All scientific laws potentially can be broken or there can be exceptions under certain circumstances. A scientific law is a description of how nature works. It always represents our current understanding of nature.

I would like to return to the OP. The law of biogenesis is virtually non existent in modern scientific literature and textbooks. However, modern textbooks have chapters on the origin of life and abiogenesis. With biogenesis we have overwhelming evidence and plenty of application for the good of humanity. With abiogenesis we have zero evidence and no application for the good of humanity. So why the disparity in what is being taught?