|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Biogenesis | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
granny writes: Most strikingly, the very source you cite disagrees with you as to the all-encompassing remit of the LoB. You say that it means "all life comes from preexisting living matter", but in your cited article, Huxley says;
quote: This has already been pointed out to you by other members, so I am somewhat perplexed as to why you are continuing with this line of argument. It has been refuted. The article makes clear over and over again that the LoB as Huxley understands it is referring to spontaneous generation, not the first origins of life as a whole, which he regards as an open question, one to which he judges that the likely answer is abiogenesis, in the modern sense. The reason you are so perplexed is probably, because your not doing a very good job of reading my posts or Huxley's address. I quoted this entire passage in post #12. However interestingly you chose to ignore what Huxley actually said, and you quoted him out of context to mislead the readers of this forum. I hope Taz reads this, because this is a perfect example of quotemining. I will repeat Huxley's agument in its entirety....
quote: Do you see those words in yellow? They contradict your entire argument. But you chose to exclude them on purpose. Why is that? Again, I think I am gathering more evidence as to why the law of biogenesis is not taught and abiogenesis is. Abiogenesis today is the same gradual process that Huxley imagined. But he had no evidence to support it. We still don't. At least Huxley was intellectually honest enough to admit his philosophical faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Abiogenesis today is the same gradual process that Huxley imagined. But he had no evidence to support it. We still don't. That's where you're wrong. There is evidence to support abiogenesis. Did you even click on the link to the thread that I provided in Message 38? ABE: Here is was this thread. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : had wrong message number Edited by Catholic Scientist, : added link to thread
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Do you see those words in yellow? They contradict your entire argument. No, they are the very essence of my argument. Huxley was not a stupid man, therefore he was aware that no-one can commit to a universal negative statement. An example of such a statement would be "life cannot derive from non-life", which is the exact sort of statement that you seem to be insisting upon. That he was willing to consider exceptions to the LoB proves that he never intended it to be an absolute, binding across all time and space. Just because you are unaware of evidence to support abiogenesis doesn't mean that there is none. That is another fallacy. You have repeatedly ignored CS's invitation to examine such evidence. No-one here is saying that abiogenesis can be described in every detail, indeed it is still highly tentative, but that is very far from a complete lack of evidence. Just Google "evidence for abiogenesis" and you will find a wealth of links to pages, both pro and anti, discussing this evidence. Furthermore, I fail to see how the phrase "I have no right to call my opinion anything but an act of philosophical faith." refutes my point that Huxley's comments are nearly 140 years out of date and do not constitute a fair representation of the modern scientific consensus. Nor does it refute my point that Huxley's opinion is not holy writ, indeed it supports it, given that Huxley did not insist that his opinion was law. By the way, I strongly suggest that you drop your condescending tone. It belittles you. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4 |
quote: Actually that's not what the law of biogenesis states. Yes, it is. I supplied my link to Wikipedia lower in my post.
But you can rewrite history if you want to. You're the one failing to comprehend basic biological principles, AOkid, not me.
Let's just remove the equivocating language about "modern" and "bacteria" and "mice" and "maggots". No, let's not, because that would make the statement inaccurate. Pasteur's experiments were the basis for what you refer to as the "law of biogenesis" (and which is no longer typically referred to as such in the scientific community), and it most definitely did only apply to modern, cellular life. Maggots do not spontaneously form in bread, but rather they are spawned from flies. This experiment, and the "law of biogenesis" based upon it, has nothing whatsoever to do with the modern hypothesis of abiogenesis.
All life is made up of cells. A cell is the smallest known form of life. Strictly speaking, that's not entirely true. There is great debate over whether to consider viruses as "alive" or not; they certainly aren't inanimate like rocks, and yet they aren't capable of self-replication on their own, either. They're a very interesting example of the gray area between "alive" and "not alive." But they're certainly not cells, and they're orders of magnitude smaller. Abiogenesis posits that life arose from non-living substances in a gradual form - meaning a much more in-depth exploration of that gray area between the living and the inanimate. In exactly the same way that evolution does not state that a chimpanzee gave birth to a human being, abiogenesis does not posit that life suddenly appeared from a primordial soup; rather, in both cases we are talking about extremely gradual processes, and at no point could you look at a single example in the chain of iterations and clearly say "that's where life started" or "this is the first human."
Let's use biological terms, and clarify the law of biogenesis. It states that all cells come from pre-existing cells. Stop right there - for the most part, we agree with that statement. But the "law of biogenesis" does not falsify abiogenesis; it simply provides strong evidence against the possibility of a bacterial cell or maggot suddenly appearing on its own. As our knowledge has expanded and we've come to understand how living things reproduce, we know why neither of those things will ever happen. But abiogenesis has not been falsified. It certainly hasn't been proven in a laboratory, but that's why we're still researching it - it's an unanswered question. There is absolutely nothing in Pasteur's experiments, or any other scientific theory, that falsifies the principle of abiogenesis. If you believe the "law of biogenesis" falsifies abiogenesis, immediately produce the objective evidence that falsifies any possibility of life arising from non-life. Remember that a lack of evidence is not falsification - you need a positive observation that directly contradicts the concept of life in any form ever arising from non-living substances.
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". And yet it's not an absolute. Saying "this has never been observed" is a long way from saying "this is impossible, and could never happen." Remember, the conditions of Earth today are wildly different from the conditions present before life existed on the planet. We wouldn't expect to observe abiogenesis as it's hypothesized happening today - the conditions are nowhere near correct or favorable. So, once again, you fail to understand what Pasteur proved and the limitations of the "law of biogenesis." You fail to understand what abiogenesis involves. You fail to understand what life is, and that life is not always necessarily cellular life. You're taking the falsification of spontaneous generation and making an unfounded logical leap to apply that falsification to abiogenesis, which while related in one sense, is completely different in the specifics, and which is not falsified by the same evidence that disproved spontaneous generation.
quote: 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. Thank you for restating what I said. "Complex molecular machines" are still nothing more than complex chemical processes. You basically said "no, it's not green, it's green!" The fact is, what we call "life" really is nothing more than a series of complex chemical interactions. "Living matter" is defined as matter participating in those interactions. There is nothing whatsoever "special" about living matter, except that it happens to be participating in the chemical processes we identify as "life." This includes self-replication (and you're correct to say that not all cells and molecules replicate themselves, but they are all replicated from other cells) and metabolization. These processes, while complex, are not "special," but rather are inevitable given the chemical compounds present due to the simple laws of chemistry. Oxygen binds to hemoglobin, as an example, and this is an inevitable chemical process given hemoglobin and oxygen. The fact is, "nonliving material" is turned into "living material" constantly in your body. There's nothing special whatsoever about "living material" that suddenly makes it stop being a complex series of chemical interactions. You seem to be ascribing some "special" quality to life based on the complexity of the chemical interactions - this is an argument from personal incredulity, and thus is logically unsound. The fact is, there is no barrier that prevents nonliving compounds from beginning the chemical process we identify as life. There is absolutely nothing in any scientific theory or any direct observation that falsifies the concept of non-living organic compounds spontaneously forming into more complex compounds which then self-replicate using the same compounds present in the environment, and metabolize those compounds for energy to perform such a process. A falsification of abiogenesis would require some such barrier. An example of something that would falsify abiogenesis would be a chemical reaction absolutely necessary for self-replication to begin but which is impossible given any reasonable environment for the other compounds necessary for the pre-cell to form in. Such a barrier has never been shown, and Pasteur's experiments (and thus your "law of biogenesis") do not falsify abiogenesis.
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. Once again - life is a series of chemical interactions and nothing more. While you insist that you disagree, you in fact have repeated it back to us. A "factory of molecules" is a fancy way of saying "a complex chemical process that produces other chemical compounds."
quote: 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. I cited Wikipedia, and the actual biologists on this very forum agree with me. Further, I have made mention of the specific basis for the "law of biogenesis," that being Louis Pasteur's experiments with spontaneous generation. I have shown that those experiments do not falsify the concept of abiogenesis in any way. I have also shown that your argument is logically unsound as a logical leap. Your position is a farce, AlphaOmegakid. You were defeated before you began becasue you misunderstand the principles behind abiogenesis, the "law of biogenesis," and the chemical nature of life.
quote: 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. It is presented as the evidence we have at hand, and it truly is all of the evidence we have available. We have no real evidence of panspermia (though that is mentioned in classrooms as well), no evidence of its cousin, aliens seeding Earth with life, and we have no evidence of any deity's involvement. We do have plausable hypotheses regarding abiogenesis, and evidence regarding the early Earth that supports such ideas. They are not approached as "proven," simply as the options being explored for which there is at least some evidence.
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? It has nothign whatsoever to do with philosophy or faith. Faith is any belief not based upon objective evidence, while abiogenesis involves nothing of the sort. It involves a question being answered. The act of asking "is this possible?" does not imply any faith that it is possible. Further, abiogenesis research has shown that the hypothesis is tentatively very promising. Organic compounds thought to be necessary for the formation of a precell have been directly observed to spontaneusly self-assemble given conditions thought to mimic the early Earth. This means that saying "abiogenesis is a possible explanation for the origin of life on Earth, and could even be considered the most likely explanation given the evidence available" is not a statement of philosophy or faith, but rather is simply an honest and accurate statement. It is well-known that all observed, modern life comes from other pre-existing life. This is taught in classrooms. Your statemnt that it is not mentioned is blatantly false - you simply take issue with abiogenesis being alluded to at all because it conflicts with your personal beliefs. Unfortunately, logic and evidence are unaffected by your subjective beliefs, and so your arguments fall flat.
quote: Certainly not, but hypotheses that are falsified form the start are based on philosophical faith. I agree. But abiogenesis has not been falsified, and you have failed to show that it has. Provide direct evidence that refutes abiogenesis or concede, AlphaOmegakid. Note that if you bring up your tired argument that "since we've never seen it happen, it's impossible even given wildly different conditions" again, I'll stop being poilte and will openly mock you.
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! Except that abiogenesis has not been falsified, and is not taught in schools as a certainty, or anything beyond "this is a possible explanation that is currently the focus of significant investigation to determine its viability." Again, your argument falls flat. In your response, provide some evidence to support your position that abiogenesis has been falsified, or concede that your argument is false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alasdair Member (Idle past 5778 days) Posts: 143 Joined: |
Don't you hate when college kids first learn one or two logical fallacies and then feel the need to whip them out to every argument regardless of whether it applies or not?
that's a strawman! that's ad hominem! I was going to write something more substantial, but I don't think I can do a better job than Rahvin's last post. Have at you!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Yeah, and you are the college kid, and I am a 46 year old President of a small company. I know debate logic very well, you may want to educate youself beyond your school/college education some day.
The best debate tactic is supportive evidence. Arguments are just that, nothing more than words. Science is about evidence. Courtrooms are about evidence. Merely spouting out diatribes that I don't understand what the law of biogenesis says or means is just words. They only carry weight in your mind and other like minded people. Try presenting some factual data to support your arguments, and they will grow stronger.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alasdair Member (Idle past 5778 days) Posts: 143 Joined: |
I doubt that you "know debate logic very well" if you can't even grasp what an ad hominem is, one of the simplest of fallacies to understand and point out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Try presenting some factual data to support your arguments, and they will grow stronger. OMFG! I cannot believe you just wrote that. That is what we have been screaming at you. Where the evidence that life cannot gradually arise from non-living material? The Law of Biogenesis states that fully formed life doesn't come from non-living material, and it isn't even meant to be an antithesis to abiogenesis. So when are you going to stop talking about it and start being about it? Please don't become a hypocrite.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: Wrong. Abiogenesis is a gradual process. Life doesn't emerge at some "point". Organic molecules gradually combine in the formation of life. You contradict yourself in two sentences. Ask yourself when is this gradual formation process identifiable as life. If it is not then you don't have a hypothesis, because it isn't falsifiable. It's nothing but a equivocation game. Your whole statement doesn't make any sense. But you asked for it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alasdair Member (Idle past 5778 days) Posts: 143 Joined: |
That would be all well and good if there were black and white easily defined categories of "life" and "not life" to put things into.
Problem is, that's not the case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
CS writes: That is what we have been screaming at you.Where the evidence that life cannot gradually arise from non-living material? I assume you may believe in Dawinian evolution which supposedly started with one common ancestor some 3.8 or so billion years ago. Since that suposed time, we have seen evidence all over the world that life begets life. There has been no evidenc of life since that suposed time that has gradually arisen from non-living chemicals. That's 3.8 billion years worth of evidence, and countless demonstrations in the labs. Now to the contrary, present evidence that life can gradually arise from non- living chemical. Go ahead, let's see what you have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4 |
Yeah, and you are the college kid, and I am a 46 year old President of a small company. I know debate logic very well, you may want to educate yourself beyond your school/college education some day. You understand debating and logic so well, in fact, that you've used the Internet PhD argument. Your identity and position are irrelevant. Your argument is all that matters, and it's so riddled with logical fallacies and false premises that even a High School student could demolish you. I don't care if you're Albert Einstein, if you own half of the country, or if you have a dozen PhDs - your argument is still fallacious.
The best debate tactic is supportive evidence. Only when that evidence is used to support a logically valid argument, which is where you fail.
Arguments are just that, nothing more than words. Science is about evidence. Courtrooms are about evidence. Merely spouting out diatribes that I don't understand what the law of biogenesis says or means is just words. Except when it is shown, directly, that your statements do not bear any resemblance to what is accepted in modern scientific circles, and when your arguments are shown to be logically invalid.
They only carry weight in your mind and other like minded people. Try presenting some factual data to support your arguments, and they will grow stronger. You should try to actually listen to what other people are saying, and re-examine your own ideas in light of what others are telling you. Perhaps, when everyone disagrees with you and points out flaws in your argument, it's not really a conspiracy after all as you insinuated, but rather a case of you actually being wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3470 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
quote: At what "point" did you change from a child into an adult?On exactly what day at what time? You can't say?Therefore according to your argument, children never become adults. Complete nonsense. Iasion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Alasdair writes: That would be all well and good if there were black and white easily defined categories of "life" and "not life" to put things into.Problem is, that's not the case. That is only a problem from the standpoint of logic. You see logic is one of the pillars of science. If you have equivocation on definitions, which is quite common in Biology, then the logic based on those equivocations is quite fallacious. Actually life is pretty well defined, and has been for some time. It is only abiogenesists who want to equivocate on the definition. And yes, before you go there, viruses and prions are not alive by any definition. Only by fallacious argumentation. It's always been amazing to me how people can rationalize agents of death as being forms of life. But go figure, you meet all types.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Iasion writes: At what "point" did you change from a child into an adult?On exactly what day at what time? You can't say?Therefore according to your argument, children never become adults. Complete nonsense. Your red herring argument is complete nonsense relative to this discussion. Oh I get it. Your hypothesis is that molecules grow up into cells! Let's put that one into the textbooks!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024