Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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:   Biogenesis
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 51 of 312 (473190)
06-27-2008 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Alasdair
06-27-2008 1:34 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Alasdair, posted 06-27-2008 1:34 PM Alasdair has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Alasdair, posted 06-27-2008 4:27 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 53 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-27-2008 4:57 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 57 by Rahvin, posted 06-27-2008 6:00 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 70 by Blue Jay, posted 06-28-2008 1:14 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 54 of 312 (473200)
06-27-2008 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by New Cat's Eye
06-27-2008 10:52 AM


Re: The "point" of life
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-27-2008 10:52 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Alasdair, posted 06-27-2008 5:54 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 56 of 312 (473203)
06-27-2008 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by New Cat's Eye
06-27-2008 4:57 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-27-2008 4:57 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-28-2008 5:05 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 59 of 312 (473208)
06-27-2008 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Alasdair
06-27-2008 5:54 PM


Re: The "point" of life
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Alasdair, posted 06-27-2008 5:54 PM Alasdair has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 60 of 312 (473210)
06-27-2008 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Kapyong
06-27-2008 6:01 PM


Re: The "point" of life
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Kapyong, posted 06-27-2008 6:01 PM Kapyong has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 74 of 312 (473302)
06-28-2008 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Blue Jay
06-28-2008 12:49 AM


Re: evo debasing science
Bluejay writes:
You've still got this backwards: ever since Popper, science has used a methodology of proving one's theory by disproving the alternatives. You cannot say biogenesis as proposed by AOkid is proven until you disprove the alternative, which is abiogenesis. So, until abiogenesis is falsified, biogenesis is still unproven.
Abiogenesis is disproven in so many ways it is unbelievable that there is so much faith in it. It was disproven in Pasteur's day, and it is diproven today. Just because you have a hypothesis on any subject does not mean that there aren't scientific laws that are against your theory. It's up to you to present evidence that the scientific law is wrong. And unfortunately you can't. The trivial evidence that life wasn't once on this earth from the geo record, and then it shows up the geo record says nothing against the law of biogenesis. Again we have we 3.8 supposed billion years of evidence of life, and .7 supposed billion years of non life. The "I don't knows" and "We think it could have happened this way" are fine as hypotheses, but a hypothesis is not evidence. A hypothesis needs to have tests to generate evidence. All the tests on all the abiogenesis hypotheses have only shown some organic chemicals being made in very specific environment. Big deal, abiogenesis is still falsified. And it will stay that way until such time that there is any evidence that indicates otherwise.
Imagination is not evidence. Hypotheses are not facts. Natural laws are. Teach the laws, and spend minimal time on these hypotheses. There are at least 7 hypotheses in abiogenesis. There really are more but they change so often it's hard to count. Why teach any one above the other. At this stage, they are all equal, and none of them are any where close to life. So teach the geo column if you want, but OOL should be left out, because it is all philosophical faith.
On the other hand the law of biogenesis is not only factual and easily shown in the labs, but it is extremely useful for the good of mankind. From food preservation to germ theory to genetics to zoology etc.
Your last sentence is totally erroneous. And here's why. Just because an opposing hypothesis comes along, it doesn't unprove well established scientific theories or laws. That's the opposite of science. Nothing would be "proven". On the contrary, the way science works is that for abiogenesis to have any credence, it must falsify biogenesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Blue Jay, posted 06-28-2008 12:49 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Blue Jay, posted 06-28-2008 5:28 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 75 of 312 (473303)
06-28-2008 7:15 AM


VACATION!!!!
I will be travelling out of the states for a week or so. I will try to get online some, but it may be difficult.

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 77 of 312 (473344)
06-28-2008 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by New Cat's Eye
06-27-2008 12:27 PM


CS writes:
Did you even click on the link to the thread that I provided in Message 38?
ABE:
Here is was this thread.
I looked at this thread. The link from the OP is dead. I read two pages worth and still saw no evidence. I got bored after that. If you want to cite something worth while, I will be glad to read it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-27-2008 12:27 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 78 of 312 (473346)
06-28-2008 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Rahvin
06-27-2008 1:18 PM


Rahvin writes:
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.
I think you have this backwards. First, to be a scientific hypothesis the hypothesis must be falsifiable. Abiogenesis is unfalsifiable, because it's foundation is philosophical faith, and not objective evidence. I do not have to falsify abiogenesis, it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis. It is up to you to falsify biogenesis which is well established and has tons of objective evidence. Now there are very limited hypotheses underneath abiogenesis like Miller Urey which are falsifiable. These are fine. But the hypothesis of this gradual process that everyone is talking about is unfalsifiable, because the gradual process is unknown and undefined. It is only imagination. So there is nothing to falsify.
Rahvin writes:
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.
Are you a "raven" or a "mockingbird"? Abiogenesis in the form as has been stated in this forum doesn't need to be falsified, because it isn't even a valid hypothesis. I don't need to provide direct evidence to refute you imagination or anyone elses. If you want to clearly make a hypothesis and can show a source for one, then I will work with that.
Again I will state clearly that the law of biogenesis doen't make anything necessarily impossible. That's a continuing strawman argument. However, if there is a valid abiogenesis hypothesis, then it must falsify/alter the LoB.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Rahvin, posted 06-27-2008 1:18 PM Rahvin has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 82 of 312 (474701)
07-10-2008 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by New Cat's Eye
06-28-2008 5:05 PM


I'mmmmmm Baaaack!
CS writes:
And none of that evidence suggests that abiogenesis is impossible.
Well, I don't wish to argue all these red herrings, but there is substantial evidence statistically showing the impossibility of homochirality forming naturally. Statistically this is impossible. Yockey was one such thinker.
CS writes:
And I can tell by your sarcasm that you're going to be one of those people where the presented evidence just isn't "enough".
And I've already linked to a thread here (twice) that discusses some evidence for abiogenesis. Plus, you can just google for evidence for it. Here is the first page that comes up:
http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Abiogenesis
I don't know what you mean. I love science, and I love evidence. I am a skeptic about the interpretation of evidence however. You've seen CSI Miami? Forensics is science and it produces evidence about what happened in the past. However, in the legal system, this evidence is challanged by the defense. Often in circumstantial cases, the plaitiff is freed because there is "reasonable doubt".
The evidence was the same for the plaitiff and the defense. But the interpretations vary widely. If the jury sides with the reasoning of the defence, then the person is not guilty regarding the evidence presented. In science this proceedure is called peer review. But some say that that system has been corrupted.
Now to your citation. This is excellent "evidence" for my OP. Not once on this page is abiogenesis called a theory or hypothesis. Instead it is referred to as a "proposal". The site is entitled, ISCID Encyclopedia of Science and Philosophy .
I have no problem with you having the philosophy of abiogenesis. Just don't teach your philosophy in state supported education. You may have a problem if I wanted my philosophies taught.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-28-2008 5:05 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Wounded King, posted 07-10-2008 10:02 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2008 9:21 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 84 of 312 (474745)
07-10-2008 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Wounded King
07-10-2008 10:02 AM


This doesn't follow, that Yockey thought something does not constitute evidence. The derivation of a probability calculation is only as good as its assumptions. So why not provide some of the evidence rather than simply appealing to Yockey?
Please read post 30. It is a strawman argument to suggest that for some reason I am obligated to show the impossibility of abiogenesis. There is statistical evidence and chemical evidence that it is very improbable, but these topics are substantially away from the OP, so I have chosen not to argue them in this thread.
Arguing the impossibility of abiogenesis would be the logical fallacy of agumentum ad ignorantiam. Therefore, I have chosen not to use this argument. There is no evidence for abiogenesis. That I will argue. The lack of evidence does not prove that it is impossible. However, the lack of evidence does make it non-scientific which is the topic of the OP. Abiogenesis is a matter of philosophical faith. That should be kept out of schools IMO. That is the OP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Wounded King, posted 07-10-2008 10:02 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by AdminNosy, posted 07-10-2008 7:28 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 07-10-2008 10:04 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 87 of 312 (474775)
07-10-2008 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by AdminNosy
07-10-2008 7:28 PM


Re: Topic is yours
AdminNosy writes:
It is your topic after all so I suppose you can pick what is on and not on topic.
However, you brought the calculations up. Therefore the only intellectually honest thing to do is support you claim when asked to. Another thread or here depending on how focused you want to keep this would be fine.
You are, btw, misusing the term strawman here.
OK, I will be "intellectually honest" and submit documentation from the site that Catholic Scientist listed...
http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2002/1/4/mullan_primitive_cell.php
There is a 47 page pdf file of a probability study on the assembly of the "simplest form" of life. The author minimizes the complexity of life in favor of the abiogenesis. He concludes with this statement...
With all of these assumptions, we find that the probability of assembling the RNA required for even the most primitive (12-14) cell by random processes in the time available is no more than one in 10^ 79 .
In statistical terms, that probability is 0. That means it is impossible.
Now having been "honest", I really don't want to argue this paper unless others are "honest" enough to read it and digest it. I also think that it would be wise for them to show some evidence that abiogenesis is probable.
And finally, I think it is a strawman to suggest that I am arguing that abiogenesis is impossible. My argument is that abiogenesis has no supportive evidence. It is a philosophy. I have only mentioned Yockey and listed the above citation, because others have argued that abiogenesis is impossible, and they have presented evidence of such.
AdminNosy writes:
There was a time on this planet when there was, with a very, very high degree of certainty, no life. There is now. This is very strong evidence for abiogenesis. It occurred! Now then, we discuss how it may have occurred.
Now we come to the crux of the OP. You have a historical record of the past. That record is rocks and fossils upon which you apply your interpretive logic. Those rocks and fossils show evidence that life was once not on this earth, and of course now it is. Life also appears according to this record to be some where around 3.8 billion year ago.
However, there is NO physical observable evidence of abiogenesis. Evidence that life gradually arose from chemical processses. That is some people's choice of explanation of life arising.
Now compare that to a creationist's explanation. They have a book which is a historical record. The book claims that God created life among other things. People apply their own interpretive logic on this book. Some say life appeared 6000 years ago and some say 3.8 billion years ago. However, there is NO physical observable evidence of that creation event or the creator. All there is is the same rocks and fossils that must be interpreted in different ways. The biblical creation is a matter of philosophical faith.
So is abiogenesis. So would be the theory of an unkown intelligent designer. So would be panspermia. So would be ad infinitum.
There are many possible explanations of how life occured. All are philosophical faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by AdminNosy, posted 07-10-2008 7:28 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2008 9:47 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 88 of 312 (474776)
07-10-2008 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by RAZD
07-10-2008 10:04 PM


RAZD writes:
Are you saying there is no life on earth?
No, I am saying that there is no evidence that suggests that life gradually arose from some series of chemical reactions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 07-10-2008 10:04 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 07-11-2008 7:34 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 89 of 312 (474786)
07-10-2008 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Blue Jay
06-28-2008 5:28 PM


Blujay writes:
Have fun while you're gone.
Thanks, I did.
Bluejay writes:
This is just wrong: what you're saying is the exact equivalent of "guilty until proven innocent." Something isn't automatically wrong until you find evidence for it, it's considered a possible hypothesis that shouldn't be ruled out until you find directly contradicting evidence. By this logic, abiogenesis is still a viable alternative.
I think you may misunderstand the term fasify in science. I will cite from wiki...
Falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment.
Abiogenesis has been falsified by observation and experiment. That doesn't mean that it is false or impossible.
Bluejay writes:
You would be correct in saying that biogenesis in the sense Rahvin provided earlier is a verified and accepted theory of science, but you would not be correct in saying that origins biogenesis is a verified and accepted theory of science.
I'm not sure what you are saying about "origins biogenesis". The law of biogenesis is silent about origins.
Bluejay writes:
(1) We're all still waiting for you to show us what "natural laws" origins abiogenesis would violate. So far, you've got "Huxley says biogenesis is a scientific law." And, with that evidence, all you can prove is "Huxley thought biogenesis is a scientific law."
Well origins abiogenesis would violate the law of biogenesis. That's plain and simple. If you don't like this "law', then it would violate the well know and established Cell Theory. The cell theory states that...
1. All known living things are made up of cells.
2. Some organisms are unicellular, made up of only one cell.
3. The cell is the fundamental unit of structure and function in living things.
4. All cells come from pre-existing cells by division.
All of the above statements are a rewording of the law of biogenesis. Origins abiogenesis would indeed violate this theory.
Bluejay writes:
(2) As far as I can tell from your quotes, Huxley was not actively supporting or rejecting either biogenesis or abiogenesis as a mechanism of origins: he, in fact, is rather reserved and non-commital either way, so I don’t see where you’re getting that idea that he has definitively stated on the basis of evidence that biogenesis is a well-established mechanism of origins.
Again, I'm not saying that the law of biogenesis says anything about origins. It is silent on the matter.
Bluejay writes:
(3) The word "law" in science refers to the exact same thing as the word "theory," and neither refers to the same thing that scientists refer to as “facts” (although there is disagreement on this “facts” terminology as I use it): back a hundred years ago and more, science liked the word "law," but we've now rather gone back on that and decided instead to use the word "theory."
Well I've never heard anyone refer to the 1st and 2nd "theories" of thermodynamics. Or the "theory" of conservation of energy. I think it is very common to refer to theories that have shown universal application as "laws". Biogenesis fits that category.
Bluejay writes:
Time for another analogy. Consider thissnipped)
Your Dingi analogy would apply if all known people on this world had the same skin, eye, and hair color. And there was no known genetic mechanism to create another allele. Dingi would be correct in assesing that all people look like this. That still wouldn't make the philosopy that somewhere in the distant unobservable past people may have had different skin, hair and eye color impossible. But it would make it falsified.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Blue Jay, posted 06-28-2008 5:28 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2008 10:02 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 91 of 312 (474815)
07-11-2008 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by RAZD
07-11-2008 7:34 AM


RAZD writes:
So you are saying that life has always existed, even before the planet existed? Curious argument.
Uhmmmm... That is the argument of creationism. Panspermia also argues that life was somehow transported to this planet after the planet existed. Either way both are philosophical faiths just like abiogenesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 07-11-2008 7:34 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2008 9:49 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 97 by RAZD, posted 07-12-2008 9:11 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 106 by Fosdick, posted 07-24-2008 12:27 PM AlphaOmegakid has 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