Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 5:06 AM
49 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (3 members, 46 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,573 Year: 3,610/19,786 Month: 605/1,087 Week: 195/212 Day: 10/27 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   Biogenesis
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2976 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 61 of 312 (473211)
06-27-2008 6:28 PM


evo debasing science
Science is suppossed to be about positive evidence for things, but evos turn that upside down with comments such as:

That is what we have been screaming at you.
Where the evidence that life cannot gradually arise from non-living material?

You hear this is as well in the no mechanism preventing something argument. In reality, one can argue there is no mechanism preventing anything, that there is no evidence anything cannot happen, because just because it has not happened and there appears to be strong evidence something cannot happen (such as life being produced from non-life) there is always a chance that anything can happen.

Anything can be thus justified and argued from the evo stance here, but that doesn't make it science. If evos cannot provide examples of something happening, or mechanisms for it to happen, claiming something happened with the argument that there is no evidence it could not occur (which isn't even true) is deeply fallacious, deceptive and non-scientific.

It's in fact an absurd argument and logic, but quite common among evos. The reality is all life forms we know of today stem from other life forms without exception. There are no deviations that we know of, period. If that is not "evidence", then evidence as a principle doesn't exist.

Abiogenesis is extremely speculative and without substantive evidence. It is accepted mainly due to evos subjective desires and prejudices based on non-theistic evo models.


Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Blue Jay, posted 06-28-2008 12:49 AM randman has responded

Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 3787 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 62 of 312 (473212)
06-27-2008 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by AlphaOmegakid
06-26-2008 4:46 PM


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.

The Law of biogenesis is not a law born out of theoretical predictions as well as observations; it is supported only by observations of the modern world, and as such, can only be called a theory. So, don't try and base your arguments off of the premise that what you are arguing is law. What you are saying is a simple matter of confounded logic, as many on this thread have pointed out.

You mean to say that all life comes from preexisting life, and that we couldn't have come about from nonliving materials. A fascinating theory. But think about an analogous case. Let's talk about evolution. Suppose that a person in malaria ridden Africa breaks out with sickle cell anemia due to a point mutation in his genes that causes a mistake in the structure of the hemoglobin in his blood. Of course, this person is now immune to malaria, and his mutation is selected for and is passed on to his descendants. Soon enough, the entire population has the gene for sickle cell anemia, and are, for the most part, all immune to malaria. Disregarding the obvious side effects of SCA, this mutation is beneficial and is a microevolutionary step. A hundred years in the future, the only people that remain are those with the SCA gene, and some man, perhaps a descendant of yourself, posits that his population must have always had the SCA gene, and couldn't possibly have gotten it from some unnatural way.

After all, all modern observations support the man's theory. No new sickle cell genes come about, and only previous genes in previous generations beget new genes in younger generations.

But in the end, the man is wrong. There was a time when his people didn't have the gene. The gene came about in a mutation in the normal hemoglobin protein.

This is akin to the situation you find yourself in. How can you say that 3.8 billion years ago, the first life didn't evolve from nonliving materials? You can't. You cannot call the law of biogenesis a law. It is only a theory. And yes, it is taught in schools in the form of Pasteur's experiments and the like.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-26-2008 4:46 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by randman, posted 06-27-2008 6:45 PM Organicmachination has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2976 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 63 of 312 (473213)
06-27-2008 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Organicmachination
06-27-2008 6:31 PM


The Law of biogenesis is not a law born out of theoretical predictions as well as observations; it is supported only by observations of the modern world, and as such, can only be called a theory. So, don't try and base your arguments off of the premise that what you are arguing is law. What you are saying is a simple matter of confounded logic, as many on this thread have pointed out.

Are you serious? The specious logic or illogic in this is astounding.

it is supported only by observations of the modern world,

Uh, wrong, but if you are saying that it's only supported by observations of men of science and therefore "the modern world", then I'd have to point the same is true of every single scientific "law" and theory that exists. The speciousness of your argument is thus astounding.

as such, can only be called a theory.

The same is true then for any scientific "law."

How can you say that 3.8 billion years ago, the first life didn't evolve from nonliving materials? You can't.

How can you say what you are experiencing right now isn't a dream?

You can't. If you are going by absolute proof, then you can't say anything for sure, unless you are doing so as a matter of faith.

So what?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Organicmachination, posted 06-27-2008 6:31 PM Organicmachination has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Organicmachination, posted 06-27-2008 6:58 PM randman has responded

Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 3787 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 64 of 312 (473218)
06-27-2008 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by randman
06-27-2008 6:45 PM


Let me elaborate. I'm on a tight schedule, and only have a bit of time to hang around here. This is why I probably haven't made myself very clear. Forgive me.

I meant that pure observations of the natural world cannot give rise to laws, which are, by definition, different from theories. Laws must have a theoretical component to them as well as an observational one. If the predictions of a theory (the theoretical components) are found to be always accurate through observation, the theory can be upgraded to law status. All laws, of gravitation, of inertia, etc., are based off of theoretical as well as observational components. I hope I'm making myself clear.

Secondly, if you mean to argue that we can never have absolute proof of anything, then this entire debate between creationists and evolutionists is nullified. One side can always come back with, "Well, you can't say that for a hundred percent sure!" and that would be that.

This is not our concern. What we [scientists] mean to do is to look at all the evidence and create theories based on those pieces of evidence as to what is most likely happening and will happen, and in so happening will affect some changes in the world. But unless you have a theoretical component to biogenesis that soundly predicts that no life could ever spring from non-life, you can't call biogenesis a law.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by randman, posted 06-27-2008 6:45 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by randman, posted 06-27-2008 7:03 PM Organicmachination has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2976 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 65 of 312 (473221)
06-27-2008 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Organicmachination
06-27-2008 6:58 PM


But there is a prediction...
The law of biogenesis is based on the prediction that all life stems from other life, and it is borne out by observation. Not saying it cannot be wrong, but saying there is no predictive aspect to it seems silly to me. It is a theoritical prediction in itself.

create theories based on those pieces of evidence as to what is most likely happening and will happen, and in so happening will affect some changes in the world.

Ok, so let's test abiogenesis. It's someting "most likely happening"?, or "will happen" and "in so happeniong will affect some changes in the world"?

I don't see it doing any of those things. In fact, it doesn't seem rational at all. If abioogenesis occurs, why would it occur only once?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Organicmachination, posted 06-27-2008 6:58 PM Organicmachination has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Organicmachination, posted 06-27-2008 7:08 PM randman has responded
 Message 76 by bluescat48, posted 06-28-2008 8:24 AM randman has not yet responded

Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 3787 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 66 of 312 (473222)
06-27-2008 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by randman
06-27-2008 7:03 PM


Re: But there is a prediction...
The predictions of biogenesis are an effect of the observations, and not a cause of them. Einstein first used mathematics to predict general relativity, after which observations of gravitational lensing confirmed his ideas. Predictions justified by observations after the fact are not predictions, but inferences.

Your quote of my words was meant as a general fact about why we do science. It doesn't matter if our reality is a dream, because we are affected by it nonetheless, and it still is a reality within our objective sight. My quote was not meant as an explanation of the science of biogenesis. It was a refutation to your comment about dreams.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by randman, posted 06-27-2008 7:03 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by randman, posted 06-27-2008 7:15 PM Organicmachination has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2976 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 67 of 312 (473223)
06-27-2008 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Organicmachination
06-27-2008 7:08 PM


Re: But there is a prediction...
The predictions of biogenesis are an effect of the observations, and not a cause of them.

Isn't that a good thing?

Einstein first used mathematics to predict general relativity, after which observations of gravitational lensing confirmed his ideas.

Maybe so, but this isn't physics. Are you saying without mathematical theory predicting it, that observational theories are invalid? Maybe so......let me know when you decide to denouce the theory of evolution on such grounds.

Also, seems like some IDers using math are somehow denounced as if doing so is inconsistent with evolutionary biology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Organicmachination, posted 06-27-2008 7:08 PM Organicmachination has not yet responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 775 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 68 of 312 (473271)
06-28-2008 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by randman
06-27-2008 6:28 PM


Re: evo debasing science
randman writes:

If evos cannot provide examples of something happening, or mechanisms for it to happen, claiming something happened with the argument that there is no evidence it could not occur (which isn't even true) is deeply fallacious, deceptive and non-scientific.

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.


Darwin loves you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by randman, posted 06-27-2008 6:28 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by randman, posted 06-28-2008 1:03 AM Blue Jay has responded
 Message 74 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-28-2008 7:12 AM Blue Jay has responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2976 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 69 of 312 (473272)
06-28-2008 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Blue Jay
06-28-2008 12:49 AM


Re: evo debasing science
So merely presenting an unprovable theory means that theory must be accepted, eh?

Then why is the ID theory not therefore accepted by evos since the argument (I consider fallacious btw) is made by evos that it cannot be proven or disproven? For the record, I do feel ID os evidence-based but make this point for sake of argument and logic. You say it cannot be proven or disproven. So what? According to your logic, it must be accepted unless you can disprove it.

The fact of the matter, moreover, is nothing can be proved or disproved, just verified as potentially likely. There is ample evidence of life stemming from life and no examples to the contrary, none. So all of the available evidence suggests, every example we know of, that life stems from life and we have no examples of life stemming from non-life. Your argument makes a mockery of evidence-based science by insisting that non-evidence based claims are true without any evidence merely by the fact they have not been wholly disproven, and in fact since nothing can be wholly disproven, there is no valid scientific theory existing whatsoever by your logic.

That's not real science.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Blue Jay, posted 06-28-2008 1:43 AM randman has responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 775 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 70 of 312 (473273)
06-28-2008 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by AlphaOmegakid
06-27-2008 4:21 PM


AOkid, msg 51 writes:

Merely spouting out diatribes that I don't understand what the law of biogenesis says or means is just words.

I can't help but notice, however, that it is, in fact, the only way to actually get you to respond. You haven’t touched a single one of my messages in this thread (#25, #34 and #44), and you ignored Rahvin (#49) and Granny Magda(#48) too: these were all messages full of meat directly relevant to your topic, yet you ignored them.

AOkid, msg 60, writes:

Iasion, msg 58, 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.

His argument is not a red herring: it is a skillful and relevant caricature of your argument. The development of one entity into another is the theme of the analogy, and you have stated to CS that there must be a distinct point which clearly divides the first entity from the second. Alasdair’s analogy shows that your insistence upon a distinct transition point is not universally valid, so you cannot fall back on that argument: you must provide further case-specific evidence for your claim. Otherwise, your argument rests on an idea that is “sometimes true.”

Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.


Darwin loves you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-27-2008 4:21 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 775 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 71 of 312 (473282)
06-28-2008 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by randman
06-28-2008 1:03 AM


Re: evo debasing science
randman writes:

So merely presenting an unprovable theory means that theory must be accepted, eh?

First, you know very well that "unprovable" is not the same as "currently without supporting evidence."

Second, I did not say abiogenesis is an accepted theory.

randman writes:

Your argument makes a mockery of evidence-based science by insisting that non-evidence based claims are true without any evidence merely by the fact they have not been wholly disproven...and some other stuff

Did you notice the part where I didn't say "abiogenesis is true?" In fact, I didn't make any statement of value on abiogenesis at all, did I? You are effectively putting these very words into my mouth. Don't do it again.


Darwin loves you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by randman, posted 06-28-2008 1:03 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by randman, posted 06-28-2008 2:35 AM Blue Jay has responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2976 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 72 of 312 (473286)
06-28-2008 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Blue Jay
06-28-2008 1:43 AM


Re: evo debasing science
Second, I did not say abiogenesis is an accepted theory.

Ok, are you saying it's not an accepted theory, or not a theory at all or what?

In fact, I didn't make any statement of value on abiogenesis at all, did I?

You didn't? This is what you stated:

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.

Clearly, you have made a statement of value here on abiogenesis. I am not putting words into your mouth. Your argument is that the alternative theory of abiogenesis must be falsified or biogenesis "is still unproven", right?

If that's incorrect, are you then saying that even non-theories with no evidence must be falsified first before something else is true? OK, let's say aliens created life and guided and influenced evolution. Now, clearly you cannot say Darwinism is true because, after all, you have not eliminated the alien hypothesis.

Also, why are you once again presenting the "proven" language since nothing is ever "proved" in science? Do you just mean verified as likely, but use the layman's word, "proven"?

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Blue Jay, posted 06-28-2008 1:43 AM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Blue Jay, posted 06-28-2008 3:48 AM randman has not yet responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 775 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 73 of 312 (473292)
06-28-2008 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by randman
06-28-2008 2:35 AM


Re: evo debasing science
randman writes:

...are you then saying that even non-theories with no evidence must be falsified first before something else is true?

No, I am not. Abiogenesis is not completely without evidence, randman. There isn't much definitive evidence, but there is just enough from Miller-Urey and Dr. Adequate's observation of the fossil record (for example), that we shouldn't rule it out. And, as it turns out, none of the evidence for biogenesis rules out abiogenesis anyway.

randman writes:

OK, let's say aliens created life and guided and influenced evolution. Now, clearly you cannot say Darwinism is true because, after all, you have not eliminated the alien hypothesis.

Fair enough, as long as you say specifically what the aliens do and how what they do influences evolution (you know, a mechanism, and all that), and provide a logical reason why such an alternative should be considered.


Darwin loves you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by randman, posted 06-28-2008 2:35 AM randman has not yet responded

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 953 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 responded

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

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 953 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.
Prev1234
5
67
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019