Biogenesis

I appreciate your assessment of this debate, but of course I hope you will likewise appreciate my rebuttal. My experience in reading forums, is once a loosing argument can no longer stand logistically then the charge of “using semantic argumentation” comes up.That’s quite interesting to me, because I thought there was no other type of debate. You and my other opponents have been arguing about the difference between “spontaneous generation” and “abiogenesis”. That’s an argument of semantics. You and others have argued that viruses are “close” to life and may be in a gray area in between. That is semantics. You and other have argued over the “law” status of biogenesis. That is an argument of semantics. The fact is, that all debate, no matter what side you’re on is just semantics. This is all just a bunch of words and logic given by many different people. It is all semantics. Semantics are extremely important to legitimate debate, and without semantics, there is no such thing as science. Semantics and logic are just as important to science as observations and data.And yes, the purpose of debate is to shift the burden of proof on your opponent. You say I avoid bringing up evidence. I have presented historical evidence of the entire topic from scientific peers at the time of discovery. Those documents clearly provide evidence of the hypothesis of biogenesis and the hypothesis of abiogenesis and the philosophical faith of a chemical evolutionary pathway to life. My opponents have submitted no evidence to the contrary other than their words. I have cited many scientific papers throughout, while you and others have avoided the use of scientific papers to support your arguments.And yes, I have been called a troll. But trolls don’t make legitimate arguments. They make one liner inflammatory comments like doku and often CS does. They don’t defend their arguments like CS saying that “he doesn’t have time to look things up”. That is trollish behavior. I appreciate that you don’t completely agree with CS on this matter. And I assure you that my arguments are sincere as you detect. You are right that I will defend definitions. Definitions in science are extremely important. Definitions in science are slow to change and difficult to change. And when they do change, they are usually backwards compatible. That’s why we have debate in science. Just because some scientists see “gray” areas in definitions, does not mean all scientists do. The people who see those “gray” areas must generate the observations worthy of changing the definitions. Then they must submit those redefinitions for peer review. Then those redefinitions must eventually become accepted by the scientific community. If they can’t then it is just equivocation of existing definitions. The article I cited on the redefinitions of “genes” is a good example. That has followed the scientific process. It would not be right to teach that genes are much more complicated than we originally thought, before we had the evidence to support the argument and the redefinition.To redefine life today, and teach this stuff just because you and some others believe it to be true is not scientific in any way shape or form. That’s where the philosophical faith comes in. This is a highly debatable topic in the scientific community. It is not settled science, and it shouldn’t be taught as though it were. That’s why I am debating this topic, and I am constantly requesting the real scientific evidence. If anything has been lacking in this debate, it has been evidence that life can com form non-living chemicals. I argue this definition of life, because that is the currently accepted and observed definition of life. I assert that “life” cannot arise from “non-life”, because that is what all the observations of life and non-living chemicals prove. That’s why it is a law of nature. If there are hypotheses of abiogenesis today, I have said they are unfalsifiable and therefore do not qualify as a hypothesis. If they rely on an environment that cannot be determined, and rely on millions of years, then they are unfalsifiable unless they can show observable repeatable evidence that nature could do such things in an environment. We haven’t observed any kind of chemical arrangement that has the capability of reproducing itself and metabolizing itself and passing on that genetic information to it’s offspring. The phenomenon doesn’t exist. The environment doesn’t exist. It is a faith that it once existed in the past. I’m not trying to be trollish here, but you just created an argument that is a tautology. I think you may have meant that “science” does not revolve around definitions, but around data. If that is your argument, I disagree. Science is as much about reasoning, definitions and logic as it is about data. Viruses and observable evidence about viruses is data. The rest is reasoning. Some equivocate the definition of life and reason that viruses are alive. I and many others don’t equivocate the definition of life and say they aren’t alive. It’s that simple. The data doesn’t change for either perspective. If viruses are alive, then why aren’t dead people or dead organisms alive. They have cellular walls, proteins DNA, RNA, catalysts, organelles ect. There is a definitive difference between something that is alive and something that isn’t. Alive things die. What is the difference? The difference is what defines life. And you don’t have to be a scientist to recognize this.Actually most organisms consume some sort of dead tissue that once was living. Does that make a dead zebra a transitional form of a lion? No. Things are alive. And things are dead. The gray area only exists for those who equivocate without evidence to support a definition change.Now Bluejay, you are much quicker at typing than I am. I am going to ask that you don’t respond until I have fully responded to your post. I should have this completed by tonight at the latest. You have been polite in this essay, and I hope you think I have as well. We disagree, but we can agreeably disagree.

Talk about idiots. People who believe that there are theories on abiogenesis are indeed idiots. They don't exist and you can't name one. It's like believing in fairies I guess. But of course, you do believe in the nature fairy of strong emergence. Nothing like a little MAGIC thrown in with the emergence of "life itself".So you admit that life is a "self". Sounds soulish to me.

Your ad hominen attacks on me aren't doing you any good. You call me an idiot because I have boxed you in on your own logic. You call me a troll, I guess, because you want me out of this forum. If so, that will be just one more example of scientific sensorship. Like taking LoB out of all the literature, because it presents problems for your faith.Now you accuse me of doing what you hve been doing from the beginning. You personally have argued that spontaneous generation was falsified. Wrong. Theories get falsified. The theory that that life can come from non-living chemicals was falsified. And any honest person in science would realize that it is still falsified today. I don't have a problem if you and others want to pursue your religion, just don't teach it to my kids. I asked you personally to cite the theory of spontaneous generation. You said "I don't have time to look it up". That my friend is the epitome of lameness.The eqivocation is on your hands by trying to exchange the observation of spontaneous generation with the theory that life can come from non-life. Biogenesis and Abiogenesis. Two theories. Abiogenesis is falsified. Biogenesis is verified and becomes universaly observed. Biogenesis becomes a recognized law of nature. Abiogenesis gets resurrected and repackaged with equivocating language. The faith in a falsified theory. You are beginning to realize it? Aren't you? No theories, No phemnomena to support a hypothesis. There is nothing left but faith. That is what I oppose. You don't even understand a strawman argument. I didn't change your argument. I used your exact words... Those are your words and your argument. Of course you have changed your argument many times in this thread. Your fist argument was that there was no LoB. You have dropped that one. This is hilarious. You cannot deny that any hypothesis on the origin of life does not fall into the same category as life can come from non living chemicals. That hypothesis was falsified, and all the evidence points that it is still falsified.You also claim that spontaneous generation is different from emergence. Baloney. In the RNA world models, you have lipid cellular structures that eventullay evolve to have the ability to metabolize. At that mutational moment, you have life. In the metabolism frst models you have a metabolic pathway that eventually can reproduce. At that mutational moment you have life. Both are spontaneous events. It is all just a bunch of equivocation which uninformed students don't recognize.Then the ultimate equivocation is every model invokes evolution and natural selection for the cause of this emergence. But once again this is an equivocation on what evolution and natural selection are.The only people equivocating are people like you. But you, like the many others in this forum have been trained in these fallacies, so you cannot event recognize illogical thought processes.So I will stand against you and those in this forum an those in science who try to perpetuate illogical thought processes. That is why I am oposed to teaching this junk science to childre in schools. Come back when you have some evidence.

Yes you did, and I appreciate that. I apologize I haven't responded to the rest yet, this weekend was very busy, and I didn't have much blog time. And how are you going to start an argument with anyone, unless a definition of “virus”, “evolve”, and “natural selection” are established and agreed upon by the parties. You establish the definition with evidentiary support of a dictionary, encyclopedia, website, or a scientific paper, etc. Once that is established, then you have a foundation to start your argument. This is all semantics, and it is the foundation of all logic. Now you and your opponent are gathering data or evidence. This is only one part of an argument. The data should be exactly the same for you as it is for your opponent.The definitions should also be the same for you as they are for your opponent. If by definition, the viruses do evolve by natural selection in the Petri dish, then your opponent doesn't have a leg to stand on does he? But if the viruses by definition do not evolve by natural selection in the Petri dish, then you don't have a leg to stand on. Correct?Now let us assume that both of us know what a virus is according to wiki. We know what evolution and natural selection is according to wiki. There is no disagreement between us on these definitions.Now let us put a population of a particular virus on a Petri dish. Then let us seal the cover on the Petri dish to assure no contamination. Then we microscopically examine the Petri dish and both of us agree that there is no cellular life present in the Petri dish. Let's assume that we agree that the "setup" of the experiment is correct.Now let us watch for a month and gather data. What we will see from scientific experience and previous experimentation is that the virus count will remain the same. None will grow, because they can't metabolize the food. None will reproduce, because they don't have that capability. Now how do I know this? Well actually I know it from the definition of a virus.Then I can conclude logically that viruses cannot evolve by natural selection on their own without a host cell. Now how can I validly conclude this? Well it is because of the definition of evolution and natural selection. You must have reproduction to have evolution and natural selection. Without reproduction, there is no evolution.Now, I gather from your example, that you may be thinking that viruses do indeed metabolize and reproduce on a Petri dish without other bacterial life. I certainly hope you don't have this understanding, because your semantical definitions are wrong.Now I apologize for this long drawn out example, but it was yours, and it clearly demonstrates the importance of definitions, semantics, and logic in relationship to data and evidence. No not at all. This is a strawman argument. Here is exactly what I said... From that, how can you possibly conclude that I believe that "science does not revolve around data." Data and observations are extremely important in science. Definitions, semantics, and logic are equally important in science. How can you have data on speed if you can't define speed? How can you have data on cellular growth if you cannot define growth? How can you make a parsimony chart of homologies if you don't define homology? Definitions are important. The only thing absurd is your fallacious strawman. Bluejay, the reason I asked you to wait to respond, is because I am detecting that you really don't read what I write. Your mind picks up on certain key phrases and eliminates the rest. Here is clear evidence of this: Earlier I said: The answer to your question is in the highlighted areas. Observations are observations. They can't be changed. But a different set of logic can be applied to them. This happens all the time in science. Data is basically defined observations. Again, the observations don't change, but data can change as definitions change.Take a fossil for instance. You and I observe a set of bones. They look exactly the same to me as they do to you. Now we must interpret those bones. You apply your logic and I apply my logic. We probably will have two different conclusions depending on the foundation of our logic. The physical evidence before me is nothing more that a bunch of letters organized in a particular fashion. Without definition it's the same as my grandaughter playing with her alphabet magnets on my refrigerator. Meaningless! Your typing is meaningless without definition and logic. The world revolves around definitions, semantics, logic, and physical evidence. To argue that definitions are not as important as physical evidence would get you laughed out of any logic class. But of course, some teachers probably teach this stuff. You certainly have learned it somewhere.And by the way, God loves all Darwinians!Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

It seems to me somehow you don't have any DATA to support your position. Now hear me out please. You have made a logical inference of falsification, but no data.You said yourself...... Your implications are logic. Your logic is based on whichever definition of life you choose. Certainly not mine. But you haven't observed the first life from chemicals. Have you? No data. You haven't observed the environment of the first life on this earth. You can't even accurately define what it was. No DATA. You can't even come up with a plausible series of chemical steps and demonstrate them for the creation of life. No DATA.What you do have is life wasn't here and now it is. That's data. The rest in definition and logic. And your definitions, I believe are equivocations, because they involve redefining words without the evidentiary support to do so. No DATA. Your logic is then based on these redefinitions. That logic is fallacious without the evidentiary support for the redefinition of "life", "growth", "reproduction", "metabolism", "evolution", and "natural selection."None of you have presented any reasonable DATA for the changing of any of these definitions, but you are basing hypotheses that you want to teach to children based (foundation)on this fallacious logic. Without the DATA to back it up.On the other hand, you have the law of biogenesis which has uncountable amounts of data to support it. Observation after observation. It can be verified in the lab, on the farm, in the hospital, in the schools, and everywhere on this earth. Many in this forum have argued that this law doesn't exist and it is vitually meaningless. All of you have argued including yourself that it has been falsified. But implications and inferences don't falsify anything. Data and observations falsify hypotheses. You have argued ad populum that no scientific papers discuss this law. But none of you can logically deny the reality of this natural law.This is why I have argued from the beginning that abiogenesis has no evidence. No data. You are making your implications, inferences, deductions, and inductions into data. Shame. This is not science, this is faith.The LoB however, has data coming out of its ears and you want to silence and declare a falsification of this law.Call me a troll if you want. But your arguments fail. They have no legs, because they don't have evidentiary support. They have implications, inferences, equivocation, but very little DATA as I said in my OP.

Your joke represents only your ignorance of science.If this is evidence of a forty year carreer as a biologist, then God help us all.Ya know, come to think of it, God never mentioned Hoot Mons in his scripture.If you are a real biologist, then I have a bridge I want to sell you in Alaska. It goes nowhere.No DATA.

Ummmmm.... hypotheses can be falsified. Abiogenesis was falsified as a hypothesis. It never reached the evidentiary support level to be a theory. The current so called hypotheses of the origin of life all fall under the falsified hypothesis of abiogenesis which states that life can come from non living matter. The slow gradual emergence of life from complex chemicals is life coming from non-life.

The BB is a theory based on facts. The BB is not a fact. It is not observable or repeatable. It is a theoretical model that there were no atoms. The big bang theory is not evidence or data.Please provide a citation of scientific evidence or data that atoms didn't exist 13Bya. This is actually a consequence of the BBT, it certainly is not data. This is argumentum ad ignoratium. A fallacy. You adhere to a hypothesis which most of the data to support the hypothesis (abiogenesis) lies in our current state of scientific ignorance. We are searching for this data. However, you are completely oblivious that science is ignorant of many things including other dimensions and possibly forces that haven't been discovered yet. Why are you OK with ignorance in regards to your hypothesis,but you aren't OK with ignorance in other areas that may provide the answer to life. God may be one of them. An unnamed intelligent designer maybe one. A yet undiscovered vital force may be one. There potentially are many valid scientific or metaphysical explanations for the beginning of life. Just because you are ignorant of them doesn't mean the truth doesn't exist. You think I am wrong? I will cite for you and Bluejay the definition of falsification....which you will continue to ignore. The mere fact that life coming from non-life has not been proven impossible makes the hypothesis unfalsifiable. There is no way by observation or experiment to prove anything is imposiible. A hypothesis based on this logic is invalid and unfalsifiable. That's why real scientists are very careful at stating them.However, the hypothesis that life can come from non-living chemicals has been and is falsified. It was falsified by direct observation that life doesn't come from chemicals, but it comes from pre-existing life. Every organic experiment in the history of man has confirmed the LoB and has confirmed the falsification of abiogenesis. No experiment or observation has presented evidence that life can come from chemicals. That is a philosophical faith. Period. You are sadly wrong CS.You are exchanging overwhelming evidence (LoB) for fantasy (abiogenesis). But you and others are redefinining "life" with the faith of abiogenesis. You are using mythological undefined terms as "primordial life", "early life", "first life". Just as soon as these terms are defined, the hypothesis is open to falsification. By leaving these terms open to interpretation, the the hypothesis is unfalsifiable. That is the epitome of equivocating the definition and understanding of life, without supporting evidence. Once again all you can cite is wiki. Did you even read it? Not one citation in this editorial article. Again your argument is lame. No evidence.I on the other hand have provided historical evidence from a scientific peer at the time. That peer was presenting to a group of scientific peers. That evidence clearly defines the LoB as stating that all life comes from pre-existing life. And that citation comes from a peer who was an ardent abiogenesist. That is evidence. That has strong legs.The wiki article is factually unsupported and wrong. You are wrong CS. Cite something with some evidentiary support. Or continue to hobble along as you normally do. It is exactly the same. The supposed oldest known evidence (data) of living organisms appear to be very similar to "modern" bacteria and algae. There is no evidence of any other micro fossils of the mythological primordial life type. There is no evidence that the earliest life was not exactly the same as modern bacteria like Pasteur used. (this whole "modern" term is another example of an undefined equivocation term).Then, just in case you don't understand, spontaneous does not mean "rapid" or "fast" as in opposition to gradual. As in "gradual emergence." A gradual emergence of life is a spontaneous generation of life by definition. They are exactly the same. All the chemical reactions that happen on the slow "gradual chemical pathway to life" must be spontaneously generated. By definition.You are just plain equivocatingly fallaciously wrong, as you have been shown over and over again. But your faith is strong. Because it does. It says that life comes from life. All of it. Why can't you realize that it is a silly argument that the slooooow gradual emergence of life itself is not by definition a spontaneous generation event. And that has been falsified.The abiogenesis hypotheses of today all posit the existance of cell wall like structures that eventually are able to metabolize and then reproduce and the evolve. Each step of the way is a spontaneous generation event. I don't have to discredit abiogenesis. It has no credibility except for those of that faith. Science has discredited abiogenesis. The spontaneous generation of the past and the "modern" spontaneous generation over the magical millions of unfalsifiable millions of years has already been discredited.But isn't it interesting how the faithful are doing their darndest to remove LoB from all literature and educational processes. Isn't it interesting how your wiki citation inaccurately defines the LoB. Isn't it interesting that this law of nature can probably be one of the easiest science experiments to be demonstrated to students in a classroom. But it is being elliminated from discussion.This forum is a prime example of religious fervor in regards to this topic. I have nothing to fear from people like you. If my faith is wrong and you are right, then fine. I will cease to exist when I die and I will be some of those non-living chemicals. But if your faith is wrong and my faith is right, then you have some real problems ahead of you. I have nothing to loose if I am wrong. You have everything to loose if you are wrong. Well in my opinion idiots don't recognize what good science demonstrates. (LoB) Idiots use lame arguments with no evidentiary support. Idiots only rely on wiki articles without researching the citations every now and then. Idiots don't realize that every defineable step in any hypothesis of abiogenesis is spontaneously generated. Wow. That would make you, by my definition an idiot.