|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Transition from chemistry to biology | |||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: As has already been pointed out there is no good reason to think that the alleged "law of biogenesis" is a real scientific law. Nor is there any alternative to natural abiogenesis that is even equally good by your own criteria. Thus the only consistent conclusion you could adopt is one of complete agnosticism on the origin of life.
quote: What are the research experiments but ways of making observations ?
quote: There are all the experiments carried out by the researchers. And really what possiiblity other than life coming from non-life is consistent with the observation "there was no life, then there was ?" There may be many possibilities on HOW life came from non-life but ALL of them would be abiogenesis (by definition).
quote: Since you're citing bogus "evidence" (the "law of biogenesis"), not consistently applying your own criteria and apparently badly misconstruing the arguments offered, I have to say that bias seems to dominate your conclusion.
quote: The origin of life has some implications for the way life developed, but that is pretty much about it.
quote: Definitely false. Firstly anti-evolutionists frequently appeal to additional abiogenesis events (creation) that are definitely at odds with Pasteur's actual observations (i..e they require complex multi-cellular life forms to come into existence). Abiogenesis is a cornerstone of THEIR beliefs. Abiogenesis is a very big and very interesting problem which is the real reason for interest in it. Even if abiogenesis were proven impossible the evidence for evolution would mean that evolution remained, untouched. Your bias is showing again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Wrong. The "law of biogenesis" is not a scientific law because there are no good reasons to think that it is absolute.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Pasteur's experiment was aimed at the idea that the (modern) microrganisms associated with decay were the product of that decay rather than the cause. It is utterly absurd to suggest that his experiments ruled out the possibility of life forming be natural processes.
quote: The statement is too unclear for me to agree with it or disagree with it.
quote: I think that jumping to conclusions far in excess of the evidence - as you do in your assessment of Pasteur's experiments - is not a characteristic of good science at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: He did a lot of other things but that is the experiment you're talking about.
quote: No. The closest he got to that was the experiment I was talking about.
quote: By which he meant the idea that modern microorganisms appeared as a product of decay...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: It's part of the "doctrine of spontaneous generation" referred to. You can't hope to understand what the experiment proved unless you know what the experiment was.
quote: If they do, then they are not using the words in the exact same sense as Pasteur.
quote: Nobody is quoting Pilbeam on this subject. YOU wrongly tried to discuss your arguments in a thread concerning a quote from Pilbeam - even though it had nothing to do with the subject you wanted to discuss.
quote: I know who Meyer is. Quoting him won't do you any good.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Does "manipulating facts" mean "telling the truth" ? Because that's all I'm doing.
quote: In that case it has no great significance to the modern study of abiogenesis. Because that in no way contradicts the outcome of Pasteur's experiment.
quote: I said that quoting Meyer would do you no good. And the reason that it will do you no good is that Meyer is mainly a propagandist for ID.
quote: Yes, many creationists have a problem in dealing with well-informed and honest people. Maybe you should try to think about why that is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
As I've already told you Pasteur's experiment was all about the controversy over whether (modern) microorganisms caused decay or were the product of decay. His statement asserted that his experiment conclusively proved that the former was true and that the latter was false.
Given the nature of the experiment there is simply no way that it could rule out modern ideas of abiogenesis. So all you are doing is insulting Pasteur's memory by painting him as a fool who completely failed to understand the limits of his own experiment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: My memory is that Pasteur used soup, not distilled water. And of course if he HAD used distilled water the results would have been completely unsurprising - even at the time. Nobody would remember it as important. These sites confirm my memory:Just a moment... (Stating that he used "meat broth") http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio114/spontgen.htm(a more detailed description of the experiment and what it showed) and herehttp://web.ukonline.co.uk/b.gardner/pasteur.htm None mention a relevant experiment using distilled water So now we know who was really "pretending".
quote: And your point is ?
quote: No, it only ruled out abiogenesis under conditions and timescales sufficiently similar to those in the experiment. That is a limit of the experimental method.
quote: By which you mean that you think that you can use Pasteur's experiment as an excuse to slander honest scientists .
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024