Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is not Abiogenesis
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 6 of 251 (653579)
02-22-2012 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tangle
02-22-2012 1:37 PM


Re: Analogies
I find this very interesting. I've yet to hear how the ToE would be affected by the different possibilities. Give the number of times we've recently asked this question, I'm surprised that no-one has had a stab at it.
However, I note that this is in a Science forum so Buz won't be able to participate and he's the one that started the recent ball rolling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tangle, posted 02-22-2012 1:37 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by hooah212002, posted 02-22-2012 8:25 PM Trixie has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 21 of 251 (653602)
02-23-2012 3:02 AM


Message from Buzsaw
I've had a message from Buzsaw in which he asked me to post the following
Buzsaw writes:
I have never ever alleged that abiogenesis is evolution. My position is emphatically that it MUST happen before evolution can begin. The beginning of life by whatever means is the biopoesis. Once this biopoesis happens evolution can allegedly begin.
If it's at all possible to allow Buz to post in this particular thread, I think we may have a productive discussion, maybe even a learning experience for all.

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Tangle, posted 02-23-2012 3:09 AM Trixie has replied
 Message 24 by Chuck77, posted 02-23-2012 4:10 AM Trixie has not replied
 Message 45 by dwise1, posted 02-23-2012 11:24 AM Trixie has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 23 of 251 (653604)
02-23-2012 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Tangle
02-23-2012 3:09 AM


Re: Message from Buzsaw
It would help if an explanation of why the alternatives are not abiogenesis was included. I'm sorely pressed for time just now so can't do it. If it hasn't been done before I get back, I'll do it then, but we're talking about 10 hours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Tangle, posted 02-23-2012 3:09 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 68 of 251 (653751)
02-24-2012 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Chuck77
02-24-2012 3:53 AM


Re: Creation theory.
I think you're right to concentrate on finding your Creation Hypothesis, rather than trying to knock down alternatives. Oeof the reasons that Creationists haven't lasted here is that they try to argue science with practicing scientists and they just can't cut it.
You'ven had to try to argue against geology, chemistry, molecular biology etc with specialists in these areas. The reason that people specialise is because they have to know a subject in such depth that there is no way they can have the same depth of knowledge in a such wide range of subjects in a single lifetime.
For a non-scientist to take on all of these specialists is well-nigh impossible, since they just don't have the knowledge required.
I would suggest that, as you form your Creation Hypothesis, you take note of those things that are physically impossible. Be guided by the science. You may find yourself in a position where your only option is to invoke a miracle by God. That's fine, but remembetha then takes you out of the realm of science unless you can provide physical, scientific evidence that indicates that it happened. For example, if you claim a miraculous world-wide flood, you don't have to explain the mechanism since you're claiming a miracle, but you do have to show the geological evidence that a world-wide flood occurred. If you have to invoke a miracle which subsequently removed the evidence, you have nothing. If you want to claimthat the geology which indicates that a world-wide flood never happened is flawed, you'll have to be ready to show why that geology is flawed and you'll need to have a good grasp of the science to do that.
In this particular thread I think we see that it's a misunderstanding of what the ToE is for that has led to claims that it must include origins of life. Yet the ToE only ever intends to explain why every life form isn't identical, why there is diversity.
We're still looking for an answer to the question of how evolution would be different if life arrived here on an asteroid or abiogenesis occurred on Earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Chuck77, posted 02-24-2012 3:53 AM Chuck77 has seen this message but not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(7)
Message 84 of 251 (653877)
02-25-2012 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Portillo
02-25-2012 3:56 AM


No shit, Sherlock!
That's exactly what dwise1 was saying and what you've just amply demonstrated. Unless otherwise stated, just about every reference to evolution made on this board is talking about biological evolution, the Theory of Evolution, Darwin's work "On the Origin of Species".
If you choose to conflate all of your examples with what we're saying, that's up to you, but unless we're all using the same definition, discusson is impossible. Changing definitions mid-conversation is a recipe for confusion. It's also a tactic used with boring regularity by those who wish to deny biological evolution, who don't accept the mechanism of descent with modification.
Can you tell me how the Theory of Evolution is affected by, or deals with the evolution of galaxies, of stars? In a thread entitled "Evolution is not Abiogenesis" it's pretty darned obvious that we're talking about biological evolution and a particular idea of the origin of life. This thread is asking if the ToE is affected by the method by which life originated. You seem to be broadening it to take in just about everything that changes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Portillo, posted 02-25-2012 3:56 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Portillo, posted 02-25-2012 6:30 AM Trixie has replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 86 of 251 (653880)
02-25-2012 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Portillo
02-25-2012 6:30 AM


Oops, wrong again!
Portillo writes:
The post mentioned that when talking about evolution, it ONLY means biological evolution. Not just in this thread but any context, which isnt true.
No, it did not say that and you know it. Here's the quote in context
dwise1 writes:
I think that a very large part of the question is that Buz, Chuck, Portillo, and other creationists apply an entirely different definition to "evolution" than we normals do. For us, evolution is biological evolution only, the natural consequences of life doing what life naturally does. But for them, "evolution" is something entirely different, a complete atheistic worldview that demands the inclusion of abiogenesis -- the standard meaning, not your redefinitions. A large part of my position is that, if they are indeed redefining the terminology out from under us, they must at least inform us of just exactly what their definitions are. But then, that would work against their standing operating procedures of trying to generate confusion.
Now, using the above, show me where dwise1 says that evolution ONLY means biological evolution in ANY context. As far as I can see he says that "FOR US", meaning those who accept biological evolution, evolution means biological evolution. Given the forum this is stated on and the subject under discussion, that statement is true.
The only way you seem to have to demonstrate that your assessment is correct is to miss out part of what dwise1 actually said and make a false claim about what he did say. Unfortunately for you, we can all go back and see what he said, since this is a written statement. Tactics used by creationists in oral debates and which rely on misrepresenting what has been said do not work in written debate. All it does is demonstrate the falseness of your statement.
I see you have a problem with the use of a well-known and well-used phrase because it contains the word "shit". Tough. It's a shame you don't have the same sensibilities about misrepresenting people. Or do you take the position that, to coin another well-known phrase, "lying for Jeebus" is ok because the ends justify the means?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Portillo, posted 02-25-2012 6:30 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Portillo, posted 02-25-2012 5:55 PM Trixie has replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(3)
Message 97 of 251 (653982)
02-25-2012 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Portillo
02-25-2012 5:55 PM


Re:
1. Your link to a "subforum" isn't working.
2. How come you're the only one claiming that dwise1 said this and everybody else understands exactly what he is saying?
3. You're wrong. Try reading for context and comprehension next time.
You're doing exactly what dwise1 claimed creationists do Hilariously you're doing it in an attempt to show that those who accept biological evolution deny the use of the word evolution in any other context. [hint]They don't[/hint]. What you are doing is failing to realise that, in biology, evolution has a very specific meaning.
This is similar to the problems we have encountered with abiogenesis, biogenesis, biopoesis, cosmic slime and all the other words that creationists throw around without fully undersanding what they mean.
Tell you what, you continue to use and understand evolution in your broad interpretation. None of our posts will make sense to you, but hey, you get to decide your very own pet meaning of evolution. None of your posts will make sense to anyone else, mind you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Portillo, posted 02-25-2012 5:55 PM Portillo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-25-2012 7:31 PM Trixie has seen this message but not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 108 of 251 (654021)
02-26-2012 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Percy
02-25-2012 10:25 PM


Re:
We're talking about the exact same phenomenon, except with different terms. That's why it's so funny. Portillo has made another bullet for us to fire.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Percy, posted 02-25-2012 10:25 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 149 of 251 (654308)
02-29-2012 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by marc9000
02-28-2012 8:20 PM


Re: Analogies
From the very first post in this thread comes the following quote.
Tangle writes:
Consequently, the ToE is agnostic to the cause of life and works independently of that cause.
You seem to be arguing that the ToE is utterly dependent on the mechanism which gave rise to the first life. Is it your case that the ToE only works if life arose from abiogenesis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by marc9000, posted 02-28-2012 8:20 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Tangle, posted 02-29-2012 5:46 AM Trixie has replied
 Message 164 by marc9000, posted 03-02-2012 8:27 PM Trixie has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 152 of 251 (654312)
02-29-2012 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Tangle
02-29-2012 5:46 AM


Re: Analogies
Sorry Tangle, my question was addressed to marc9000

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Tangle, posted 02-29-2012 5:46 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 240 of 251 (657703)
03-30-2012 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Portillo
03-30-2012 4:02 AM


Fine as far as it goes and when you're using evolution in a colloquial sense to mean change over time. However, when you talk about biological evolution you necessarily add descent with modification into the mix since thats what organisms do. The ToE ONLY applies to biological evolution. Abiogenesis is an event.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Portillo, posted 03-30-2012 4:02 AM Portillo 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