Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2019 12:07 AM
30 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,228 Year: 12,264/19,786 Month: 2,045/2,641 Week: 0/554 Day: 0/113 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
20NextFF
Author Topic:   Evolution has been Disproven
defenderofthefaith
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 301 (54886)
09-11-2003 6:53 AM


Hi. Evolution has been disproven for over 100 years, and here's why:

1. Evolution requires that life comes from non-life. The first living cell is supposed to have come from non-living organic material in the oceans.
2. Life coming from non-life is called spontaneous generation. The dictionary confirms this: "Supposed production of living from non-living matter as inferred from appearance of life (due in fact to bacteria etc.) in some infusions..." [Oxford Concise Dictionary]
3. Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation back in the 19th century when he placed a sterilised beaker with a straight entry tube alongside one with a crooked tube. Bacteria collected in the straight-tubed beaker but not in the crooked-tubed one, where instead they lodged in the bends of the pipe. He concluded that life only comes from life. This is now known as the law of biogenesis.
4. Since evolution requires life from non-life (spontaneous generation or abiogenesis), and Louis Pasteur disproved this, evolution has been rendered impossible on account of life not being able to generate from non-life.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Dr Jack, posted 09-11-2003 7:00 AM defenderofthefaith has not yet responded
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 09-11-2003 7:01 AM defenderofthefaith has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Mammuthus, posted 09-11-2003 7:10 AM defenderofthefaith has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Wounded King, posted 09-11-2003 7:28 AM defenderofthefaith has not yet responded
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 09-11-2003 8:54 AM defenderofthefaith has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Karl, posted 09-11-2003 8:56 AM defenderofthefaith has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Loudmouth, posted 09-11-2003 1:25 PM defenderofthefaith has not yet responded
 Message 11 by DC85, posted 09-12-2003 12:08 AM defenderofthefaith has not yet responded
 Message 58 by Mike Doran, posted 10-14-2003 6:42 PM defenderofthefaith has not yet responded
 Message 276 by mkolpin, posted 01-23-2006 2:00 PM defenderofthefaith has not yet responded
 Message 283 by heebs197, posted 01-26-2006 10:00 PM defenderofthefaith has not yet responded
 Message 291 by carini, posted 03-11-2006 3:56 AM defenderofthefaith has not yet responded

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 302 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 2 of 301 (54887)
09-11-2003 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by defenderofthefaith
09-11-2003 6:53 AM


Evolution does not require that life come from non-life, evolution only applies to existing life.

Louis Pasteur's experiment does not prove the impossibility of life from non-life, instead what he showed was that the bacteria and other nasties that infect rotting meat come from the environment rather than being spontaneously generated (as was the prevailing theory). No-one has ever performed an experiment, or presented experimental proof, that life cannot come from non-life.

In fact the reverese is true, everyday billions of animals, and plants, convert dead matter into living tissue. You're doing it right now, and every time you eat. Every pregnant animal on earth is currently converting dead matter into a new life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by defenderofthefaith, posted 09-11-2003 6:53 AM defenderofthefaith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by sog345, posted 02-08-2005 12:04 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded
 Message 100 by Juhrahnimo, posted 02-08-2005 11:44 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded
 Message 185 by Gabe Webb, posted 04-13-2005 5:34 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded
 Message 225 by Siguiendo la verdad, posted 06-06-2005 1:15 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15221
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 3 of 301 (54889)
09-11-2003 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by defenderofthefaith
09-11-2003 6:53 AM


1) The claim that evolution requires that life comes from non-life is false.

2) Spontaneous generation is used to refer to the appearance of "modern" organisms in short timescales - such as the idea that decay caused the production of microbes, as investigated by Pasteur.
This is not the same as modern ideas of abiogenesis, and it is good to use seperate terms to distinguish the concepts.

3) As has been pointed out Pasteur's experiments did not disprove the idea that life could come from non-life. They did disprove specific ideas concerning spontaneous generation at the time.

4) The law of biogenesis supports evolution. Since we cannot invoke the idea of life appearing from non-life as a regular event most of the life around us must be the product of other life. This requires some form of evolution to explain the observed diversity of life.

In summary:
Evolution does not require that life come from non-life
Pasteur did not prove that life cannot come from non-life
The law of biogenesis supports evolution rather than disproving it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by defenderofthefaith, posted 09-11-2003 6:53 AM defenderofthefaith has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4672 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 4 of 301 (54893)
09-11-2003 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by defenderofthefaith
09-11-2003 6:53 AM


Mr. Jack and PaulK thoroughly spanked this fallacy but I figure I will beat this dead horse some more from a different tack..

quote:
1. Evolution requires that life comes from non-life. The first living cell is supposed to have come from non-living organic material in the oceans.

This statement is false. If you believe otherwise please show where a scientific definition of evolution used by evolutionary biologists or genetics requires the change in allele frequencies over time to be dependent on abiogenesis.

quote:
2. Life coming from non-life is called spontaneous generation. The dictionary confirms this: "Supposed production of living from non-living matter as inferred from appearance of life (due in fact to bacteria etc.) in some infusions..." [Oxford Concise Dictionary]
3. Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation back in the 19th century when he placed a sterilised beaker with a straight entry tube alongside one with a crooked tube. Bacteria collected in the straight-tubed beaker but not in the crooked-tubed one, where instead they lodged in the bends of the pipe. He concluded that life only comes from life. This is now known as the law of biogenesis.

As PaulK pointed out, Pasteur demonstrated that bacteria do not pop out of nowhere and his experiments had no bearing on abiogenesis.

Please demonstrate how evolutionary theory is beholden to evolutionary theory...in fact spontaneous generation would falsify a major pillar of both evolution and genetics i.e. common descent.

quote:
4. Since evolution requires life from non-life (spontaneous generation or abiogenesis), and Louis Pasteur disproved this, evolution has been rendered impossible on account of life not being able to generate from non-life.

Since you have conflated abiogenesis, bacterial spontaneous generation, and evolution into one big happy creationist fallacy you have only proven that you have not studied the issue closely enough to come to even the most tentative conclusion regarding scientific theory...sorry..bzzzzt....try again


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by defenderofthefaith, posted 09-11-2003 6:53 AM defenderofthefaith has not yet responded

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2292 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 5 of 301 (54896)
09-11-2003 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by defenderofthefaith
09-11-2003 6:53 AM


Oh, Puuhhleeease!!!!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by defenderofthefaith, posted 09-11-2003 6:53 AM defenderofthefaith has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3392 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 6 of 301 (54905)
09-11-2003 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by defenderofthefaith
09-11-2003 6:53 AM


defenderofthefaith,

1. Evolution requires that life comes from non-life. The first living cell is supposed to have come from non-living organic material in the oceans.

How does that disprove evolution even if abiogenesis did = evolution?

4. Since evolution requires life from non-life (spontaneous generation or abiogenesis), and Louis Pasteur disproved this, evolution has been rendered impossible on account of life not being able to generate from non-life.

You are equivocating, unintentionally, on the phrase "spontaneous generation". In Pasteur's day it meant the formation of complex living things like bacteria, even rats, frogs etc. out of nowhere. Abiogenesis is different, it postulates the formation of a self replicaing molecule from non self replicating matter. Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis.

If you are going to try to link abiogenesis & spontaneous generation, you are equivocating, a logical flaw.

"Equivocation is the type of ambiguity which occurs when a single word or phrase is ambiguous, and this ambiguity is not grammatical but lexical. So, when a phrase equivocates, it is not due to grammar, but to the phrase as a whole having two distinct meanings."

Mark

------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-11-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by defenderofthefaith, posted 09-11-2003 6:53 AM defenderofthefaith has not yet responded

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 301 (54906)
09-11-2003 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by defenderofthefaith
09-11-2003 6:53 AM


Can anyone credit the fact we're still having to reply to uninformed crap like this?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by defenderofthefaith, posted 09-11-2003 6:53 AM defenderofthefaith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 09-11-2003 9:13 AM Karl has not yet responded
 Message 78 by PecosGeorge, posted 02-08-2005 12:47 PM Karl has not yet responded
 Message 267 by ohnhai, posted 11-08-2005 7:46 AM Karl has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18611
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 8 of 301 (54913)
09-11-2003 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Karl
09-11-2003 8:56 AM


Karl writes:

Can anyone credit the fact we're still having to reply to uninformed crap like this?

You have to picture evangelical Christianity as a vast factory continually churning out newly minted uninformed Creationists.

While long-timers here have rebutted these kinds of points many times, defender may be seeing them for the first time. He probably only deserves the "Oh, not this garbage again" type of response when he brings it up a second time.

What continues to surprise *me* is the consistency with which Creationists like defender reject the various explanations concerning things that are truly superficial or even orthogonal to the debate, such as that abiogenesis and evolution are different, though obviously related, theories, or that abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are not the same thing. If they're going to prove evolution impossible it won't be by refusing to understand the terminology.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Karl, posted 09-11-2003 8:56 AM Karl has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Wounded King, posted 09-11-2003 12:16 PM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 80 by PecosGeorge, posted 02-08-2005 1:00 PM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 82 by PecosGeorge, posted 02-08-2005 1:01 PM Percy has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2292 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 9 of 301 (54943)
09-11-2003 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Percy
09-11-2003 9:13 AM


But Percy, their lack of understanding is so basic to their belief system, don't try and take it away from them!!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 09-11-2003 9:13 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by PecosGeorge, posted 02-08-2005 1:03 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 301 (54952)
09-11-2003 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by defenderofthefaith
09-11-2003 6:53 AM


Wouldn't Pasteur's experiment rule out creation as well? As you state, it is impossible for life to be created from non-life. Period. God didn't create any organisms in that crook-necked tube, therefore it is impossible for him to create organisms, by your reasoning.

Also, the crook-neck was quite large in diameter with respect to bacteria. The bacteria and or spores were not able to follow any air currents up the neck. They didn't "lodge" themselves in the crook neck. For this to happen the neck would need to be about 0.5-0.25 micrometers in diameter, about 1/10th to 1/20th the diameter of a red blood cell.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by defenderofthefaith, posted 09-11-2003 6:53 AM defenderofthefaith has not yet responded

DC85
Member
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 11 of 301 (55053)
09-12-2003 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by defenderofthefaith
09-11-2003 6:53 AM


well I have said this in another topic........
As far as Evolution itself is concerned A god could have created the first life. Evolution Only has to do with Organisms changing over time nothing else. I think this is focused at atheist not evolutionist. also when he disproved spontaneous generation. what he meant was things like this "maggots are in the meat. so Maggots must come from meat" or "there are ants on that rock. So ants must come from rocks" that my friend is spontaneous generation
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by defenderofthefaith, posted 09-11-2003 6:53 AM defenderofthefaith has not yet responded

  
defenderofthefaith
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 301 (55347)
09-14-2003 6:01 AM


Thankyou all for your well-written replies. Your information is clear,concise and to the point. I have not seen other debates about this on the forum... Please forgive me if I misunderstand anything.

I'm afraid I'm still a little hazy on the distinction between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis. Spontaneous generation (as we saw in the Oxford Dictionary) is an inferred production of living from non-living matter. Abiogenesis is the same - evolution infers that living matter came from non-living matter in the past. It infers that because we see life today, and because there was no life at the very beginning of the universe, at some point in the distant past living must have come from non-living matter. Pasteur, and no doubt many others since him, have proven that any living matter in an environment only comes from other living matter - outside contamination. Even humans have tried and failed to create life in a controlled environment. They can only take life from already living organisms.

I merely would like to ascertain how, if living matter comes only from living matter (biogenesis), that abiogenesis can contravene this?


Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by mark24, posted 09-14-2003 6:16 AM defenderofthefaith has not yet responded
 Message 18 by John, posted 09-14-2003 11:27 AM defenderofthefaith has not yet responded
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2003 5:33 PM defenderofthefaith has not yet responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3392 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 13 of 301 (55348)
09-14-2003 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by defenderofthefaith
09-14-2003 6:01 AM


defenderofthefaith,

I merely would like to ascertain how, if living matter comes only from living matter (biogenesis), that abiogenesis can contravene this?

Pasteur proved that complex living things likw bacteria didn't just spring into existence as was originally thought. He definately did NOT prove that a self replicating molecule ultimately could not have evolved into a cellular unit.

You are moving the goalposts. Your assertion that living matter only comes from living matter is not an agreed, nor demonstrated premise. Claiming that it is is a fallacy of composition/division.

Mark

[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-14-2003]

[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-14-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by defenderofthefaith, posted 09-14-2003 6:01 AM defenderofthefaith has not yet responded

  
defenderofthefaith
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 301 (55358)
09-14-2003 7:48 AM


Pasteur's and subsequent experiments show life arising only from life. This happens everywhere in the world. It has been demonstrated that life arises from life, whereas it has not been demonstrated that life arises from non-life. When you consider that all nucleotides in a DNA chain have to be right-handed, and all amino acids in a protein have to be left-handed, it seems unlikely that random chance could select only the appropriate hand preference (chirality) of amino acid or nucleotide from the even-handed selection that occurs naturally.

Now, no matter how much time is available for evolution, origin of life still comes down to living from non-living matter. Scientists using intelligent design have not been able to do this. Remember that cellular biology was unknown in Darwin's day. If cells had been understood as a complex factory of parts that will collapse with a critical piece in the wrong place, which is what a cell is, evolution would probably not have been proposed back in the nineteenth century. Before the advent of microscopes, the full impact of a cell's complexity was unknown to them.


Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 09-14-2003 10:59 AM defenderofthefaith has not yet responded
 Message 20 by mark24, posted 09-14-2003 6:09 PM defenderofthefaith has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18611
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 16 of 301 (55362)
09-14-2003 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by defenderofthefaith
09-14-2003 7:48 AM


defenderofthefaith writes:

I'm afraid I'm still a little hazy on the distinction between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis.

Spontaneous generation is the now abandoned belief that some types of organisms spring not from parents, such as is the case with fish and mammals, but from non-life given the proper conditions. For instance, it was believed that flies came from feces and maggots from spoiled meat.

Abiogenesis is the widely held belief that life arose from non-life on the ancient earth by some unknown gradual process somewhere around 3.8 billion years ago.

Pasteur's and subsequent experiments show life arising only from life.

It would be more correct to say that the experiments demonstrated that when properly sterile procedures were employed that spontaneous generation did not occur. It would be incorrect to conclude that the experiments showed that life could *only* arise from life. All it showed was that the conditions thought to give rise to life in reality did not. The Law of Biogenesis is a reply to spontaneous generation, not to abiogenesis.

Now, no matter how much time is available for evolution, origin of life still comes down to living from non-living matter.

Stating the case in terms of living and non-living matter is so common that it is important to make sure it is understood that there is no physical difference between the matter in a living organism and the matter in a dead organism or some never-alive object. The carbon in a pencil is no different than the carbon in your body, except perhaps there is a higher proportion of 14C in your body. The oxygen in your lungs and blood stream and cells is no different than the oxygen in the rust on your car.

If you're going to draw upon the distinction between living and non-living matter to make your argument, then you're going to have to concede that the non-living oxygen in the air becomes living oxygen once it enters your bloodstream - life from non-life. Obviously this is nonsensical, and it only points out the weakness of the terminology, living versus non-living.

The difference between living and non-living matter is that the former is part of a complex set of chemical reactions that in one or more ways and at one or more levels are self-replicating. This tells us that the more relevant question is how the complex set of chemical reactions and biological structures that comprise life came about by natural means. We have only what amounts to speculations at this point, for very little evidence has survived from 3.8 billion years ago.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by defenderofthefaith, posted 09-14-2003 7:48 AM defenderofthefaith has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
20NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019