Summations Only

Let's say that they designed life from non-living chemicals using technology similar to what we use to create DNA oligomers. Let's say that they created a simple RNA replicator from non-living chemicals and inserted the replicator into a lipid envelope also derived from non-living chemicals. According to Buzsaw, if this happened then evolution could not occur because evolution requires abiogenesis.

He's not talking about any particular scientific model of the origin of life, because let's be honest - he doesn't know any of the scientific models of the origins of life. He doesn't know that there are specifics about the models to know.He's not being deceptive, he's just incredibly confused as always. If "abiogenesis" and "biogenesis" are meant to refer to clearly-defined opposing concepts, that's news to me and I suspect to a lot of other people. It's worth pointing out that these are philosophical/theological terms, not scientific ones, and I think most people just assume that they both are meant to refer to "the origin of life, whatever that was."Trying to pin Buz down on specific usage seems really, really stupid, since these words aren't used specifically, they're just used to refer to the "event" that was the origin of life on Earth - whatever it was. How do you figure he's disagreeing? And bottom line, life doesn't exist in the universe without an origin, because the universe itself is not infinite into the past. So there can't always have been life, therefore life has an origin, therefore the origin of life is a prerequisite for the evolution of life. I don't see that Buz is anything but correct, in his usual completely confused and backwards way. And I still for the life of me don't see what the four or five of you are so determinedly arguing about. If these hairs get split any finer they're going to completely disappear.

But the aliens designing life from non-living chemicals would have been "abiogenesis."

If that's the case why did he then go on to deny ever having said that the primordial soup is a prerequisite for evolution? If, in this denial he's denying what you think he's denying, then he's denying that life is a prerequisite for evolution (sorry for all the denyings ).His position has been completely inconsistent.

It would not have been life from the primoridial soup (aka cosmic slime) which Buzsaw has stated many times is a pre-requisite for evolution."I would say that the primordial soup was a prerequisite to the ToE. No premodial soup; no evolution."--Buzsaw, message 142 of this thread

"Biogenesis is the belief that living things come only from other living things, . . . "
Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia"Abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss) or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life would arise from inorganic matter through natural processes."
Abiogenesis - WikipediaThey sound like opposing ideas to me. To reiterate once more, Buzsaw's position (at least in one post) is that if life did not originate through abiogenesis (i.e. primordial soup) then no evolution. What we are arguing is that evolution could occur even if life did not originate through abiogenesis (i.e. through natural means from inorganic matter) contrary to Buzsaw's claims.

Normally I'd agree with that, there must be an internet law somewhere that says that any online debate will eventually result in at least one party defending a position he doesn't hold. If there isn't a law, then I'm naming it.But in this case i do think it matters that this distinction is made. This is what Answers in Genesis are telling their readers. It's a wedge. They think that evolution falls apart because science can't yet explain how life started.If they just stuck to saying that science doesn't know how life started and never will, they'd have a powerful and honest point to make, but they have to extend it into the lie. The Origin of Life | Answers in Genesis

quote:

---

And, look, you can hardly propose a Godless evolution happening as a result of a Godful creation. A naturalistic evolution of life certainly implies a naturalistic origin of life, that's why scientists are trying to develop one.

---

Well this is the first argument to actually support Buz's claim but it is still pretty badly wrong. And it says a lot about Buz that he couldn't even manage to do that well.Firstly, why exclude lesser supernatural entities from the table ? Surely any non-natural origin of life is outside of what Buz thinks of as the "primordial soup" ?Secondly God is supposed to be ineffable, so what makes you think you can tell that no possible God would ever create evolving life ?Thirdly, creationism and evolution aren't complete contraries. Even most YECs accept some evolution. So it is certainly wrong to insist that evolution requires abiogenesis without a lot of qualification.Fourthly, what about Behe's idea of God occasionally intervening in evolution by a little genetic engineering ? That's a LOT closer to purely naturalistic evolution than it is to creationism. Where does that fit ?Fifthly, the definition of life is not clear-cut. It's certainly possible to argue that evolution started before life existed, by defining life to exclude early replicators. AND THE DEFINITION OF "BIOPOESIS" THAT BUZ QUOTED TO "SUPPORT" HIS ASSERTION TAKES EXACTLY THAT VIEW. Now you might insist that Buz disagrees - but it's still pretty hopeless to quote a definition that contradicts him as support for his claims !

The Tangle Law?
Law of Tangledness?It actually seems to fit.

HUH?Buz has never said that life is necessary for evolution to happen.Buz defined biogenesis very precisely back in Message 289 as "(chemistry),(biology) the formation of life from self-replicating, but not living molecules ".A magician making dust figures and blowing life into them or a magician speaking life into existence is not the same as "(chemistry),(biology) the formation of life from self-replicating, but not living molecules ".You bring up yet another possibility "that life is a phenomenon of infinite duration into the past" at least into the past of this universe.But Buz has never said "life is necessary for evolution to happen", had he said that then the most that might have been said is "No shit."

Just a cotton pickin' minute..... Why (and when) did you all of a sudden change to talking about biogenesis? You realize that the A in Abiogensis makes a distinct difference in the word, right?

I've used it two or three times recently, not realizing the difference. This is how we all learn both sides of the topics by debating.

Would you like to take this time to clarify your position on the matter?

Hooah see Message 307 add by edit for clarification.

So your position is that abiogenesis IS a prerequesite for biological evolution and without abiogenesis, biological evolution is not possible? Is that correct?