Evolution is not Abiogenesis

More accurately, I was beginning to doubt that your link had a thing to do with abiogenesis, or with this thread. It’s looking more and more like I was right about that. I see another evolutionist is trying to dance for you however.

I accept every theory in science that we can directly observe, and practically apply in our daily lives. None of it is used as a philosophical weapon against religion, so that makes it less atheistic than evolution.

Then what’s their budget for? So you missed my earlier link that showed the research they’ve submitted? They might have millions, but it dwarfs in comparison to the ongoing public establishment of abiogenesis.

No, because evolution starts with life, nothing can evolve unless it’s already living. Abiogenesis starts with non life, what makes it similar to evolution is that it occurs (to its faithful) over long periods of time, increasing in complexity, by undirected, naturalistic processes. Not my logic, it’s your straw man. Abiogenesis starts with non life. Those papers didn’t demonstrate anything about that.

Right, but that was obviously an allusion to your position that abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing, which has the necessary logical consequence that any and all papers that support any form of evolution must, in your view, be held to be evidence for abiogenesis. Sorry, but that's the consequence of your position. You can't have it both ways. By your definition of "abiogenesis" ("evolution"), it must be. That, of course, is the point - it's a reducto ad absurdum of your position, because it's absurd to describe a paper about how bacteria evolve the capacity to metabolize new food sources by mutation as lending much support to abiogenesis. But, again, your position that evolution and abiogenesis refer to the exact same thing logically necessitates that you treat the Ledberg paper as proof of "abiogenesis."Taq doesn't think the Ledberg paper is about abiogenesis, and neither do the rest of us, because evolution and abiogenesis are two very separate things such that support for one doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the other. (Practically, of course, different fields of science do very much inform each other.) Well, I guess because I'm smarter than you, or I read more closely than you do, and therefore I didn't make the same boneheaded mistake you made in completely missing his point. So you accept our position that evolution is something different than abiogenesis? Then Taq's argument has worked, and you've seen the flaw in your previous position revealed by the absurdity of having to consider the Ledberg paper support for abiogenesis. Yes, exactly. The Ledberg paper is about evolution, not about "life from non-life." Which is Taq's argument, exactly - it's an absurd consequence of your position to have to consider the Ledberg paper about abiogenesis, which means that by reducto ad absurdum, your position was wrong. You seem to have tacitly accepted this by retreating from that position. Yes. Now, please try to understand them. I guess I don't understand. Do they not have reducto ad absurdum where you're from?

Again, you have failed to understand. Taq did not try to pass off the Ledberg paper as about abiogenesis, presumably because he assumed you would have read it and noticed immediately that it was not about abiogenesis. But, since you lack even the most basic qualifications in this field, since you in fact know less about biology than a 5th grader, that was probably overoptimistic of him.So, don't take anybody's word for anything. Read the paper and then observe that it is not, in fact, about the generation of life from non-life. And then assume that Taq, a professional in the field of biology, knows at least as much about it as you, and now see if you can determine why he would, in opposing your position that evolution and abiogenesis are two words for the same thing, present a paper that he knows is only about evolution as being about "abiogenesis." So all things that are without "purposeful guidance" are "evolution" and "abiogenesis"? Don't you just mean that you forgot?

Heliocentricity? Oops, you're wrong again.

It has to do with your argument, and how your position necessitates a logical contradiction.Reducto ad absurdum. It's no dance. You're the least comprehending individual I've ever met, and I'm attempting to assist you out of pity.

Then you accept none.No scientific theory can be directly observed, because a theory isn't a concrete thing. It's a collection of hypotheses that attempt to explain a broad range of observations from the natural world.You might think of the theory of gravity as a theory that "we can directly observe and practically apply in our daily lives." You might think, we drop something, it falls. Thus, gravity. However, the theory of gravity is considerably more complicated than that, and cannot be directly observed.By your definition, most of science would not qualify.

Hi Marc,Since we have to use English to describe how you're misunderstanding English, I don't think this can ever be accomplished.But I guess if abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing, then since there's micro and macro-evolution there must also be micro and macro-abiogenesis. There you go, now you can go around announcing that not only did Taq agree that abiogenesis and evolution are the same, providing a paper as a reference, now Percy is saying so too. And sarcasm and other rhetorical devices can just keep flying right over your head.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

So if atheists began using Newton's three laws of motion as a philosophical weapon against religion, you'd become reluctant to accept them, too? Einstein's theory of relativity is often used as the basis for arguments against creationist views on cosmology, so are you going to reject relativity?The overall point that EvC tries to make is that creationists do not use evidence as their criteria for deciding which theories to accept, and all you're doing is confirming that in spades.--Percy

and then there's geology and the age of the earth and the lack of a global flood.Things to deny keep cropping up for some believers ...Enjoy.

Then you'd better hope that those mad men in their laboratories don't manage to cook-up life from rocks in your lifetime, because when they do, you're going to have to reject All of chemistry too. (Whoops, no more medicine.)

Let us try a different analogy. Biomechanics is a subject closely related, in many ways, to evolution. They will often be discussed together, and they interlink and connect.Nevertheless, it is possible to study the physical properties of, for example, the counter-current system in the blood-circulation of a dolphins flippers, without reference to evolution. Looking at the matter evolutionarily may help you explain how the system evolved, and may clarify some features of it, but you can demonstrate the mechanism by which the system maintains internal body temperature without talking about evolution. If all of a sudden we realised that creationists were right all along, and God poofed dolphins into existence last week, it wouldn't matter for work done explaining how this system works. A creationist studying it would note the same features.Similarly, even though abiogenesis and evolution are interrelated, we can study the mechanisms of how a population evolved without reference to abiogenesis. Just as the discovery that God poofed dolphins into existence a few thousand years ago wouldn't change what we know about the mechanics of the dolphin circulatory system, so the discovery that God poofed life into existence 3 thousand million years ago wouldn't change what we know about subsequent evolution.

Hi marc9000Just a couple of points Actually, I take the Wedge Document as an admission of the plot by the creationists of the ID movement. Evidence of such a conspiracy means it is not a theory. Curiously, you did not provide any evidence to support your assertion and now are back-peddling? (bold revised)Who gave the breath of life into that hypothetical (you do realize he was talking hypothetically yes?) "primordial form" proposed by Darwin as a possibility? An atheist?Enjoy.