Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2019 7:25 PM
25 online now:
edge, jar, Jon, kjsimons, xongsmith (5 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 856,973 Year: 12,009/19,786 Month: 1,790/2,641 Week: 299/708 Day: 74/52 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biogenesis
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 10 of 312 (473025)
06-26-2008 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by AlphaOmegakid
06-25-2008 8:17 AM


Welcome to EvC, AlphaOmegakid.

Why is the law of biogenesis which states that "all life comes from preexisting living matter" not taught in any modern textbook today? It is probably one of the most widely used laws in biology and biological studies, but the law and the history of the law is ignored.

There are a few problems with this statement.

First, the so-called "law of biogenesis" actually states that "all modern, cellular life comes from pre-existing life." Note the bolded terms. It is true that a living bacterium will never spontaneously form from non-living matter; it is not necessarily true that no life may arise spontaneously.

Second, since Louis Pasteur's time (Pasteur being the best-known originator behind biogenesis), we've added a lot to our library of biological knowledge. It is now known that there is nothing fundamentally different between "living" and "non-living" matter - that is, the water you drink is not "alive," and yet becomes part of your living cells. It would be impossible to differentiate between an water molecule in the ocean and a water molecule in your body given no context. It's awfully hard to make statements like "life can only arise from life" when we know that there really isn't anything separating living matter from non-living matter beyond participation in a series of complex chemical reactions.

Finally, I would challenge your assertion that biogenesis is not taught in schools. The way I stated it, with the inclusion of teh words "modern, cellular," is most certainly taught, and you're right - it forms the backbone of creating sterile environments and evolutionary experiments where contamination from "spontaneously appearing life" would ruin the results. It is a principle used daily, so obviously it is being taught.

The problem is that you've simply interpreted the actual principle of biogenesis to mean something far broader in scope than what scientists currently agree on. Basically, you've constructed a strawman.

I'm a firm believer in teaching science in schools, and not teaching non-science matters which are religious. How can we justify teaching abiogenetic science which is full of faith and little evidence and not teach biogenesis which is full of science and no faith?

This is simply an inaccurate statement, AlphaOmegakid. Abiogenesis is not taught as a factual explanation for the origin of life on Earth. When it is taught at all, it is approached as one possibility being explored. Further, there is no faith involved in abiogenesis - rather, the entire field consists of questions, with the evidence so far pointing towards "maybe."

Certainly you don't think that any and all hypotheses undergoing rigorous experimentation and testing are based on faith, do you?

I would hazard to guess that you've read about the "law of biogenesis" and this "controversy" surrounding abiogenesis at some Creationist website. Try reading the entry on Wikipedia on Biogenesis for a less biased discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-25-2008 8:17 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-26-2008 6:06 PM Rahvin has responded

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 49 of 312 (473168)
06-27-2008 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by AlphaOmegakid
06-26-2008 6:06 PM


quote:
Rahvin writes:

First, the so-called "law of biogenesis" actually states that "all modern, cellular life comes from pre-existing life." Note the bolded terms. It is true that a living bacterium will never spontaneously form from non-living matter; it is not necessarily true that no life may arise spontaneously.


Actually that's not what the law of biogenesis states.

Yes, it is. I supplied my link to Wikipedia lower in my post.

But you can rewrite history if you want to.

You're the one failing to comprehend basic biological principles, AOkid, not me.

Let's just remove the equivocating language about "modern" and "bacteria" and "mice" and "maggots".

No, let's not, because that would make the statement inaccurate. Pasteur's experiments were the basis for what you refer to as the "law of biogenesis" (and which is no longer typically referred to as such in the scientific community), and it most definitely did only apply to modern, cellular life. Maggots do not spontaneously form in bread, but rather they are spawned from flies. This experiment, and the "law of biogenesis" based upon it, has nothing whatsoever to do with the modern hypothesis of abiogenesis.

All life is made up of cells. A cell is the smallest known form of life.

Strictly speaking, that's not entirely true. There is great debate over whether to consider viruses as "alive" or not; they certainly aren't inanimate like rocks, and yet they aren't capable of self-replication on their own, either. They're a very interesting example of the gray area between "alive" and "not alive." But they're certainly not cells, and they're orders of magnitude smaller.

Abiogenesis posits that life arose from non-living substances in a gradual form - meaning a much more in-depth exploration of that gray area between the living and the inanimate. In exactly the same way that evolution does not state that a chimpanzee gave birth to a human being, abiogenesis does not posit that life suddenly appeared from a primordial soup; rather, in both cases we are talking about extremely gradual processes, and at no point could you look at a single example in the chain of iterations and clearly say "that's where life started" or "this is the first human."

Let's use biological terms, and clarify the law of biogenesis. It states that all cells come from pre-existing cells.

Stop right there - for the most part, we agree with that statement. But the "law of biogenesis" does not falsify abiogenesis; it simply provides strong evidence against the possibility of a bacterial cell or maggot suddenly appearing on its own. As our knowledge has expanded and we've come to understand how living things reproduce, we know why neither of those things will ever happen.

But abiogenesis has not been falsified. It certainly hasn't been proven in a laboratory, but that's why we're still researching it - it's an unanswered question. There is absolutely nothing in Pasteur's experiments, or any other scientific theory, that falsifies the principle of abiogenesis.

If you believe the "law of biogenesis" falsifies abiogenesis, immediately produce the objective evidence that falsifies any possibility of life arising from non-life. Remember that a lack of evidence is not falsification - you need a positive observation that directly contradicts the concept of life in any form ever arising from non-living substances.

And the contrary would be that no cell has arisen from any non-cellular chemical arrangement. I think this would be a more accurate clarification of the theory. Part of this has made its way into what is called "Cell Theory".

And yet it's not an absolute. Saying "this has never been observed" is a long way from saying "this is impossible, and could never happen." Remember, the conditions of Earth today are wildly different from the conditions present before life existed on the planet. We wouldn't expect to observe abiogenesis as it's hypothesized happening today - the conditions are nowhere near correct or favorable.

So, once again, you fail to understand what Pasteur proved and the limitations of the "law of biogenesis." You fail to understand what abiogenesis involves. You fail to understand what life is, and that life is not always necessarily cellular life.

You're taking the falsification of spontaneous generation and making an unfounded logical leap to apply that falsification to abiogenesis, which while related in one sense, is completely different in the specifics, and which is not falsified by the same evidence that disproved spontaneous generation.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

Second, since Louis Pasteur's time (Pasteur being the best-known originator behind biogenesis), we've added a lot to our library of biological knowledge. It is now known that there is nothing fundamentally different between "living" and "non-living" matter - that is, the water you drink is not "alive," and yet becomes part of your living cells. It would be impossible to differentiate between an water molecule in the ocean and a water molecule in your body given no context. It's awfully hard to make statements like "life can only arise from life" when we know that there really isn't anything separating living matter from non-living matter beyond participation in a series of complex chemical reactions.


You are correct that we have learned much since Pasteur's time. But we haven't learned that "life" is nothing but a bunch of complex chemicals. What we have learned is that cellular life is made up of vastly complex molecular machines.

Thank you for restating what I said. "Complex molecular machines" are still nothing more than complex chemical processes. You basically said "no, it's not green, it's green!"

The fact is, what we call "life" really is nothing more than a series of complex chemical interactions. "Living matter" is defined as matter participating in those interactions. There is nothing whatsoever "special" about living matter, except that it happens to be participating in the chemical processes we identify as "life." This includes self-replication (and you're correct to say that not all cells and molecules replicate themselves, but they are all replicated from other cells) and metabolization. These processes, while complex, are not "special," but rather are inevitable given the chemical compounds present due to the simple laws of chemistry. Oxygen binds to hemoglobin, as an example, and this is an inevitable chemical process given hemoglobin and oxygen.

The fact is, "nonliving material" is turned into "living material" constantly in your body. There's nothing special whatsoever about "living material" that suddenly makes it stop being a complex series of chemical interactions. You seem to be ascribing some "special" quality to life based on the complexity of the chemical interactions - this is an argument from personal incredulity, and thus is logically unsound.

The fact is, there is no barrier that prevents nonliving compounds from beginning the chemical process we identify as life. There is absolutely nothing in any scientific theory or any direct observation that falsifies the concept of non-living organic compounds spontaneously forming into more complex compounds which then self-replicate using the same compounds present in the environment, and metabolize those compounds for energy to perform such a process. A falsification of abiogenesis would require some such barrier. An example of something that would falsify abiogenesis would be a chemical reaction absolutely necessary for self-replication to begin but which is impossible given any reasonable environment for the other compounds necessary for the pre-cell to form in. Such a barrier has never been shown, and Pasteur's experiments (and thus your "law of biogenesis") do not falsify abiogenesis.

These machines are like the Eveready Rabbit. They keep going and going, and they keep having more and more rabbits. Someday they run down and die (then they are just chemicals). The cell is a factory of molecules, not just a bunch of molecules. And a cell is a factory building factory.

Once again - life is a series of chemical interactions and nothing more. While you insist that you disagree, you in fact have repeated it back to us. A "factory of molecules" is a fancy way of saying "a complex chemical process that produces other chemical compounds."

quote:
Rahvin writes:

The problem is that you've simply interpreted the actual principle of biogenesis to mean something far broader in scope than what scientists currently agree on. Basically, you've constructed a strawman.


Actually you are the one mis-interpreting the law of biogenesis. I provided the citation of it's wording, and a complete historical record of it's acceptace as being a well established law of nature. You haven't cited anything but your thoughts. If this is what is coming from your education, then that is the subject of my concern.

I cited Wikipedia, and the actual biologists on this very forum agree with me. Further, I have made mention of the specific basis for the "law of biogenesis," that being Louis Pasteur's experiments with spontaneous generation. I have shown that those experiments do not falsify the concept of abiogenesis in any way. I have also shown that your argument is logically unsound as a logical leap. Your position is a farce, AlphaOmegakid. You were defeated before you began becasue you misunderstand the principles behind abiogenesis, the "law of biogenesis," and the chemical nature of life.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

This is simply an inaccurate statement, AlphaOmegakid. Abiogenesis is not taught as a factual explanation for the origin of life on Earth. When it is taught at all, it is approached as one possibility being explored. Further, there is no faith involved in abiogenesis - rather, the entire field consists of questions, with the evidence so far pointing towards "maybe."


Well I beg to differ on this. Most textbooks say something like this...

Scientists believe that life started on earth about 3.8 billion years ago....

We are not sure how it started, but we have several theories...
M/U experiment is discussed. Thermal vents are discussed. Clay and mica sheets may be discussed. RNA replicating molecules may be discussed....

In every book there are mystical undefined things mentioned like "primordial life", "the building blocks of life", and "pre-biotic life". None of these terms are defined, but the books are full of them.

You are correct that no claims are presented that life actually arose from chemicals, but is is presented as a "must be" scientific process.

It is presented as the evidence we have at hand, and it truly is all of the evidence we have available. We have no real evidence of panspermia (though that is mentioned in classrooms as well), no evidence of its cousin, aliens seeding Earth with life, and we have no evidence of any deity's involvement. We do have plausable hypotheses regarding abiogenesis, and evidence regarding the early Earth that supports such ideas. They are not approached as "proven," simply as the options being explored for which there is at least some evidence.

All the while, the truth is that this is all philosophical faith, and there is no mention that all life comes from pre-existing life. Why is that?

It has nothign whatsoever to do with philosophy or faith. Faith is any belief not based upon objective evidence, while abiogenesis involves nothing of the sort. It involves a question being answered. The act of asking "is this possible?" does not imply any faith that it is possible. Further, abiogenesis research has shown that the hypothesis is tentatively very promising. Organic compounds thought to be necessary for the formation of a precell have been directly observed to spontaneusly self-assemble given conditions thought to mimic the early Earth. This means that saying "abiogenesis is a possible explanation for the origin of life on Earth, and could even be considered the most likely explanation given the evidence available" is not a statement of philosophy or faith, but rather is simply an honest and accurate statement.

It is well-known that all observed, modern life comes from other pre-existing life. This is taught in classrooms. Your statemnt that it is not mentioned is blatantly false - you simply take issue with abiogenesis being alluded to at all because it conflicts with your personal beliefs. Unfortunately, logic and evidence are unaffected by your subjective beliefs, and so your arguments fall flat.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

Certainly you don't think that any and all hypotheses undergoing rigorous experimentation and testing are based on faith, do you?


Certainly not, but hypotheses that are falsified form the start are based on philosophical faith.

I agree. But abiogenesis has not been falsified, and you have failed to show that it has. Provide direct evidence that refutes abiogenesis or concede, AlphaOmegakid. Note that if you bring up your tired argument that "since we've never seen it happen, it's impossible even given wildly different conditions" again, I'll stop being poilte and will openly mock you.

Don't you believe that the young earth theory has been falsified? Yet YECers have a philosophical faith that the earth is young. That's why abiogenesis should not be taught in schools!

Except that abiogenesis has not been falsified, and is not taught in schools as a certainty, or anything beyond "this is a possible explanation that is currently the focus of significant investigation to determine its viability."

Again, your argument falls flat. In your response, provide some evidence to support your position that abiogenesis has been falsified, or concede that your argument is false.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-26-2008 6:06 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-28-2008 12:55 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 57 of 312 (473205)
06-27-2008 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by AlphaOmegakid
06-27-2008 4:21 PM


Yeah, and you are the college kid, and I am a 46 year old President of a small company. I know debate logic very well, you may want to educate yourself beyond your school/college education some day.

You understand debating and logic so well, in fact, that you've used the Internet PhD argument.

Your identity and position are irrelevant. Your argument is all that matters, and it's so riddled with logical fallacies and false premises that even a High School student could demolish you. I don't care if you're Albert Einstein, if you own half of the country, or if you have a dozen PhDs - your argument is still fallacious.

The best debate tactic is supportive evidence.

Only when that evidence is used to support a logically valid argument, which is where you fail.

Arguments are just that, nothing more than words. Science is about evidence. Courtrooms are about evidence. Merely spouting out diatribes that I don't understand what the law of biogenesis says or means is just words.

Except when it is shown, directly, that your statements do not bear any resemblance to what is accepted in modern scientific circles, and when your arguments are shown to be logically invalid.

They only carry weight in your mind and other like minded people. Try presenting some factual data to support your arguments, and they will grow stronger.

You should try to actually listen to what other people are saying, and re-examine your own ideas in light of what others are telling you. Perhaps, when everyone disagrees with you and points out flaws in your argument, it's not really a conspiracy after all as you insinuated, but rather a case of you actually being wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-27-2008 4:21 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 123 of 312 (476939)
07-28-2008 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by AlphaOmegakid
07-28-2008 5:17 PM


Re: CITATIONS for the Catholic Scientist
You just invoked "Poof! Magic!" in a science thread. That doesn't go over very well.

Prove that a deity is the cause of life. I won't hold my breath. Even just provide a bit of evidence. No, the existence of life is not proof that a deity is the cause of the existence of life. That would be like saying that the existence of a painting proves that Bob, and not Carl, is responsible for the existence of the painting.

If a deity is the cause of life, what caused the deity?

Unfortunately science doesn't "know this isn't true". Science doesn't make any claims to knowing what is true. It only reasons and theorizes about what evidence it has. Science is only as good as your mind, which in your case is lame, because you haven't provided any evidentiary support of any limit or refutation of the LoB since its inception.

Science knows the conditions of the early Universe with approximately the level of certainty that science knows that gravity isn't going to shut off tomorrow. Knowledge is not a black/white, on/off binary. This is a black/white fallacy - there are infinite degrees of certainty, and while science cannot ever claim to posses absolute certainty, it can have an extremely high degree of accuracy.

We know to an incredibly high degree of certainty that there was a time in the Universe where even atoms did not exist, and that it took millions of years before heavy elements even existed such that the chemical compounds that comprise life as we know it could form. Ergo, there must be a point where life does not exist, followed eventually by a point where life does exist. This means life arose from an absence of life.

If you wish to take issue with that, have fun trying to disprove all of modern cosmology. I won't hold my breath.

CS and others have completely destroyed all of your arguments, AOK. You are intellectually out of your league if the best you can do is call CS's mind "lame."

But I knew you wouldn't, because this is about religious belief. Philosophical faith. It is not about science, or you would have some legs. But instead you chose more rhetoric, and you are crawling all over the place. In case you didn't recognize "la la la la la" is an abreviated form of "lame lame lame lame lame".

The only one I see here covering their ears and ignoring evidence is you. Your arguments are not logically sound, are based on quotemines and poor interpretation of statements by scientists, and are based on an obsession with proving your religious views rather than providing any sort of evidence. You;re projecting your own failings onto your opponents, AOK, a common and sad occurrance amongst Creationists.

Here are the facts:

Fully-formed cellular life does not spontaneously generate, exactly as Pasteur hypothesized. You're correct in this regard.

However, you take this concept too far and attempt to apply it to pre-cellular life, as well. You bring up the fact that we haven't directly observed such life forming, but this is because the conditions on Earth at present are no longer favorable for such organisms to form - the compounds no longer exist in the same state in which abiogenesis would be possible on this planet, due in large part to the fact that existing life finds those organic compounds to be a tasty meal.

Abiogenesis research has yielded results far beyond the imaginations of even 100 years ago. It has positively proven that many of the steps necessary for the spontaneous formation of a self-replicating molecule are possible and do happen given the appropriate conditions, and those conditions happen to be identical to what the evidence suggests the early Earth was like.

Science has not determined to a high degree of certainty that abiogenesis happened in this way on Earth, but it has raised the degree of certainty from "no, probably not" to a tentative "very possibly, yes."

You haven't provided a shred of evidence for your interpretation of the law of biogenesis - all you've done is shriek "but we've never seen life form spontaneously!"

You'd be right if you said "in the absence of any evidence despite a thorough examination of the possibility, it is highly likely that abiogenesis is not possible," IF there were an actual absence of any evidence. Note that this is still not enough to say "abiogenesis is impossible," because while an absence of evidence is suggestive of absence, it is not evidence of absence.

However, abiogenesis research has shown that dismissing abiogenesis out-of-hand is completely foolish. There is evidence in support of abiogenesis, even if there is not proof-positive that abiogenesis actually occurred on Earth.

Your die-hard insistence that there is a black/white response to this question is foolhardy. There is no unbreakable law of biogenesis that says that life cannot arise from nonliving organic chemicals. Stating such does not make you right, no matter how many times you repeat yourself. You have no evidence, your position is weak, and your logic is tragically flawed.

Go bring your god to the faith forums, where you can invoke the magical without evidence to support your claims. here, the standards are higher, and you lose.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-28-2008 5:17 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 133 of 312 (476996)
07-29-2008 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Fosdick
07-29-2008 10:37 AM


Re: More than chemical reactions
I'll stretch for this anology: If Bill Gates had agreed with IBM that MSDOS was nothing more than a computer's electronic parts then Microsoft would never have gotten off the ground. In other words, the code is more than the chemicals, just as thoughts are more than neuronic synapses.

Inappropriate analogy.

Computer programming is a series of symbols assigned meaning by an intelligent entity. Computer programs do not assemble themselves based on electron shells and chemical bonds. An IF/THEN loop does not spontaneously form with a WHILE loop, and pointers are not assigned values because of an endothermic reaction.

DNA is a series of chemicals. It does not have meaning. The chemicals do not represent anything, it is not a language, and it is not in a literal sense a set of instructions.

Chemical "information" bears no resemblance whatsoever to human created information such as language or computer programs. We can derive "meaning" from chemical compounds in that we can understand their properties and components and why and how they form, but describing the properties of a water molecule or an organic compound is entirely different from defining the word "stupid."

DNA does define an organism in a very real way...but only in the same way that H2O defines water. There is no magical hoo-ha involved with DNA, it is not information in the same sense that language or binary code is information (and I swear to god the next person who says DNA is "binary" or "digital" will be treated like the idiot they are).

The number of rings in a tree trunk can be called "information," but it's obviously not in anything remotely akin to the same sort of "information" carried by language. No intelligent force is required to generate the information contained in the number of rings in a tree trunk. Idiot IDists who bring up "information theory" and insist that the information present in DNA proves that there is a designer have no idea what they are talking about.

In a real sense, Hoot, thoughts really are absolutely nothing more than the firings of a series of neural synapses.

The extra meaning is assigned by your own consciousness. It's a subjective personal value assessment, not an analysis of what comprises a thought in objective terms. Likewise, the concept that there is anything more than electrochemical processes involved in life is founded not on objective data, but rather on subjective personal emotion that "there must be more to this."

Life as we know it is nothing more than a complex series of imperfectly self-replicating chemical reactions that metabolize energy from their surrounding environment. Nothing "more," no "soul," just a beautifully intricate (though sometimes woefully inefficient or even stupid) series of chemical reactions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Fosdick, posted 07-29-2008 10:37 AM Fosdick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Dr Jack, posted 07-29-2008 11:06 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 145 of 312 (477045)
07-29-2008 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by bluegenes
07-29-2008 5:34 PM


Re: Mere molecules?
Are we on topic?

That depends. Is the topic "Hoot Mon's incessant confused ramblings about assigning some deeper meaning to genetic information than is actually contained in genetic information"?

Or perhaps "How to compeltely misinterpret the word information as it applies to biochemical processes?"

Hoot, does sucrose contain information? Because sucrose is made of atoms...they're jsut atoms, and they can fit in a vary large number of combinations. Another molecule woulf be water. It;s just made of Hydrogen and Oxygen, which can also combine in different ways to result in Hydrogen or Oxygen gas, or Hydroxide, among others.

You claim that the interchangeability of the components of a DNA molecule combined with the specific order of those components suggests that information is stored in some "special" way beyond "mere molecules."

But the atoms of any molecule are interchangeable within the bounds of chemistry in exactly the same way, and the identity of the compound is directly dictated by the combination and structure of the component atoms.

So what's the difference? Why are water and sucrose "mere molecules," and DNA is "special?" Have you identified some magical energy contained in DNA that makes it not simply an extremely long molecule that happens to be highly variable due to its structure?

DNA results in traits being expressed in its host organism, sure, but the expression of those traits are still nothing more than chemistry.

You use the word "information" as it applies to language - a series of interchangeable symbols or sounds that an intelligent being can use in specific combinations to communicate ideas - and apply it to a molecule. Ink on paper really is just ink on paper without a human mind to interpret the symbols back into the thoughts beign conveyed when the symbols were written. DNA is a chemical, nothing more - there is no intelligent mind required to "interpret" its information, nothign special about it. It conveys information to us by its structure only because we can predict the chemical interactions that will result from that structure. It's very different from a language. It's not a computer program, it has nothing to do with ideas being communicated, and it really is just chemistry, even though it's extremely complicated chemistry.

I suggest that you either immediately provide the direct objective evidence that DNA is more than a molecule or that life is more than a specific series of complex chemical reactions that self-replicate and metabolize energy from their surroundings, or retract. This doesn't mean more of your "information" garbage. This means you have to show something that has been observed, something that makes living matter intrinsically different from nonliving matter other than that the living matter is presently undergoing a specific set of chemical interactions.

I won't hold my breath for either the evidence or the retraction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by bluegenes, posted 07-29-2008 5:34 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Fosdick, posted 07-29-2008 7:15 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 159 of 312 (477110)
07-30-2008 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by AlphaOmegakid
07-30-2008 10:19 AM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
Observation 2 doesn't exist. It is at best an interpretation of some evidence. Interpretation of evidence is not evidence.

That's a blatantly ridiculous statement. The suggestion that life did not exist until a certain point in the past completely ignored everything we know about paleontology, biology, geology, models of stellar and planetary formation, and cosmology.

At the very least, you have to admit that if the Big Bang model is accurate, for several million years even the constituent parts of life (elements heavier than Helium and Hydrogen) did not exist in reasonable quantities. This means that by all current scientific models, Observation 2 is a very solid conclusion. In fact, I would sooner expect gravity to suddenly not work tomorrow, or the sun not to rise, as expect that much evidence to be refuted.

And I'd sooner believe that His Holy Noodliness the Flying Spaghetti Monster actually did Create the Universe and all life last Thursday than expect you to do the refuting.

Again, the only natural explanation for -> has to be abiogenesis somewhere at some point. That doesn't exclude supernatural Creation by a deity who is somehow not affected by any of this, but this is a science forum, and invoking magical sky-fairies to do your Creation for you is not evidence.

You're idiotic arguments mostly consist of "Life exists, ergo God" and "we haven't observed maggots springing out of the air, so abiogenesis is impossible." Once again, your arguments are logically unsound. You complain about a lack of evidence on the Evolution side? I don't need to present evidence to point out the logical fallacies in your arguments. I shouldn't need to cite a paper about the Big Bang when that's not the topic, since you should know at least the basics (that the Universe in its earliest state was much smaller, hotter, and more dense, and that even atoms did not form until significantly later, and all heavier elements are the result of stellar fusion over the course of millions of years) because they are common knowledge.

Complain all you like, AOK. It's obvious to any reader that your arguments lack any sort of logical cohesion. It's not a matter of declaring "victory" (although I'd agree that the moment the supernatural is invoked in a science thread without evidence supporting the existence of the supernatural, the person invoking magic loses), it's a matter of trying to get it through your apparently thick skull that the Law of Biogenesis as developed by Pasteur and his contemporaries was never intended to have any relavence to the origins of life. It involves the fact that modern organisms do not spring from the air fully formed like magic, and that sterile conditions can prevent disease because the germs aren't just going to appear out of nowhere. It has nothing to do with whether or not abiogenesis is possible given the right conditions, because the conditions of Pasteur's experiment were in no way favorable for abiogenesis to occur in the first place.

You can't declare something impossible because it has never been observed, AOK. Before the Wright Brothers, nobody had ever observed a functioning flying machine - did that mean human flight was impossible? Before the invention of microscopes, microbes had never been observed - did that mean their existence was impossible?

If you can't see the massive flaw in your argument at this point, I don't know what will. But any readers will easily be able to see that you're not arguing from a point of solid logic, but rather apologetics, desperately grasping at any straws in science that you think might support your pre-existing beliefs. Even if your begin-at-the-conclusion-and-work-backwards methodology had any validity, you still picked a piss-poor angle of attack, as it has been shown repeatedly that the scope of the Law of Biogenesis does not apply in any way to abiogenesis or the origins of life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-30-2008 10:19 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-30-2008 11:22 AM Rahvin has not yet responded
 Message 164 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-30-2008 11:57 AM Rahvin has responded

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 167 of 312 (477126)
07-30-2008 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by AlphaOmegakid
07-30-2008 11:57 AM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
Even though this is a strawman argument, because it is a total perversion of anything that I have said, you make one interesting mistake.

You call me idiotic (ad hominen) while falsely claiming that I argue "Life exists, ergo God"(strawman). Where the reality is you and others have been over and over again claiming "idiotically" that "Life exists ergo Nature."

What blatant hypocracy and fallaciousness. No wonder people like you are sold on illogical concepts.

Back to Logic 101 with you. I called your argument idiotic, and told you why.

An ad hominem attack asserts that the argument is invalid because the opponent is an idiot.

Those are two different things. I didn't say "you're an idiot, so obviously your conclusions are wrong." I said "your argument is idiotic, and here's why."

The former is a logical fallacy. The latter is calling a spade a spade.

Further, nobody here is saying "Life exists, ergo nature." What we're saying is that the Law of Biogenesis as recognized by scientists specifically deals with fully-formed organisms and has nothing to do with the slow, gradual approach hypothesized by abiogenesis.

What we're saying is that it's foolhardy to say "we've never observed x, and so x is impossible." Unlikely perhaps, but there are very few absolutes in the Universe.

What we're saying is that abiogenesis research has gone a long way in providing evidence showing that abiogenesis may be plausible, and worthy of further investigation as opposed to something to be dismissed out of hand as you say.

What we're saying is that if we have models that have proven to be extremely accurate that make the existence of life in the Universe impossible at certain points and yet life exists, abiogenesis at some point is the only natural explanation.

What we're saying is that it violates parsimony to assume a supernatural explanation for life appearing in the Universe at some point when no actual evidence for a supernatural agency exists.

The Law of Biogenesis as it was stated by Pasteur and as it is recognized by actual scientists as opposed to internet Creationists deals with fully-formed organisms. It states that microbes and worms and other fully-developed contemporary organisms do not spring fully-formed from the ether, but rather are always the offspring of other living things.

The Law of Biogenesis does not state that nonliving matter cannot spontaneously self-assemble into an imperfectly self-replicating molecule that metabolizes energy from its surrounding environment. The fact that this has never been observed is irrelevant due to the very simple, very basic principle you seem to have completely blinded yourself to:

It is impossible to prove a negative without positively proving a contradictory statement.

You can't prove that abiogenesis is impossible simply because it has never been observed any more than you can disprove the existence of space aliens or gods or ghosts or Thor. The only way to prove something is impossible is to positively prove something that contradicts it; for example, I can prove that it is impossible for a human being to spontaneously fly without aid on Earth by positively proving the existence of gravity, which precludes such an action.

You have not provided evidence of any barrier to abiogenesis; instead, you've repeated the Law of Biogenesis repeatedly and insisted that your interpretation of its wording is directly reflected in reality, and asserted that simply because something has never been observed it must be impossible.

So, here we go genius: your deity has never been directly observed. By your own "logic," the existence of your deity is also impossible.

Do you see the flaw in your argument yet?

As an Atheist, even I don't claim that the existence of a deity is impossible, only that I have no reason to believe in one until objective evidence is provided. Yet you honestly think that you can prove that abiogenesis is impossible without providing evidence of a barrier that actually prevents it, but instead by repeating your mantra "It hasn't been observed so it can't happen, lalala!"

Your position is completely false, AOK.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-30-2008 11:57 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by bluescat48, posted 07-31-2008 8:59 PM Rahvin has not yet responded
 Message 192 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-01-2008 10:07 AM Rahvin has responded

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 184 of 312 (477262)
07-31-2008 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by AlphaOmegakid
07-31-2008 4:44 PM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
I'd very much like a response to my message 167.

You seem to have completely ignored it, and you have continued to accuse people of fallacies when their arguments are not actually fallacious.

You also seem to have completely ignored the fact that you are asserting proof of a negative, as I brought up in that post.

Your silence continues to be telling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-31-2008 4:44 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-31-2008 6:04 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 194 of 312 (477356)
08-01-2008 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by AlphaOmegakid
08-01-2008 10:07 AM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
quote:
Rahvin writes:

Back to Logic 101 with you. I called your argument idiotic, and told you why.


Ok Rahvin, let's just see how you told me why my logic was idiotic... from message 159

quote:
Rahvin writes:

You're idiotic arguments mostly consist of "Life exists, ergo God" (strawman) and "we haven't observed maggots springing out of the air, so abiogenesis is impossible." (strawman)Once again, your arguments are logically unsound. You complain about a lack of evidence on the Evolution side? (strawman)I don't need to present evidence to point out the logical fallacies in your arguments. (admision that your argument is lame)I shouldn't need to cite a paper about the Big Bang when that's not the topic, since you should know at least the basics (that the Universe in its earliest state was much smaller, hotter, and more dense, and that even atoms did not form until significantly later, and all heavier elements are the result of stellar fusion over the course of millions of years) because they are common knowledge.(a total red herring)


Wow, all of that in one short paragraph. Let's examine logic 101 for a moment...

1. "Life exists, ergo God" - Please cite where I have argued this. It's a strawman. An argument that you made up and claimed that it was mine. I agree, it's an idiotic argument. But it is not mine it's yours. You created the argument. That's fallacious.

You entire purpose in this thread is to show that, since the Law of Biogenesis requires that all life originates from pre-existing life, abiogenesis is impossible and a Creator is necessary. You haven't given any evidence in support of such a notion, you've simply insisted that the law of Biogenesis as interpreted by you is inviolate. You are, essentially, saying "Life exists, ergo God," because you are claiming that natural causes are made impossible by the Law of Biogenesis.

Not a strawman, just an obvious extrapolation of your claims.

2. "we haven't observed maggots springing out of the air, so abiogenesis is impossible." - Please cite where I have argued this. It is a straw man. An argument that you made up and claimed that it was mine. Once again I agree that that is idiotic logic. But it is your's not mine. You created this logic, and it is fallacious.

And yet that's what your entire claim in this thread revolves around. You have claimed, specifically and repeatedly, that abiogenesis is "poor science" because it is contradicted by the Law of Biogenesis.

But wait a minute. I beleive I have argued exactly the opposite of your claim before. Let's see....

from message 12

quote:
AOkid writes:

Now scientific laws or laws of nature decribe how nature works. Usually these laws do create boundaries. The law of biogenesis certainly establishes a barrier. However, nothing in science is absolute, so I can agree with you there.



Do you see the yellow. LoB is not absolute. That's my logic!

Then in message 15

quote:
Aokid writes:

I'm afraid the law of biogenesis (which came from science) does say that life cannot come from non-living mater. I'm sorry, but that is scientific. You may mean that there is nothing in science that makes any law of science absolute. If that's what you meant, then maybe I'll agree with you. However, the law does exist, and it does stand until further observations refute it.



Again, I argue that LoB is not absolute. But there is more!

message 30

quote:
AOkid writes:

Hey everybody,

Since many are arguing that the law of biogenesis does not make abiogenesis impossible, let me clearly state that first that this is a straw man argument. It certainly isn't mine.

No scientific law makes anything impossible. All scientific laws potentially can be broken or there can be exceptions under certain circumstances. A scientific law is a description of how nature works. It always represents our current understanding of nature.


Now this was a general message to everyone to make sure that every understood the strawman, and that I was not arguing that abiogenesis was impossible. But there is more...

message 84

quote:
AOkid writes:

Please read post 30. It is a strawman argument to suggest that for some reason I am obligated to show the impossibility of abiogenesis. There is statistical evidence and chemical evidence that it is very improbable, but these topics are substantially away from the OP, so I have chosen not to argue them in this thread.

Arguing the impossibility of abiogenesis would be the logical fallacy of agumentum ad ignorantiam. Therefore, I have chosen not to use this argument. There is no evidence for abiogenesis. That I will argue. The lack of evidence does not prove that it is impossible. However, the lack of evidence does make it non-scientific which is the topic of the OP.



Now can I make it any more clear that I am not arguing that abiogenesis is impossible! Hold on, we are not done yet...

message 87

quote:
AOkid writes:

And finally, I think it is a strawman to suggest that I am arguing that abiogenesis is impossible. My argument is that abiogenesis has no supportive evidence. It is a philosophy. I have only mentioned Yockey and listed the above citation, because others have argued that abiogenesis is impossible, and they have presented evidence of such.


message 89

quote:
AOkid writes:

Abiogenesis has been falsified by observation and experiment. That doesn't mean that it is false or impossible.


quote:
AOkid writes:

Why would I want to argue a strawman argument. No scientific laws prevent anything. Scientific laws describe how nature works. That's what the law of biogenesis is. It is the reality of where life comes from. It says nothing about whether or not abiogenesis is possible. It only says that since we've been observing life, all life comes from life. That's science. We use it everyday to save lives on this earth. Let's teach it.


Now have you, and every one else got it? I have not argued that abiogenesis is impossible. So stop, over and over and over again creating this fallacious strawman argument. Continuing to do this just provides further evidence that if TalkOrigins has not covered the argument, then all of the diciples are lost. Please deal with my words and my arguments.

Thank you for basically providing multiple occasions where you have compeltely contradicted yourself. Let me draw this out very simply:

You claim that abiogenesis is poor science because it is refuted by the Law of Biogenesis, which states that all life originates from pre-existing life.

You deny that this was intended to apply only to modern, fully-formed life, and has nothing whatsoever to do with life's origin.

These claims only make sense if you are claiming that abiogenesis is impossible due to the Law of Biogenesis. If the Law of Biogenesis is not an absolute, why are you arguing agains abiogenesis? It doesn't make any sense, and is basically a giant contradiction.

But even further, you claim "there is no evidence for abiogenesis." This is blatantly not true, and others in the thread have given you some of the evidence in favor of abiogenesis. We have managed to observe spontaneously self-assembling pre-biotic chemicals in teh lab from abiotic organic compounds, and multiple pathways to life have been proposed from these and other experiments. A great deal of research has been done on abiogenesis, and the results are extremely promising. Further, unless we introduce a supernatural entity we have never observed, abiogenesis at some point in the history of the Universe is the only possible natural explanation for life - and that supernatural entity we have never observed violates parsimony.

Your claim that there is no evidence for abiogenesis is simply wrong, AOK. It may not be a complete theory, and it certainly needs more research to determine its accuracy, but so far the results match what we observe. Apparently for you, a hypothesis has "zero" evidence until it is a compelte and accepted theory. But that's not the case, that's not what evidence is. A fingerprint alone does not complete a detective's murder investigation, but it is one piece of evidence. We may not have the smoking gun yet with abiogenesis, but we have multiple fingerprints, a lot of circumstantial evidence, and the DNA testing is running as we speak.

That's enough for now, I will finish the response later.

I'm not done though. Remember that first bit you quoted from me? You didn't complete that, and you didn't address most of my post:

quote:
Once again, your arguments are logically unsound. You complain about a lack of evidence on the Evolution side? (strawman)I don't need to present evidence to point out the logical fallacies in your arguments. (admision that your argument is lame)I shouldn't need to cite a paper about the Big Bang when that's not the topic, since you should know at least the basics (that the Universe in its earliest state was much smaller, hotter, and more dense, and that even atoms did not form until significantly later, and all heavier elements are the result of stellar fusion over the course of millions of years) because they are common knowledge.(a total red herring)

Let's address those three now, shall we?

1)"You complain about a lack of evidence on the Evolution side? (strawman)"

You did complain that evolutionists were not supporting their arguments with evidence. Right here:

I am beginning to see how this forum works...Creationists must present evidence to support their arguments. Evo's present nothing but rhetoric. Then they hijack the thread when they are pigeon holed. Then they declare victory! Halelujah praise the nature god!

Not a strawman, I simply called you out on your bullshit.

2)"I don't need to present evidence to point out the logical fallacies in your arguments. (admision that your argument is lame)"

I wasn't aware of the "lame argument" fallacy. But then, I also wasn't wrong: when you make a fallacious argument, all that is required to show the argument is false is to show the fallacies used. No evidence is required for such arguments beyond the fallacious quotes. This is because pointing out fallacies has nothing to do with the evidence the argument is based upon; if you commit an ad hominem, or an argument from ignorance, or any other fallacy, your reasoning is unsound and your conclusion is unfounded. This is not a "lame" argument on my part, it's you whining because I point out your fallacious arguments.

3)"I shouldn't need to cite a paper about the Big Bang when that's not the topic, since you should know at least the basics (that the Universe in its earliest state was much smaller, hotter, and more dense, and that even atoms did not form until significantly later, and all heavier elements are the result of stellar fusion over the course of millions of years) because they are common knowledge.(a total red herring)"

This isn't a red herring, it was an example. We had spoken eariler about how the conditions of the Universe in teh past would have made the existence of life impossible. Specific mention was made by myself and others regarding how hot and dense the Universe was, and that even atoms didn't exist at first. This was relavent because it requires life to form from nonlife because at some point we know that life did not exist, yet it exists today. In this quote, I used that previous note as an example of how I should not need to submit a paper to support an assertion based on common knowledge like the Big Bang.

That takes care of your reply, but you didn't address half of my post, so let's continue:

You call me idiotic (ad hominen) while falsely claiming that I argue "Life exists, ergo God"(strawman). Where the reality is you and others have been over and over again claiming "idiotically" that "Life exists ergo Nature."

I note that you did not mention the fact that my accusation that your logic was "idiotic" was not an ad hominem as you claimed. I did not say "you are an idiot, ergo your conclusion is invalid." I said "you logic is idiotic." I pointed out your fallacious reasoning as the invalidation of your conclusion, not your stupidity.

You did not address any of the following, either, so I'll just restate it here:

Further, nobody here is saying "Life exists, ergo nature." What we're saying is that the Law of Biogenesis as recognized by scientists specifically deals with fully-formed organisms and has nothing to do with the slow, gradual approach hypothesized by abiogenesis.

What we're saying is that it's foolhardy to say "we've never observed x, and so x is impossible." Unlikely perhaps, but there are very few absolutes in the Universe.

What we're saying is that abiogenesis research has gone a long way in providing evidence showing that abiogenesis may be plausible, and worthy of further investigation as opposed to something to be dismissed out of hand as you say.

What we're saying is that if we have models that have proven to be extremely accurate that make the existence of life in the Universe impossible at certain points and yet life exists, abiogenesis at some point is the only natural explanation.

What we're saying is that it violates parsimony to assume a supernatural explanation for life appearing in the Universe at some point when no actual evidence for a supernatural agency exists.

Once again, AOK, you throw the word "fallacy" around like it's going out of style, and in doing so you incorrectly identify arguments as fallacious constantly.

On top of that, your actual argument has been repeatedly crushed by myself and others. Abiogenesis is not poor science. It does have supporting evidence, even if it is not a fully-formed theory as of yet. It is a valid conclusion based on teh evidence we have available about our Universe. And teh law of Biogenesis has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of life itself, as you have erroneously claimed. Furiously backpedaling by saying "the Law of Biogenesis is not an absolute, of course" only serves to contradict your own argument, which depends entirely on the Law of Biogenesis being absolute.

Once again, AOK, you fail.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-01-2008 10:07 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-04-2008 6:01 PM Rahvin has responded

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 217 of 312 (477628)
08-05-2008 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by AlphaOmegakid
08-04-2008 6:01 PM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
quote:
Rahvin writes:

You entire purpose in this thread is to show that, since the Law of Biogenesis requires that all life originates from pre-existing life, abiogenesis is impossible and a Creator is necessary. You haven't given any evidence in support of such a notion, you've simply insisted that the law of Biogenesis as interpreted by you is inviolate. You are, essentially, saying "Life exists, ergo God," because you are claiming that natural causes are made impossible by the Law of Biogenesis.

Not a strawman, just an obvious extrapolation of your claims.


Every thing you said in the above paragraph is a strawman. If you want to discuss my arguments, then quote my statements. Stop distorting my statements into your idiotic strawmen arguments.

Fine. How about this one?

Well I think the hypothesis that Redi proposed that "all living matter has sprung from pre-existing living matter" is a very well known fact. It can be observed very easily, and it is observed all the time. These facts were considered by the scientific community some years later to have such a universal application that Thomas Huxley declared this theory as an "established law of nature."

Huxley's address can be found Here

Now scientific laws or laws of nature decribe how nature works. Usually these laws do create boundaries. The law of biogenesis certainly establishes a barrier. However, nothing in science is absolute, so I can agree with you there.

You claim directly here that the law of biogenesis creates a boundary that eliminates abiogenesis as a possibility.

So how exactly did I create a strawman? The bit about a Creator and God is a simple extrapolation, but feel free to ignore that bit if you'd like - we all know that's what your argument eventually boils down to anyway.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

And yet that's what your entire claim in this thread revolves around. You have claimed, specifically and repeatedly, that abiogenesis is "poor science" because it is contradicted by the Law of Biogenesis.


Yes, it is poor science, because the theory has been falsified and there is no observable phenomena to support it, and because the LoB oppopses it.

Provide, immediately, the falsification of abiogenesis. Note that falsification cannot involve "we've never seen it," or I can falsify god. Falsification means you must provide positive observations that eliminate abiogenesis as a possibility, or you need to prove a negative. If you cannot do so, concede that abiogenesis is not falsified.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

Thank you for basically providing multiple occasions where you have compeltely contradicted yourself. Let me draw this out very simply:


I think this sentence says it all! You are going to ignore all my words, all my quotations, and now you are going to once again construct exactly the same strawman that you did before. Go figure...

What claim of yours, or what refutation of mine, did I ignore? Please be specific.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

You claim that abiogenesis is poor science because it is refuted by the Law of Biogenesis, which states that all life originates from pre-existing life.


That's not just a claim, that's the reality of science. But at least you got this part right.

And yet you still have it wrong. As has been explained to you, a few times even by actual biologists, the Law of Biogenesis has nothing to do with the origin of life. It refers to observations regarding extant life, like maggots and bacteria. Fully-formed modern organsims do not spring from the ether, but rather come from pre-existing life. This has nothing to do with where life itself comes from, and in no way can a lack of observation prove that something is impossible. That would be proving a negative.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

You deny that this was intended to apply only to modern, fully-formed life, and has nothing whatsoever to do with life's origin.


The LoB applies to all life. It is that simple. I don't know what "modern fully formed" life is. Is there such a thing as "non-fully formed" life? You see, this is why this crap should not be taught, because you believe there is such a thing. The Cell theory states that all living things are made up of cells. It also states that the cell is the fundamental unit of structure and function in living things. No matter what belief or faith you have in these pre-biotic mythological beings, abiogenesis has to either totally change the current definition of life, or it has to start with something and end with a cell. At that moment the cell will be fully formed. And unfortunately for you, it will also be modern.

So now you've shifted the goalposts from "life" to "cellular life?" How convenient. I'm sure that's what you'll say was your definition of life all along, but it's not a reasonable definition of life at all. Obviously, the first cell could not possibly have originated from a pre-existing cell, unless you believe life has always existed, and we know it has not. It also excludes viruses which have many of the properties of living things, and it excludes the possibility of non-cellular life that may or may not exist elsewhere in the Universe.

The LoB has everthing to do with origins. It is call Biogenesis. Life's beginnings. Life's origins. Saying that it doesn't is just pure ignorance on your part.

AOK, you aren't comprehending anything anyone has said to you. The Law of Biogenesis refers to the spontaneous generation of living microbes and other modern forms of life from nonliving matter, like maggots spontaneously forming on a loaf of bread. It has to do with the origins of individual modern lifeforms, not the origin of life itself.

The Law of Biogenesis is based on our observation that extant organisms do not spontaneously appear, and our knowledge of how extant organisms reproduce. None of those observations preclude abiogenesis; in fact, the latter seems to support it chemically.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

These claims only make sense if you are claiming that abiogenesis is impossible due to the Law of Biogenesis. If the Law of Biogenesis is not an absolute, why are you arguing agains abiogenesis? It doesn't make any sense, and is basically a giant contradiction.


There it is, you constructed exactly the same strawman once again. Maybe that's because Rahvins sit atop scarecrows all day long, and they just feel at home making such fallacious claims. But as long as you continue, I will continue to point it out. No law or theory or anything in science makes anything impossible. Believe abiogenesis if you want, it is possible. It is a falsified theory, and has no natural phenomenon to support such a theory. It is a philosophical faith as Huxley rightly identified. Just don't teach about these mythological pre-life creatures in the schools. That is scientific crap. I am arguing against teaching abiogenesis, because it is just as much a faith as YEC. Keep it out of the schools.

The bolded statements directly contradict one another. Your entire argument in this thread has been that the Law of Biogenesis falsifies abiogenesis, and the bolded statements (well, one of them) confirms that you are making this assertion. The other statment of course says that the Law of Biogenesis is not an absolute...meaning it doesn't actually falsify anything, and so your argument defeats itself.

Abiogenesis is based on solid research and valid observations, and has nothing whatsoever to do with faith. It is not a complete theory, but it does have supporting evidence. Note that supporting evidence is not the same as proof, which is the way you seem to be using the term.

quote:
rahvin writes:

But even further, you claim "there is no evidence for abiogenesis." This is blatantly not true, and others in the thread have given you some of the evidence in favor of abiogenesis. We have managed to observe spontaneously self-assembling pre-biotic chemicals in teh lab from abiotic organic compounds, and multiple pathways to life have been proposed from these and other experiments. A great deal of research has been done on abiogenesis, and the results are extremely promising. Further, unless we introduce a supernatural entity we have never observed, abiogenesis at some point in the history of the Universe is the only possible natural explanation for life - and that supernatural entity we have never observed violates parsimony.


There isn't any evidence that life has come from non living matter.

Except that life didn't always exist, and now it does. That means that somewhere along the way, life came from an environment where life did not exist.

Of course, you can get around this by invoking imaginary deities, but you've already established that you don't like it when I extrapolate your real argument from your basic statements, so I won't go there.

This is a faith.

In what way? be specific. If there was no life at one point, and there is life today, does that not mean that abiogenesis must have occurred? Is that not suppoting evidence, if not specific proof regarding the exact chain of events that occurred? What alternative explanation do you offer? A deity? You likely already know my responses to that one, so please do think of another.

You use the phrase "spontaneously self-assembling pre-biotic chemicals". Did you realize that every chemical reaction in the world fits that descrition. All chemical reactions are spontaneous at some point. All chemical reactions have some level of self assembly. And all chemical reactions can be considered pre-biotic if they aren't alive.

Don't quible over semantics, AOK. Abiogenesis requires specific chemicals to be able to self-assemble in a natural environemnt, without the artificial conditions of a chemistry lab like specific heating and cooling, ctalysts, etc. The right pre-biotic organic compounds must exist naturally.

Of course, we observe many of these abiotic organic compounds on Titan today, so we know they can and do exist without life around to make them.

So if you and others are making up chemical pathways from these, then it is clearly imagination of faith without evidence.

It sounds like you don't know anything about the chemistry of abiogenesis. The chemical pathways proposed begin with the conditions of teh early Earth as suggested by the observations of geologists and places like Titan. Those observations would be evidence, AOK, not imaginings, unless you'd care to assert that geology and direct observation of Titan are somehow "imaginations of faith?"

You say the results are promising from experiments on abiogenesis. They would be promising only for a person of faith. However if all the scientific evidence was shown, the results would be dead ends. Only the results which suit the faith are shown.

This statement is confusing. You seem to be saying that all of the proposed pathways should result in life, and none of them should result in dead ends. That's not consistent with what we expect from abiogenesis - there may be multiple possible pathways, but we certainly don't expect all of them to work.

And of course we only concentrate on teh experiments that work. It's not like we'll get very far building on all the dead ends beyond learning why they stopped, will we?

quote:
Rahvin writes:

Your claim that there is no evidence for abiogenesis is simply wrong, AOK. It may not be a complete theory, and it certainly needs more research to determine its accuracy, but so far the results match what we observe. (anothe tautology) Apparently for you, a hypothesis has "zero" evidence until it is a compelte and accepted theory. But that's not the case, that's not what evidence is. A fingerprint alone does not complete a detective's murder investigation, but it is one piece of evidence. We may not have the smoking gun yet with abiogenesis, but we have multiple fingerprints, a lot of circumstantial evidence, and the DNA testing is running as we speak.


You make an interesting argument about evidence. Unfortunately your argument fails the evidentiary criteria. Fingerprints being linked to suspects are only good evidence, because the phenomena of people leaving fingerprints behind has been observed in the past. There is a chain for this dicovery. With the hypothesis that life came from non-living chemicals we do not have the chain. There is no evidence that suggests that any chemical arrangement of steps for self replicating lipid bilayers or self replicating RNA's or anything else for that matter can form life. The chain only exists in yours and other's imaginations. That's why it's faith.

...except that life did not exist, and now it does, and self-replicating RNA dna lipid bilayers are necessary steps towards abiogenesis. Those would be evidence that it's plausible, not faith. Again, you seem to be using "evidence" to mean "proof," and that;s not the way it works. nobody is saying "we have determined with absolute certainty that abiogenesis happened." We're saying it's the only natural explanation we can think of, and there is a large amount of supporting evidence that suggests it may be a valid explanation.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

1)"You complain about a lack of evidence on the Evolution side? (strawman)"

You did complain that evolutionists were not supporting their arguments with evidence. Right here:

AOkid writes:

I am beginning to see how this forum works...Creationists must present evidence to support their arguments. Evo's present nothing but rhetoric. Then they hijack the thread when they are pigeon holed. Then they declare victory! Halelujah praise the nature god!

Not a strawman, I simply called you out on your bullshit.


Sometimes it is hard to translate peoples thoughts from what they write. I guess you do not think that there is a difference from Evo's (evolutionists) and Evolution. Bringing Evolution into this debate is correctly cited as a strawman, however, I see that you are equating EVO's and Evolution, so I will withdraw the strawman claim in this case.

Retraction noted.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

2)"I don't need to present evidence to point out the logical fallacies in your arguments. (admision that your argument is lame)"

I wasn't aware of the "lame argument" fallacy.


Of course you are not aware of it, because you evidently flunked logic 101 and you evidently have a reading problem. I didn't say there was a lame argument fallacy. I said your argument was lame. If you knew anything about logic you would know that good arguments present citations of evidentiary support for their claims. A lame argument doesn't provide a citation for anything. That's your arguments in a nutshell. Even if you call me on a fallacy, you need to quote my words and identify the fallacy.(like I do every time with you). Instead you claim I am fallacious by creating several strawman arguments in your words. Get some legs Rahvin! Support your arguments with something other than your words.

So, in other words, you're crying becasue I paraphrased you a few times rather than making direct quotes, and therefore my argument is false?

If I get your point wrong in paraphrasing, feel free to correct me by clearly restating your position. My arguments are against your position, not against your semantics.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

But then, I also wasn't wrong: when you make a fallacious argument, all that is required to show the argument is false is to show the fallacies used. No evidence is required for such arguments beyond the fallacious quotes.


I agree. But you do have to provide the quotes! Like I do with you. Instead, you claim that I am arguing that abiogenesis is impossible. Yet you can't provide a quote of me saying that. Instead you imagine my argument. That's dishonest and that is fallacious.

Look above. You did claim that the Law of Biogenesis makes abiogenesis impossible. You contradicted yourself in teh very next sentence, but you did. Here, I'll quote it again:

Now scientific laws or laws of nature decribe how nature works. Usually these laws do create boundaries. The law of biogenesis certainly establishes a barrier. However, nothing in science is absolute, so I can agree with you there.

You say that the Law of Biogenesis creates a barrier, referring to abiogenesis. That's a direct claim that the Law of Biogenesis makes abiogenesis impossible. You;ve done this elsewhere as well. Then you immediately backpedal and say that the Law of Biogenesis is not an absolute...meaning no actual barrier is established. That's where you stop even making sense, let alone constructing rational arguments.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

This is because pointing out fallacies has nothing to do with the evidence the argument is based upon; if you commit an ad hominem, or an argument from ignorance, or any other fallacy, your reasoning is unsound and your conclusion is unfounded. This is not a "lame" argument on my part, it's you whining because I point out your fallacious arguments.


No it's not whining, it's showing how little you know about logic. your arguments are unsound because you continually use strawmen, red herrings and ad hominens. And all arguments are lame if you don't provide citations (legs) for your arguments. You might want to learn some of this stuff rather that embarassing yourself.

You throw around accusations of fallacies like candy, yet I haven't seen you correctly identify any.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

3)"I shouldn't need to cite a paper about the Big Bang when that's not the topic, since you should know at least the basics (that the Universe in its earliest state was much smaller, hotter, and more dense, and that even atoms did not form until significantly later, and all heavier elements are the result of stellar fusion over the course of millions of years) because they are common knowledge.(a total red herring)"

This isn't a red herring, it was an example. We had spoken eariler about how the conditions of the Universe in teh past would have made the existence of life impossible. Specific mention was made by myself and others regarding how hot and dense the Universe was, and that even atoms didn't exist at first. This was relavent because it requires life to form from nonlife because at some point we know that life did not exist, yet it exists today. In this quote, I used that previous note as an example of how I should not need to submit a paper to support an assertion based on common knowledge like the Big Bang.


It still is a total red herring. It's an off topic argument. Even if I agreed with the BB theory, it is off topic to this thread about what we should teach regarding LoB and abiogenesis.

It's not off-topic. The Big Bang was brought up to briefly illustrate the fact that, until enough time had passed, it was impossible for life to exist anywhere. This is extremely relavent to abiogenesis, as it eliminates the possibility of life having always existed.

Abiogenesis is a theory that must have evidentiary support. The BBT is not evidence in anyway shape or form of abiogenesis. Evidence of abiogenesis is some hint of observation that there really is a chemical pathway. Instead we have an infinite number of steps and nothing suggesting the linkage of all those steps together. Imagination is all you have. That's why when I keep requesting citations for evidence, you say "I don't need to provide evidence." That's because there is none.

Abiogenesis does have evidentiary support. It's just not proven, which is what you seem to think "evidentiary support" means. Multiple (NOT infinite) pathways have been proposed, and many of them have in fact been linked together. Combined with the fact that we don't see any barrier preventing abiogenesis from happening given the environment of the early Earth, and teh fact that life did not always exist but now does, and the fact that life as we know it for all objective purposes seems to be nothing more than a complex series of chemical interactions, well...that's not imagination, AOK. That's evidentiary support. It's not proof, but it's enough to say "we think this might be it."

This evidence has been provided to you multiple times in the thread. Your insistence that no evidence has been provided is dishonest.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

I note that you did not mention the fact that my accusation that your logic was "idiotic" was not an ad hominem as you claimed. I did not say "you are an idiot, ergo your conclusion is invalid." I said "you logic is idiotic." I pointed out your fallacious reasoning as the invalidation of your conclusion, not your stupidity.


The fact is it is an ad hominem attack. A person's logic comes from their mind. You effectively are saying my mind is idiotic. You are claiming that I have a severe form of retardation. Now if that is not ad hominen, then nothing is. You would be thrown out of logic 101 making such a statement about an opponent. Just because you try and spin this does not take away the personal attack.

Christ. You really do need to go back to Logic 101. An ad hominem takes a very specific form:

"Because you are an idiot, your argument is false."

Note that the claim that the argument is false rests entirely on the accusation of idiocy. There is no support for the idiocy, neither is any actual reason given that would refute the argument. This is an ad hominem.

"Your argument is idiotic. Here's how it's wrong..."

Note that in this case the argument is refuted not by the accusation of idiocy, but by the explanation of why the argument was invalid. The charge of idiocy is actually a conclusion irrelevant to the actual refutation based on the clumsiness of the opponent's argument. The charge of idiocy is not part of the refutation in any way. This is not an ad hominem, and this is what I did.

Here is evidentiary support for you:

quote:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem as abusive, sexist, racist, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it. Ad hominem


And your own definition proves that Im right. Note the bolded section. Specifically, "of the person making the argument or claim." I said your argument was idiotic. I did not say you are an idiot. My refutation did not consist of a charge that you are an idiot and thus your argument was false. I said your argument was idiotic, and showed why.

Again, the only argument you used was your own made up and debunked strawman argument. So the only idiocy was your own words, because you cannot cite me saying those things. It is a continuance of your fallaciousness.

Well, let's go back, shall we? Here is the post in question:

quote:
You're idiotic arguments mostly consist of "Life exists, ergo God" and "we haven't observed maggots springing out of the air, so abiogenesis is impossible." Once again, your arguments are logically unsound.

Note that I said that your arguments were idiotic. I claimed that your argumetns are unsound. Most of the rest of my post was spent showing why those arguments are unsound.

And stop with the bullshit about strawmans. You've claimed we've been using strawman arguments when we refer to the claims above, but here you are making those precise claims:

quote:
CS writes:

What lifeform did the first lifeform come from if it had to come from another lifeform?


God. 1Ti 6:13 ...God, who gives life to all things,...

Disassembling this argument shows that you are, in fact, arguing that "Life exists, ergo god." You claim that abiogenesis is refuted by the Law of Biogenesis, and thus the only possible explanation is God.

Obviously, that wasn't a strawman, as your own words show that it is an accurate portrayal of your position.

I'll once again say that your argumetns are idiotic because you are attempting to show that god is a reasonable explanation by excluding abiogenesis, and your argument against abiogenesis is riddled with holes. Once again, the evidentiary support for the Law of Biogenesis is a lack of observation of abiogenesis, combined with what we know about how extant life forms reproduce. Neither of those bits of evidence refutes abiogenesis - at best, the lack of observation is neutral, and cannot prove the negative that abiogenesis is impossible. It's worse, because we don't even expect abiogenesis to occur in today's environment - it's compeltely different from the environemnt where those chemical pathways are possible. So claiming that abiogenesis is refuted is an idiotic claim.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

Further, nobody here is saying "Life exists, ergo nature." What we're saying is that the Law of Biogenesis as recognized by scientists specifically deals with fully-formed organisms and has nothing to do with the slow, gradual approach hypothesized by abiogenesis.


What has been stated many times and in many ways is that life didn't once exist on this earth and now it does. That's the "life exists" part. The next statements basically say "therfore abiogenesis is the only natural answer." That's the "ergo nature" part. This has been argued by many in this thread.

Science concerns itself with natural explanations, because (as has been stated by others) observed natural phenomenon have thus far always had natural explanations. We have a great deal of evidence suggesting that everything in the Universe has a natural explanation - we have no evidence of the supernatural. The supernatural comprises an extraordinary claim - that is, it claims something beyond ordinary observation. Thus it requires extraordinary evidence in order to support it as opposed to a natural explanation. This is why we accept the scientific, natural explanation for lightning, for example, and do not believe Thor or Zeus are actually responsible. If you propose that the supernatural is an explanation for the existence of life, you are making an extraordinary claim and must provide extraordinary evidence to support it. Abiogenesis is a natural explanation for what appears to be a natural phenomenon. There is no evidence of supernatural involvement, and yet there is supporting evidence in favor of abiogenesis. It is not based on faith, but rather on objective evidence and rational conclusions based on teh evidence - the very opposite of faith.

Your insistence that abiogenesis is a faith-based approach is nothing more than projection of your own silly faith-based beliefs in god.

You continually make the claim that LoB "specifically deals with fully-formed organisms and has nothing to do with the slow, gradual approach hypothesized by abiogenesis." Now I challenge you to present evidence that there is such a thing as a non-fully formed organism. Abiogenesis must at some point arrive at the cellular level. There is no evidence of life smaller than the cellular level according to the Cell theory. So, I'm waiting. What are these mythological characters you call non-fully formed organisms? This is nothing more than equivolcating language which is just more Rahvinous fallacies.

Now you expect me to provide evidence that doesn't exist yet? Abiogenesis is incomplete, AOK, and we've never claimed otherwise. How could I possibly show you an example of a pre-cellular organism if we haven't gotten that far yet? You're expecting abiogenesis to be a complete theory, and it's not - neither have any of us pretended otherwise. It's a good hypothesis based on strong evidence, but if we had gotten so far as to show pre-cellular life, abiogenesis would be virtually proven and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But as an example, viruses are non-ceullular and yet have most of the properties of life. Not quite all, as they require a living host cell to hyjack so that they can reproduce, but they are some excellent evidence that the properties we identify as life are not so much of a black/white, alive/not-alive binary, but are rather part of a spectrum with inert matter on one side and life on the other, and a lot of gray area in between. Abiogenesis research explores the gray area, and so far it looks like that view may be correct, and that given the correct environment and enough time, cellular life can eventually develop from inert matter.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

What we're saying is that it's foolhardy to say "we've never observed x, and so x is impossible." Unlikely perhaps, but there are very few absolutes in the Universe.


You see Rahvin, you use fallacies so often that you don't even know when you do it. Here you go once again using the strawman fallacy that I said "x is impossible". I haven't. Quote me if you think I have.

Sure. Here you go:

quote:
Rahvin writes:

You claim that abiogenesis is poor science because it is refuted by the Law of Biogenesis, which states that all life originates from pre-existing life.


That's not just a claim, that's the reality of science. But at least you got this part right.

You claim that abiogenesis is refuted by the Law of Biogenesis. You've said this several times in the thread.

Do you understand what that means? If law X refutes hypothesis Y, it means that Y should be impossible if law X is at all accurate. You claimed, right here, that the Law of Biogenesis makes abiogenesis impossible so long as the Law of Biogenesis remains accurate.

The problem, of course, is that it does not refute abiogenesis. It refutes the idiot Creationist video about life springing from a jar of peanut butter, but that was a ridiculous strawman of abiogenesis. Are you also strawmanning abiogenesis in this way? Because such scenarios are the only ones where the Law of Biogenesis has any relavence.

The Law of Biogenesis does not refute abiogenesis because the evidence supporting the Law of Biogenesis consits of a lack of observation, which can never prove something impossible because you cannot prove a negative, and knowledge of modern, extant life forms, which are compeltely different from the first forms of life hypothesized by abiogenesis, existing in a compeltely different environment.

So once again, AK, your claim that the LoB refutes abiogenesis is flatly wrong. No strawman, just a very simple refutation based on facts.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

What we're saying is that abiogenesis research has gone a long way in providing evidence showing that abiogenesis may be plausible, and worthy of further investigation as opposed to something to be dismissed out of hand as you say.


Plausibility is in the eyes of the beholder. It is not "theoretically" plausible. But if you want to believe it and fund it and persue it, then go ahead. I have nothing against that. Just don't teach that it is plausible. That's faith.

Plausibility in scientific terms is not a subjective assessment, AOK. That abiogenesis is thus far a plausible explanation for the origin of life is an objective conclusion based on the evidence - it has nothing whatsoever to do with faith. You're confusing personal credulity with whether something has been shown to be possible or impossible. So far, abiogenesis has not been refuted, yet has not been completed. Thus it is a possibility, a plausible hypothesis based on the evidence available.

That's not faith. Faith is a belief that is not based on evidence...like your faith in god, and your belief that god is the initial lifeform that spawned all other life. And don't try to say I'm strawmanning you again - for fucks sake, I quoted you saying exactly that a few paragraphs above.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

What we're saying is that if we have models that have proven to be extremely accurate that make the existence of life in the Universe impossible at certain points and yet life exists, abiogenesis at some point is the only natural explanation.


And what I have shown previously is that this is the fallacy of argumentum ad ignoratium. With quantum physics at its infancy, you are only allowing your mind to realize the four dimensions of space and time to draw your conclusions. There is evidence that there are many more dimensions in this reality of science. And some of those dimensions may be involved with the origin of life. All of this would still result in a natural solution.

Quantum physics is in its infancy? Really?

There may be additional dimentions in our Universe, and still more outside of it. But that's irelevant - we're talking about biology here. If you believe other dimensions may have an influence on biology, feel free to present evidence ofsuch an extraordinary claim, because we've never observed life being influenced by any dimension other than the four we know of. I won't hold my breath.

It looks like you're the one arguing from ignorance. "We don't know, so anything is possible! Except abiogenesis. Another dimension could be responsible for life!"

quote:
Rahvin writes:

What we're saying is that it violates parsimony to assume a supernatural explanation for life appearing in the Universe at some point when no actual evidence for a supernatural agency exists.


It's clear from this statement that you do not understand parsimony. If anything the slow gradual process of the mythological abiogenetic process violates the law of parsimony relative to the creation myth.

Ah, so you're a subscriber to the "simplest explanation" meaning "the explanation most attractive to my personal credulity, and easiest for me to understand."

Let's take the time to explain parsimony to you then, shall we, AOK?

IF

1 + 1 = 2

AND

1 + 1 + x = 2

THEN

x = 0

In this case, the x is at best irrelevant to the equasion, and at worst nonexistent. We can write it out as

1 + 1 + x = 2

or even

1 + 1 + x + x + x + x = 2

and so on. But this violates pasrimony - the simplest expression, meaning the expression utilizing the fewest terms, is to be preferred. So we write such an aquasion as

1 + 1 = 2.

In the case of the Universe, we have observational evidence for natural processes, life, the three spacial dimensions, etc. We do not have evidence of the supernatural, or god. One equasion could be written this way:

IF

+

AND

+

THEN

is at best irrelevant, and at worst nonexistent. In any case, without evidence requiring to be included in the expression, it is a violation of parsimony to include it.

You seem to be saying that because is simpler than , and so is the more parsimonious explanation. That's not what parsimony means, and further, doesn't explain anything any more than explains how my car was repaired.

In this way, the slow, natural evolution of life from simple self-replicating molecules is more parsimonious than invoking the supernatural becaue there is no evidence of the supernatural - adding unnecessary entities when another explanation is available is a violation of parsimony, while extrapolating evidence with reasonable conclusions is not.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

Once again, AOK, you throw the word "fallacy" around like it's going out of style, and in doing so you incorrectly identify arguments as fallacious constantly.


Once again Rahvin, you don't understand fallacies, because you practice them so frequently. I've addressed your whole post now, and have added to your list. I've quoted your words and spelled out the fallacies. While you create arguments and call them mine.

I've illustrated how you're wrong, AOK. You misuse nearly every term you touch, from ad hominem to parsimony.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

On top of that, your actual argument has been repeatedly crushed by myself and others.


Yes, it's pretty easy to crush an idiotic argument that you make up isn't it. But that's what Rahvins do. They sit atop strawmen all day long. Funny, I think you're the one who has been thoroughly refuted. And you have demonstrated how little you know about fallacies and logic. But you do live in an imaginary world with non-fully formed life.

Did you notice how everyone in the thread agrees that you're wrong about the same points? It would appear that you're only correct in your own mind.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

Abiogenesis is not poor science.


No it is just falsified science.

Present the falsification of abiogenesis or concede. Once again, a falsification cannot consist of a lack of observation, because you cannot prove a negative. Further, a falsification cannot involve observations that are irrelevant to the hypothesis - that is, observations that all forms of existing life spring from pre-existing life are irrelavnet when discussing the initial form of life, partcularly when the environment would be compeltely different.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

It does have supporting evidence, even if it is not a fully-formed theory as of yet.


Maybe hypotheses and theories can be not fully formed like pre-biotic life. If the hypothesis is not fully formed, then it is not falsifiable, and it is poor science.

It is falsifiable. Show that there is a barrier beyond which pre-biotic chemicals cannot cross on the pathway to life. Show that some of the chemical interactions required for life are not possible given the conditions of the early Earth. Show that living matter is fundamentally different from nonliving matter except that it is participating in the specific set of chemical interactions we identify as life. Any of these would falsify abiogenesis.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

It is a valid conclusion based on teh evidence we have available about our Universe.


So is creation theory. It and abiogenesis are philosphical faiths.

Bullshit. Creation "theory" is based on an old myth. Abiogenesis is rooted in observations of teh real world. Don't try to conflate faith and science, AOK. There are no observations that support creation, no evidence beyond words written by stoneage nomads who still thought the Earth was flat and rested on "pillars." Creation "theory" violates all of physics, geology, biology, oceanography, meteorology, and astronomy. Abiogenesis violates no scientific models, fits with what we know about the early Earth and the rise of life, and thus far is chemically sound. There's an awfully large difference.

Science is held to far higher standards than your religious bullshit, AOK.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

And teh law of Biogenesis has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of life itself, as you have erroneously claimed.


Nothing whatsoever. The word Biogenesis means the origin of life. But it has nothing to do with the origin of life.

We could accurately call it the Law of the Origin of Life. Would that help your understanding? Nah.......

There's a reason it's not called that. The evidence used to formulate the Law of biogenesis had literally nothing to do with life's origins. It has to do with the origins of individual, extant life forms. The genesis of maggots and bacteria comes from pre-existing life; the genesis of life itself is entirely different.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

Furiously backpedaling by saying "the Law of Biogenesis is not an absolute, of course" only serves to contradict your own argument, which depends entirely on the Law of Biogenesis being absolute.


Furiously backpedalling. Yes, over and over again, I have stated from the beginning of this thread that the LoB is not absolute. But to equivocating Rahvin, that is called backpedalling. And I see you cannot help but once again restating your continuing strawman that my argument depends on this. Look at the OP Rahvin. Do I mention "absolute". No. But your mind works in mysterious ways. You have the ability, and you think you have the right to restate others arguments. I find that not only fallacious, but dishonest. In your case after showing you time and time again, and ignoring all my quotes, you still persist. But that's what Rahvins do. They perch atop strawmen all day long.

You've claimed in this very post that the LoB refutes abiogenesis, which it can only do if the LoB is an absolute.

If it's not an absolute, then it cannot refute abiogenesis.

So which is it, AOK?

AOK, you toss around fallacies left and right, accusing people of strawman arguments when they actually do reflect your position. You accuse people of red herrings when they try to illustrate a relavent point. You accuse people of ad hominem attacks when your arguments are refuted.

You don't even use terminology correctly. You clearly don't understand parsimony, or abiogenesis. You invoke the supernatural in a science thread without a shred of evidence.

You're nothing more than a particularly loud Creationist. We've seen your type before, latching onto a scientific principle you barely understand and insisting it proves other scientific theories wrong, as if actual scientists wouldn't have noticed that before you. You're like the idiot Creationist who claims that teh Second Law of Thermodynamics proves evolution cannot happen.

Like them, your argumetns are flawed due to your basic misunderstanding of the scientific principles you are using. Worse, you exacerbate your ignorance with accusations of fallacious reasoning when the comments you refer to are not.

Provide some actual evidence that refutes abiogenesis or concede your argument, AOK. The Law of Biogenesis certainly doesn't do it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-04-2008 6:01 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-06-2008 2:08 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 282 of 312 (478440)
08-15-2008 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by AlphaOmegakid
08-15-2008 10:52 AM


Re: more one liner hand waiving form doku
AOKid, I don't know what to say other than you're an idiot.

You've stated that viruses don't have genes and don't evolve, and yet that's the farthest thing from the truth. You've stated that they cannot be alive because they are "agents of death," and while your conclusion is debatable, your reasoning is, to put it mildly, stupid.

And here's why:

Viruses do contain RNA. They do contain a genetic code. They simply cannot express their own genes - that's why they need a host cell. They do evolve, and as evidence I point to the common flu, and HIV, two of the most rapidly-evolving organisms we know of. The entire reason we have such difficulty with HIV, and the reason you hear about "bird flu" and all of the other varieties, is because the pathogens mutate extremely rapidly.

As far as "agents of death" not being alive, well...as I said, that's stupid. Many bacteria are "agents of death." Technically speaking, nearly all non-plant organisms (and some plants, too) live only by the death of other organisms, making them (including us) "agents of death."

That viruses are or are not alive is a very debatable subject. They occupy a grey area somewhere in between living and nonliving matter. They cannot reproduce on their own...but then, neither can many parasites like tapeworms, who require a host in order to procreate. They cannot express their own genes...until they invade a host cell, at which point their genes become expressed and they start churning out viral copies. They're made of the same stuff all other known life is made of, the same compounds, simply using RNA instead of DNA (note that RNA is nothing more than a more "simple" version of DNA - Ribonucleic Acid as opposed to Deoxyribonucleic Acid - with only a single helix as opposed to the double helix of DNA). They seem to meet most of the definitions of life (reproduction, metabolization, passing genetic info to offspring, etc) when in the environment of a host cell, and only not meeting them while not in a host cell. But then, do spores meet those definitions while remaining dormant until they reach their suitable environment? Viruses bear all of the hallmarks of being that fuzzy area between living and non-living matter, sometimes behaving identically to life, but lacking a great deal of the complexity exhibited by other forms of life.

Your reasoning that they are not alive because they are "agents of death" is plainly wrong because all other "agents of death" are considered alive, and most things that are not alive are also not "agents of death."

All of this?

Yes in a lysogenic cycle the cell can live and reproduce with the virus inside. However, the dormancy doesn't last forever. Eventually the virus lyses the cell. It is an agent of death.

CS then erroneously cited the wiki article on endogenous retroviruses. I assume he did a cursory reading like you to see that these viruses do not immediately kill. But they eventually do. Endogenous retoviruses are bad news. They are agents of death. Just because the death is not immediate doesn't mean that the virus is still not a "poison" or "toxin" to the cells/organism.

Completely irrelevant. "Agent of death" is not a useful definition for determining living vs. nonliving matter.

Your reasoning that they are not alive because they "don't have genes" or "don't evolve" is obviously just factually wrong.

This?

Viruses all have genetic material, but not all viruses have genes. Some viruses have DNA and they have genes. Some viruses only have RNA, and they don't have genes. The RNA molecule can reverse transcribe itself back into DNA in the case of retroviruses and then it is a gene. But RNA viruses do not have genes. Genes are sections of DNA. Biology 101.

Entirely irrelevant. Whether you're right or wrong, you're defining all viruses as "non-alive." If some viruses do in fact posess genes (and they really all do, but thats still irrelevant), you can't say that all viruses are not alive because some do not. That's like saying that becasue some people are tall, all people can reach the rim of a basketball hoop.

And of course, you are wrong. It's irrelevant to the reason your logic is flawed, but I really can't let you think you're right when you're not, either. From Wiki:

quote:
Biologists debate whether or not viruses are living organisms. Some consider them non-living as they do not meet all the criteria used in the common definitions of life. For example, unlike most organisms, viruses do not have cells. However, viruses have genes and evolve by natural selection. Others have described them as organisms at the edge of life.

I really don't think you even took Biology 101, let alone anything further. Again, viruses occupy a gray area where the definition of life becomes fuzzy and difficult. Honestly, the biggest reason I see that viruses are often not considered alive is because they are not composed of cells - which is an arbitrary and silly definition of life when we have an example of a non-cellular organism that meets all of the other known properties of life. You may as well arbitrarily define that only individuals over 6' tall are human beings, even though individuals who are shorter meet every other definition for humanity.

The fact that viruses occupy such a gray area is actually some of the best evidence in favor of abiogenesis beyond the simple "life didnt exist before and nw it does" logical conclusion. An organism that challenges our very definition of what is and is not alive should also challenge ideas like Pasteur's Law of Biogenesis, since a reproducing organism that is both alive and not alive depending on how you measure it simultaneously conforms to and refutes the idea that all life must come from pre-existing life. It also strikingly shows that the complexity of life really is a sliding scale, and that not all life needs to be as complex as Paseur's maggots, or indeed even a unicellular amoeba. The fact that viruses meet so many of the properties of life while being so much closer to non-living simple organic chemicals than cellular life shows that the idea that life may have arisen as a gradual process from non-living organic self-replicating molecules into the variety we see today is in fact a plausible one. Viruses, in fact, completely refute many of the different arguments you have made in this thread, from the claim that there "is no evidence for a gradual formation of life" to your very definition of life itself.

AOKid, you live in a very black-and-white world. To you, a thing is either alive or it is not, and the mere concept of life being a non-binary judgment is anathema to you. But this is a fallacious mode of reasoning. In much the same way we have the words "tall" and "short" and yet height itself is a sliding scale with many people being somewhere in between, so is the delineation of living matter a sliding scale with many examples of "living" and "non-living" things with many organisms, like viruses, existing somewhere in between the two. Modern hypotheses regarding abiogenesis tend to focus on those gray areas, and inquire into wat really defines life, and whether non-living matter can, in fact, give rise to a living thing. This is not bad science, this is not faith, this is a perfectly reasonable exploration into a possibility suggested by objecteve evidence. We should teach abiogenesis in biology classrooms because students need to know that life is not a black/white judgment, so that they don't make the same fallacious conclusions you have. We should teach it for the same reasons and to the same extent we teach kids about quantum physics or other "bleeding-edge" sciences, so that they can learn about what is currently being researched and be prepared to join their elders in the lab when they graduate.

Your attempts to conflate the real science of abiogenesis with faith are transparent and fallacious. You're using the same idiotic reasoning that all Creationists use when they say "your belief in evolution is based on faith, so its just as valid as my beliefs." Abiogenesis research, like evolution, is not based on faith, but is instead based on following the objective evidence wherever it leads and sharing the results. Your beliefs in special Creation and your deity, however, have no objective evidence. The two are not comparable, and your attempts to conflate them are foolish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-15-2008 10:52 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019