Biogenesis

Really? What?I don't know where you're going with this topic, Alpha. It's really quite simple. The Law of Biogenesis of Pasteur is about extant forms of life coming only from life. It has nothing to do with the origins of life itself, when all (including creationists) agree that life must have come from non-life at some point and in some way unless it's eternal.

Why not barge? It's an open forum, and I just did! What you refer to as genetic software is all made of chemicals. If there's a change in information by mutation, that's a chemical change.

By which you mean that the arrangement of chemicals is important in determining exactly what chemical reactions will and will not take place. Yes, of course. More precisely, it's not "to say" that, but it is like saying that, which (I think) is what you meant. Yes. The Hoot Mon thoughts come from the specific and unique arrangement of the chemicals in the Hoot Mon brain in reaction and relation to the complete Hoot Mon environment as perceived through the Hoot Mon senses. And the Hoot Mon "genetic code" comes from the specific and unique arrangement of chemicals in the Hoot Mon genome which, in reaction to a chemical environment, made Hoot Mon (happily ).There is nothing "more" than chemical reactions involved (so far as we can observe). The arrangement of the chemicals is a result of historical chemical reactions.

The arrangement of the chemicals determines what reactions will and will not happen, as I said above, and how the chemicals are arranged (those that determine Bill Gates's thoughts, for example) is the product of chemical history, and the chemical history has been subject to loads of variation and natural selection, which is why some arrangements of chemicals can give us the impression of containing "information" and "codes".

What are you asking me to agree with? Simple chemical reactions are simple chemical reactions, and complex chemical processes are complex chemical processes. Originally, someone made the statement that we could observe that life requires more than chemical reactions.We haven't observed that, IMO. Take all the chemicals out of a life form, and you're left with a void. Describing arrangements of chemicals as information (suspended or not) does not make them something other than arrangements of chemicals.Surely you agree?

Hoot, my point is not about the degree of importance of the arrangements of chemicals. It is that if you take away the chemicals from life, and look at what's left, you're looking at a void. Right. All done by chemical reactions. The chemicals and their arrangement determine whether something is a life form or a rock. We can call certain chemical arrangements information, certainly, making it a word to describe chemical arrangements. And the unique chemical arrangements of their brains. Mere molecules can and have assembled themselves into your "genetic code".

Rather, if you take away the code of life, you have taken away a blob of chemicals. Mere molecules!?! Why do you speak of molecules/chemicals as if they are lowly things? In the right assembly, they can make up something as extraordinary as the bluegenes brain and its thought processes. That, in itself, should be enough to make us all into nature worshippers. Are we on topic?

Certainly. All stored in the splendid arrangement of the molecules that constitute it. We live in a universe in which it is natural for chemicals to form themselves into superb arrangements like the bluegenes brain (equipped as it is with sterling qualities, like modesty ).As for the topic, the Law of Biogenesis is absolutely correct when it means that extant life forms always come from other life, but it is not a law about the origins of life itself. A law that declared that the first life could not originate from non-life would be called The Law of Eternal Life.The essential thing about I.D./creationism is the creation of a false universe which cannot produce/include some of the phenomena observed in it. A simpler universe than this one. So, in the minds of superstitious humans, intelligent intervention is required to throw thunderbolts in spectacular storms, or control the explosions of the local volcano, or create planets and/or life and particular life forms, particular "kinds".It's a complex universe, from our perspective, so one of the funniest things is when I.D.ers point to complexity as evidence for their interventionist designer, having created a false non-complex universe in their minds. If there's a designer who wants complexity, he'd create a complex universe that does complexity on its own, surely. A universe like the one we can observe around us, in which chemicals arrange themselves into wondrous structures, like bluegenes.

I assure you, Alpha, it requires no philosophical faith to consider natural explanations for natural phenomena as being by far the most likely, as those are the only sort ever observed, and they can be observed everyday, anywhere.Tell me, does it take faith to expect unnatural or non-natural explanations for natural phenomena? How often do you observe the non-natural? What is the evidence for the existence of the non-natural? Look around you. The hypothesis that it came from non-living matter is very strongly supported by the observable fact that it's made from non-living matter. Its atoms and molecules make life collectively, but while doing so, are not alive individually. Not at all. Many creationists have posted here for years without coming up with a single jot of evidence for creationism. We're accustomed to it, and I'm sure you'll be no exception. Really? Have you counted how many new transitional fossils we've presented just this year? Have you read recent threads on Lenski's laboratory work and the mammalian bloodclotting system? You may not agree with it, but we present and present and present, and we'll continue to present, because it's easy to present evidence for reality. Both are. The law of biogenesis is about extant life coming from other life forms, and that appears to be universally true. Its supporters, like Pasteur, never argued that life was eternal, and it has nothing to do with the origins of life, a mistake often made by creationists as they clutch at straws.Even without the technical backing of experiments carried out over the last 60 years, abiogenesis hypotheses are good science as abiogenesis is the only possible natural explanation* for the life we see around us, and there is at present no evidence supporting the idea of non-natural explanations for anything in the universe, or even for the existence of the non-natural. *(Panspermia just changes the site of the abiogenesis).You claim to be a logician, so you'll agree with me there.

You'd be correct to say that scientists don't know how it came about, but not that they don't have a clue. There are reasonable hypotheses, and I read an article recently which indicated that they're getting warm (it was on the 'net, and I'll try and remember where, and dig it out for you in the next 24 hours).

So, we're in agreement that natural explanations are the only sort worth considering, and that the law of biogenesis only concerns extant organisms. Good. We agree that explanations should be natural, and we observe that life exists, so either it's eternal, or it must have formed from non-life by abiogenesis. You seem to be opting for the eternal explanation, which is interesting. Your way of looking at things means that if things are old, and their beginnings cannot be directly observed, they are eternal. You can argue with the cosmologists and creationists about that. Good. So you agree that natural explanations for natural phenomena are the natural default, making the hypothesis of abiogenisis into a strong theory, unless life is eternal. I don't think of your God as non-natural. I think of him as an imaginary friend that you carry around in your head, and this is a common phenomenon, with many different people having many different gods in their heads. It disagrees with you on the eternal nature of life, as well. But Jewish mythology is as irrelevant to science as all other mythologies. Do discuss it and your friend in the religion threads. You understand what "extant" means by now, so you can see that there's no conflict. All things in historical science rely on indirect observation. That includes the evidence that life is not eternal. So, you see, abiogenesis is actually the obvious natural explanation for the observable presence of life, and therefore, obviously, it requires no faith to think that it happened at least once in the universe, and probably on this planet. I am not contradicting myself. Atoms are never alive. Collections of them arranged in the right way can make life, as they can make all else we see around us. Do ask the physicists. Similar, yes, with the obvious difference that I can back it up.Aren't you now in agreement that abiogenesis is the only plausible natural explanation for the existence of the life we observe around us? And, as we've agreed, there's no evidence of the supernatural or non-natural. So, a belief in abiogenesis comes from indirect observation and logic.This is easy to understand, surely?

But we're not too tightly bound by that in an EvC debate, obviously, as it inevitably includes some philosophy, because of the "C"! That's why I pointed out to you why we look for natural explanations (the absence of evidence for the non-natural). I've pointed out that your interpretation of the law requires life to be eternal. Combined with your rejection of evolution, this raises the fascinating spectacle of elephants having produced elephants for eternity. I love the idea, and it's certainly original, but there's overwhelming evidence against the eternal existence of contemporary creatures, and of life in general.However, if you count this as my "imagination", let's look at some other views of your Law.Biology Online.org has this in their dictionary (my emphasis):

quote:

---

Law of biogenesis. The law which states that life arises from existing life.

​

The ancient greeks believed that living things could originate from nonliving matter (abiogenesis) and that the goddess Gea could make life arise spontaneously from stones. aristotle disagreed, but he still believed that creatures could arise from dissimilar organisms or from soil. variations of this concept of spontaneous generation still existed as late as the 17th century, but towards the end of the 17th century a series of observations, experiments, and arguments began that eventually discredited such ideas. This advance in scientific understanding was met with much opposition, with personal beliefs and individual predjudices often obscuring the facts.

​

Francesco Redi, an Italian physician, proved as early as 1668 that higher forms of life did not originate spontaneously, but proponents of abiogenesis claimed that this did not apply to microbes and continued to hold that these could arise spontaneously. attempts to disprove the spontaneous generation of life from non-life continued in the early 1800s with observations and experiments by Franz Schulze and Theodor Schwann.

​

In 1864, louis pasteur finally announced the results of his scientific experiments. In a series of neat experiments, pasteur demonstrated that life today did not arise in areas that had not been contaminated by existing life. Pasteur's empirical results were summarized in the phrase, Omne vivum ex ovo, latin for "all life [is] from eggs". thus dr. Louis pasteur finally overcame the longstanding belief in spontaneous generation of life.

​

It is worth noting that louis Pasteur's research dealt with what can be observed to happen in the present day and says nothing about what may have happened on earth in the past. Indeed, both advocates of evolution and advocates of creationism both endorse abiogenesis as the means by which life began on earth, the latter group simply claiming that god did it. young earth creationists even go so far as to claim that fully grown creatures were created in their present form some six to ten thousand years ago, an idea which would seem to be completely discredited by Pasteur's research.

---

Law of biogenesis Definition and Examples - Biology Online DictionaryPasteur's research was entirely about dispelling the popular myths that things like maggots that appeared to materialise from nothing actually came from eggs, hence the famous quote "Omne vivum ex ovo", (which is actually not even true).Your cherished law has nothing to do with origins, and neither Pasteur (Catholic) nor its other supporters thought that elephants had been producing elephants for eternity.So, how do you disagree with my view that abiogenesis is the most plausible natural explanation for the origins of life? Philosophically, it could have been the game plan of a god who created nature, if you like, but god or no god, it's still life from no life.And don't start waffling about string hypotheses. There's not much point in using arguments from incredulity about evolution and abiogenesis if you're prepared (as I am) to accept the possibility that we may be in a multi-dimentional universe!

Two very reasonable complaints, Bluejay, but I'm falling in love with the idea of eternal life. There's no way out of it, if all life must come from life, the planet is eternal, and if macroevolution doesn't happen, we should be seeing my eternal elephants stretching through the fossil record to infinity.AOkid doesn't seem to grasp it, but in attempting an attack on the naturalistic view of origins, he ends up with an attack on all origins theories, and the concept of origins itself.I find this hilarious. Forget billions of years, we're talking infinite organisms here.

We would have to consider the Spaghetti monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn along with your Allah.....And how do we choose between all these?ForbiddenThere is no evidence for the existence of the non-natural, and if you want it in considered in science education, then you should get going with your Ouija board, and do some serious research. Until you produce evidence for the non-natural, the best natural explanation is some form of abiogenesis. Rambling on about a law that biologists have never applied to origins will make no difference to this. You must be trying to amuse us.

The difference between natural explanations for natural phenomena and non-natural explanations for natural phenomena is that the former are well proven to exist, and the latter, like Santa Claus, are not known to exist and are apparent products of human imagination.Abiogenesis of some sort somewhere is the only plausible natural explanation for the existence of life at this moment.Writing one hundred posts containing the word "fallacy" 1000 times will not change that. If you can think of any other natural explanation for the existence of life, do tell us.Non-natural explanations are easy to make up, and I gave you a link to some of the world's many creation mythologies in the previous post. As you can see, they're all silly and contradict the evidence we have about this planet.Keep your temper.