Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2019 10:37 PM
25 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, kjsimons, xongsmith (4 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,225 Year: 12,261/19,786 Month: 2,042/2,641 Week: 551/708 Day: 110/135 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
192021Next
Author Topic:   Biogenesis
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 312 (478071)
08-11-2008 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Blue Jay
08-11-2008 3:22 PM


Re: Pigs flying over China!
I have been straightforward and honest with you, admitting to you when I made mistakes, changing my arguments to your satisfaction, apologizing when my wordings or assumptions were poor, and repenting when I wrote something inappropriate. Yet, all you seem capable of returning to me is self-righteous "forgiveness" for a swear word and mockery for an inability to understand your miserable interpretation of the workings of logic and science, with a simultaneous inability and/or unwillingness to respond to any of the arguments placed before you. I understand your arguments just fine: I am rejecting them, because they are stupid and wrong. And you are simply calling me stupid because I disagree.

Its called being a troll.

In addition, I would like you to take a look at message #197,

That link don't work...

Its best to use:

[msg=-197]

which becomes:

Message 197 (but that only works for messages within the same thread)

If you leave out the negative sign, it looks like:

Message 197


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Blue Jay, posted 08-11-2008 3:22 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1073 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 257 of 312 (478161)
08-12-2008 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Blue Jay
08-11-2008 3:22 PM


Bluejay writes:

Um... the evidence clearly shows that I did recognize it, and that I did call you on it,

Yes, you did. I made it obvious, so you would. That is the only strawman that I have made in this large thread and it was on purpose. Again, please accept my apologies. However, you and others don't reconize your own strawmen when you create them. That was my point. Over and over, I have called these out.

Bluejay writes:

You keep diverting the thread away from the topic at hand for the opportunity to mock me and my colleagues, and have somehow managed to forget that your whole point on this thread was to show me that abiogenesis is not science, and that you are not addressing this main point because you would rather make fun of scientists.

Yes, that's the purpose of strawman arguments. To divert the thread. That's why I have been persistent in calling them out, over and over again, because you and others have been diverting the thread by constantly using them. My intent is certainly not to mock or make fun of scientists. If I had evidence that a scientist was in this thread, then he/she should be doing a fine job defending whatever line of argumentation they were presenting. So far I can't imagine a scientist in this thread. (argumentum ad ignoratium.) Certainly no one has been mocked more than creationists in this thread. But I don't request anyones sympathy for it.

Rahvin writes:

Go to the nearest university or other academic setting, and ask all the logicians, mathematicians and scientists there to choose between our conflicting definitions of “falsification.” I guarantee that they will all line up behind the definition you have rejected, despite having been provided it half a dozen times or more on this one thread. Until you have done this or the equivalent, I will not entertain any more discussion with you about the definition of "falsification," because it won't do a lick of good.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. As far as definitions go, I am the only one who has cited a definition in the past. Here it is again...

Falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science.Falsifiability

I have stated in the past, and will state here again that the hypothesisi of abiogenesis (that life can comes from non-living matter) has been falsified. It was falsified with Pasteur by experiment and direct observation. It remains falsified today by countless experiments and observation. In fact, every single experiment within the field of origin of life confirms that life does not come from non-living matter. Now I have also argued that some hypotheses in the field of origin of life are unfalsifiable. These are the hypotheses that are a part of the philosophical faith that says life must have started chemically. Therefore, I have argued that abiogenesis should not be taught in the schools. Especially at the expense of a thorough understanding of the law of biogenesis which is excellent science and is easily observable and teachable.

Now to your other concerns...

Bluejay writes:

AlphaOmegakid, message #201, writes:

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.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

Unfortunately for you, not only does Biogenesis mean the origin or beginnng of life, the law also addresses all life.

Really? That’s interesting. Here’s you in Message #89:

AlphaOmegakid writes:

The law of biogenesis is silent about origins.

What logical fallacy is that? Equivocation, maybe? Whatever it is, you are now officially arguing something that you weren’t arguing at the beginning of this thread. I personally think it’s because, after having seen that “Biogenesis is silent about origins” conflicts with your philosophical faith, you promptly switched sides on the debate.

I can see why you may be confused by these supposed conflicting statements. Maybe it is because you quotemined me from Message 89. So let's review... Here is what you said first

AOkid writes:

Bluejay writes:

You would be correct in saying that biogenesis in the sense Rahvin provided earlier is a verified and accepted theory of science, but you would not be correct in saying that origins biogenesis is a verified and accepted theory of science.

I'm not sure what you are saying about "origins biogenesis". The law of biogenesis is silent about origins.

As you can see I was confused by you phrase "origins biogenesis". That's the first time I saw that phrase anywhere. I assumed you meant the very first lifeform on this earth. With that assumption, I declared that the LoB is silent. LoB say that all life comes from prexisting life. It is silent about the first life from which life on this planet came. But it is not silent that it must have come from a pre-existing life. Read those two statements closely. They do not conflict.

The BBT is similar. To have the Big Bang in the "beginning" there had to be either an enormous source of energy to create the matter, or there had to be an enormous amount of matter present before the BB. The BBT is silent on this issue, but it is not silent that the universe was created from the BB.

That is the current state of the LoB. Until some scientist limits the Lob (a type of falsification) through experiment or direct observation then the LoB should be taught.

bluejay writes:

You still think definitions and quotes hold more credibility than straightforward observations of the world around us, such as, “viruses can’t be life because there is a definition that excludes them, even though they certainly behave like life.”

Bluejay, the reason I believe abiogenesis should not be taught is because of ridiculous arguments like this one which are creeping into our books. Viruses are not alive, and they do not behave like life. The word virus means toxin or poison. They (all of them) truly are agents of death. Even retroviruses until they are mutated as useless are detrimental to life.

Viruses cannot metabolize and the cannot reproduce on their own. These are the two main criteria for life.

wiki writes:

Life is a condition that distinguishes organisms from non-living objects, such as non-life, and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism and reproduction.

wiki writes:

A virus (from the Latin virus meaning "toxin" or "poison"), is a sub-microscopic infectious agent that is unable to grow or reproduce outside a host cell.

They can only reproduce inside a host cell. It is a chicken and egg problem. Viruses came after life, not before. That is why no hypothesis within the origin of life study suggests anything about viruses. They are a dead end. They are only used in argumentation to put forth the equivocation fallacy that life is not something much different than a bunch of chemicals. It is different. That's what should be taught and reveered. What's the big deal about life if someone is murdered? They are just a bunch of chemicals. Right? (that's a red herring) Withdrawn...

Now, I hope I have covered all of your message. I will respond to 197 in a little bit.

Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : added red herring comment


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Blue Jay, posted 08-11-2008 3:22 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-12-2008 2:43 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded
 Message 259 by NosyNed, posted 08-12-2008 3:06 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 263 by Blue Jay, posted 08-12-2008 4:39 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 265 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-12-2008 8:10 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 258 of 312 (478169)
08-12-2008 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by AlphaOmegakid
08-12-2008 1:24 PM


I have stated in the past, and will state here again that the hypothesisi of abiogenesis (that life can comes from non-living matter) has been falsified. It was falsified with Pasteur by experiment and direct observation.

Wrong. Pasteur falsfied spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis.

Sponatneous generation is the emergence of fully formed organisms. Abiogenesis is the gradual emergence of life itself.

It remains falsified today by countless experiments and observation. In fact, every single experiment within the field of origin of life confirms that life does not come from non-living matter.

Yes, life does not spotaneously generate. But abiogenesis is totally different from that. It is about the emergence of life, itself, not fully formed living organisms. Now you are the one who is doing the equivocating.

"life" as in a living organisms, does not come from non-living matter. But "life" as in the property that living organisms have, could very well have come from non-living matter.

I assumed you meant the very first lifeform on this earth. With that assumption, I declared that the LoB is silent. LoB say that all life comes from prexisting life. It is silent about the first life from which life on this planet came. But it is not silent that it must have come from a pre-existing life. Read those two statements closely. They do not conflict.

They certainly do conflict. There can be no such thing as the "first" life if the LoB is sound. The "first" life would have had no life to come from.

Also, as you personally have argued, the LoB says ALL life, so therefore this must include the first life. The only possible way that the LoB is sound is if life has always existed.

The BBT is similar. To have the Big Bang in the "beginning" there had to be either an enormous source of energy to create the matter, or there had to be an enormous amount of matter present before the BB. The BBT is silent on this issue, but it is not silent that the universe was created from the BB.

Obviously, you know very little about BBT.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-12-2008 1:24 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-12-2008 3:14 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8848
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 259 of 312 (478170)
08-12-2008 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by AlphaOmegakid
08-12-2008 1:24 PM


Dead or Alive?
So AOK, is a tapeworm alive or dead?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-12-2008 1:24 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1073 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 260 of 312 (478173)
08-12-2008 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by New Cat's Eye
08-12-2008 2:43 PM


CS writes:

Wrong. Pasteur falsfied spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis.

Sponatneous generation is the emergence of fully formed organisms. Abiogenesis is the gradual emergence of life itself.

You keep claiming this lame argument so back it up. Cite for me a historical/scientific document declaring the hypothesis of spontaneous generation. I have cited documents referring to the hypothesis that life can come from non-living matter which is referred to as abiogenesis. Spontaneous generation was the evidence/observation/phenomena that supported the theory of abiogenesis. So let's see your support for your claim.

Also while you are at it, provide a scientific document that says abiogenesis is the gradual emergence of life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-12-2008 2:43 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by rueh, posted 08-12-2008 3:42 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded
 Message 262 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-12-2008 3:43 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 264 by Blue Jay, posted 08-12-2008 6:11 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

rueh
Member (Idle past 1858 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 261 of 312 (478176)
08-12-2008 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by AlphaOmegakid
08-12-2008 3:14 PM


Spontaneous evidence
AOK writes:

Cite for me a historical/scientific document declaring the hypothesis of spontaneous generation

Spontaneous Generation
You are correct in the fact that spontaneous generation was a precurser for abiogenisis, but it is not the sole evidence/observation/phenomenom that you are claiming. It dealt solely with the hypothesis of complex living organisms arrising from decaying matter.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-12-2008 3:14 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-13-2008 10:47 AM rueh has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 262 of 312 (478177)
08-12-2008 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by AlphaOmegakid
08-12-2008 3:14 PM


You keep claiming this lame argument so back it up.

What makes it lame? That it proves you wrong?

Cite for me a historical/scientific document declaring the hypothesis of spontaneous generation.

I don't have time to look it up.

Just read wikipedia:

wiki on Louis Pasteur:

quote:
He is also credited with dispelling the theory of spontaneous generation with his experiment employing chicken broth and a goose neck flask.

wiki on Spontaneous_generation

quote:
Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation, held that complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain, maggots spontaneously appear in meat, or moderlieschens and eels are produced by mud in ephemeral ponds.

Now, notice that it is the classical notion of abiogenesis. This is very very different from the current notion of abiogenesis.

From the section on Pasteur

quote:
By the middle of the 19th century Pasteur and other scientists discovered the theory of Biogenesis by demonstrating that living organisms do not arise spontaneously from non-living matter.

See right there. It doesn't say "life", it says "living organisms". You're the one doing the equivocating when you say that the LoB is talking about just "life".

I have cited documents referring to the hypothesis that life can come from non-living matter which is referred to as abiogenesis. Spontaneous generation was the evidence/observation/phenomena that supported the theory of abiogenesis.

But you're talking about the classical notion of abiogenesis here. It was the same as spontaneous generation.

Now a days, we have a whole different abiogenesis that has nothing to do with spontaneous generation.

The LoB has no affect on current theories of abiogenesis.

Also while you are at it, provide a scientific document that says abiogenesis is the gradual emergence of life.

I don't feel like digging for articles and the wiki is so much faster.

Ths is from the section on current models of abiogenesis. Which I've already shown you inthis thread:

quote:
There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life. But most currently accepted models build in one way or another upon a number of discoveries about the origin of molecular and cellular components for life, which are listed in a rough order of postulated emergence:

1. Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
2. Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
3. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis).
4. Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity result in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. Thus the first ribosome is born, and protein synthesis becomes more prevalent.
5. Proteins outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer. Nucleic acids are restricted to predominantly genomic use.


Now, you're right that abiogenesis, the classical model of spotaneous generation, should not be taught in schools. But the current model of abiogenesis is scientifically sound so far. And ith the advancements we are making it is only going to get beter.

The problem though, is all the equivocating that you're doing. When others are talking about the current model of abiogenesis, you are talking about the classical model of spontaneous generation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-12-2008 3:14 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 895 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 263 of 312 (478178)
08-12-2008 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by AlphaOmegakid
08-12-2008 1:24 PM


A Calm, Rational Post
Hi, AOkid.

Thanks for being civil with me. I'm sure we can work out our misunderstandings like the good Christians we both are. I’ll try to behave myself.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

LoB say that all life comes from prexisting life. It is silent about the first life from which life on this planet came. But it is not silent that it must have come from a pre-existing life. Read those two statements closely. They do not conflict.

It seems to me that you are being much more liberal with your own wording than you are with everyone else's. You didn't say, "The LoB is silent on the identity of the first organisms," you said, "The LoB is silent on origins." The phrase, “silent on origins” means, “it don’t got nothin’ to say about how life arose.” Since a great deal of your argument has centered around the meaning of words and exact quotations, I figured it was a safe bet to take your word at face value. If I was wrong, I don’t think it’s very honest of you to blame me for it.

-----

On the subject of "falsification," (which I said I wouldn't get involved in, but have now revoked my pledge) you provided this definition:

Wikipedia, I think, writes:

Falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science

First of all, this is a definition of “falsifiability,” not “falsify.” I’m sure you know the difference there.

Here is a repeat of the portion I want you to look at closely:

That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment.

Note that the word in quotation marks is "falsifiable," not "falsified." Note that the second clause (after the semicolon) says that if something falsifiable is false, it can be shown to be false. That process of showing something to be false is called "falsification." Something that has undergone the process of "falsification" is considered "falsified." In other wrods, Something that has been shown to be false is “falsified.” (I've beaten this horse enough).

The underying point is that your definition does not describe "falsification" as tentative, nor does any proper definition of "falsification." This is because falsification is final and absolute. If an idea is not absolutely false, it is not falsified.

So, when you say that Abiogenesis has been falsified, you are saying that it has been shown to be false. That is the source of the problem we are having in this thread. Everyone is putting forth what you insist are strawman arguments, and Catholic Scientist is repeatedly calling you a troll, because you are not saying what you think you are saying (Granny Magda already said this once, in Message 242).

Nobody has falsified the hypothesis that life can arise through a gradual accumulation of interrelated organic molecules and reactions. Somebody has falsified the hypothesis that life can arise in a complex state from decaying material. These are two distinct classes of mechanisms, and only one of them has been falsified.

-----

Now, I want to go back to this topic of falsification in relation to Abiogenesis. As you have said, the general concept of Abiogenesis is not falsifiable (at least at this stage in our understanding), because there are just so many possible pathways to test (Granny Magda said the same in Message 242). But, each individual pathway is testable. And, experiments like Miller-Urey looked at (and are looking at) different steps in some of those pathways. Step one (the natural formation of biologically-important organic molecules) has been proven possible. Other observations, such as the possibility of spontaneous homochirality of amino acids and RNA's ability to self-catalyze, also support the possibility of the overall model. Naturally, there are many steps or phases of the process that must still be worked out, but we have yet to hit something that definitively says that the mechanism cannot work.

-----

AlphaOmegakid writes:

The BBT is similar. To have the Big Bang in the "beginning" there had to be either an enormous source of energy to create the matter, or there had to be an enormous amount of matter present before the BB. The BBT is silent on this issue, but it is not silent that the universe was created from the BB.

It doesn’t matter what BBT says about the very beginning of the universe for the purposes of this debate: what matters is that BBT predicts a point in time where the structures (i.e. atoms) necessary for life simply did not exist. Therefore, at some point after carbon appeared, life had to have emerged in the universe. No matter how it happened, it would still be called “Abiogenesis,” because there simply was no life in existence from which it could come, unless you want to change the definition of “life” so that it excludes material (which would, incidentally, call into question the universal validity of Pasteur’s and Redi’s and Spallanzani’s work, and rather undermine the whole argument).

-----

Before I get myself too deeply into this discussion, let me state for the record that I do not have an opinion on whether or not viruses constitute an intermediate between life and non-life. I have proposed it as a possibility that really can’t be entirely ruled out by what we know today.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

Viruses are not alive, and they do not behave like life.

When I say the word “behave,” I am referring to their conforming to scientific models that describe patterns seen in nature. For example, viruses evolve in the same manner as bacteria: mutation/genetic drift. Like parasites and predators, they go through population cycles in response to fluctuations in their host (prey) populations. Also, they can be described in terms of ecology. The predominant patterns in their interactions with the world are described in pretty much the same way as life. They are more like life than they are like anything else that has been observed. It makes sense to group it with life into a “clade,” so to speak.

Consider Cavediver’s video. The first nucleic acids to enter one of the vessicles in that video were essentially plesiomorphic viruses. Natural selection could work on individual nucleic acid sequences, favoring the ones that could catalyze their own penetration into better and better protected host cells, and then, life and viruses evolve alongside each other.

-----

You have stated that the word “life” has a restricted definition based on a few decisive characteristics. I agree with you on this definition, for the most part. But, the use of a definition like this is problematic for the simple reason that it is essentially arbitrary, just like the word “species.” Why should we define some things in nature based on whether or not they can reproduce? Let’s say we’re going to define a new category of things in the universe: we’ll call them “bobs.” I choose to define “bobs” as “things with more than two cells.” Does this automatically mean that all things that have two or fewer cells are governed by different laws than things that have three or more cells? Wouldn’t a definition that describes what laws of nature a thing obeys be a better definition for scientific usage than a definition based on a specific characteristic?

Well, even that’s a bit iffy: life obeys the same laws that other organic chemicals obey, and organic chemicals obey the same laws the inorganic chemicals obey, etc. Everything in the universe is rather incompatible with the rigid classification schemes we always like to use in science. Definitions are notoriously unruly in relation to nature, so it’s not generally okay to take them as absolutes.

Once again, I am not arguing that viruses should be considered “life.” What I am arguing is that you cannot defend an argument with a definition when the definition itself is the item that is being challenged. You have essentially drawn a line in the sand, and argued that only explanations that support that line are acceptable. I don’t completely agree with your line, and I am arguing that your line is possibly not a good standard by which to judge the rest of the sand. Your response is, “But that’s the line.” Please stop doing that.

-----

AlphaOmegakid writes:

The word virus means toxin or poison.

Again with etymologies. Would it also be a safe bet to assume that you are the offspring of a goat because your name includes the word “kid?”

AlphaOmegakid writes:

(Viruses) can only reproduce inside a host cell.

Doesn’t that mean they’re alive inside the host cell?

AlphaOmegakid writes:

What's the big deal about life if someone is murdered? They are just a bunch of chemicals. Right? (that's a red herring) Withdrawn...

I can take a joke. :)

Sadly, though, some people do see this as a legitimate argument. For that reason, some evolutionists will not take this joke very well. Expect some hate mail, even though you withdrew it.


Darwin loves you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-12-2008 1:24 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 895 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 264 of 312 (478189)
08-12-2008 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by AlphaOmegakid
08-12-2008 3:14 PM


A Less Serious Post
Hi Again, AOkid.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

Also while you are at it, provide a scientific document that says abiogenesis is the gradual emergence of life.

I'll grant you that the word "Abiogenesis" does not have to imply just a gradual process. But, the Abiogenetic hypotheses studied and taught by scientists are gradual processes, so it doesn't do you any good to make this point. You certainly can't conflate them all under one title and claim that, because one is false, they're all false---that's a composition fallacy.

You can't falsify a sudden process by experimentation and claim that the experiment also falsifies a roughly analogous gradual process.

Consider this: "I have proven that snowballs do not teleport from the top of the hill to the bottom of the hill: therefore, snowballs clearly cannot reach the bottom of the hill from the top of the hill." (composition fallacy again)

Did Pasteur leave his flasks sealed long enough for life to arise via the gradual accumulation of organic molecules in the absence of already existing life? If we use the number you provided, that process could require anywhere up to 700 million years to be completed. I don't think Pasteur's experiment covered that. Technically, all he proved is that raw meat does not give rise to maggots in the period of time it takes for fly eggs to hatch (or a little bit longer: I don't remember the exact time period, but don't get anal on this). Extrapolating that out to millions of years is a bit dishonest, wouldn't you agree?


Darwin loves you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-12-2008 3:14 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 265 of 312 (478197)
08-12-2008 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by AlphaOmegakid
08-12-2008 1:24 PM


Viruses are not alive, and they do not behave like life.

They behave a lot like life. The have genes, they reproduce, and they evolve.

The word virus means toxin or poison.

And the word "atom" means "unsplitable", and the word "oxgen" means "causer of acidity".

They (all of them) truly are agents of death. Even retroviruses until they are mutated as useless are detrimental to life.

You could say the same of many bacteria, do you deny that they're alive?

Viruses cannot metabolize and the cannot reproduce on their own. These are the two main criteria for life.

Well, I can metabolize, but I'll be darned if I can reproduce on my own.

That's me dead, then.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-12-2008 1:24 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-13-2008 9:38 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1073 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 266 of 312 (478254)
08-13-2008 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Dr Adequate
08-12-2008 8:10 PM


the Dr. writes:

They behave a lot like life. The have genes, they reproduce, and they evolve.

Yes, fires are alive. They grow and they reproduce. They also evolve. I get it. Their alive! And by the way, many viruses do not have genes.

Unfortunately for you, we have a field of study called Biology. The study of .......L-I-F-E.......... To study it you have to identify it. That has been done. Quite well I might add.

Viruses on their own do nothing. They don't grow, reproduce or evolve. Sorry that's the facts. When they penetrate a living cell, then they can do those things. They are the perfect example that life can be given to the non living by a pre-existing life source. That's exactly what the LoB says. And viruses confirm the Law.

the dr. writes:

And the word "atom" means "unsplitable", and the word "oxgen" means "causer of acidity".

Interesting unsupported and untrue argument. Please cite your sources. Did you learn this in abiogenesis school, or are you parroting this from evo forums?

certainly not a Dr. and much less than adequate writes:

You could say the same of many bacteria, do you deny that they're alive?

Well, you certainly should abandon your Dr. title after this bizarre argument. Bacteria are necessary for most complex life forms. You certainly have billions living inside you, and you couldn't live without them. Most bacteria are beneficial toward life. Bacteria are much more an agent of life than an agent of death. There are many bad bacteria, yes, but there are many bad people also. I think you may want to crack a book on bacteria some day. E. coli is a good thing.

the dr. writes:

Well, I can metabolize, but I'll be darned if I can reproduce on my own.

Oh my. What we are teaching in our schools. How can I argue with such obvious wisdom and argumentation? If you are in any way one of those people that Bluejay keeps referring to as a "scientist" then creationists do have alot to worry about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-12-2008 8:10 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by dokukaeru, posted 08-13-2008 11:35 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded
 Message 269 by dokukaeru, posted 08-13-2008 11:40 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1073 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 267 of 312 (478260)
08-13-2008 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by rueh
08-12-2008 3:42 PM


Re: Spontaneous evidence
rueh writes:

Spontaneous Generation
You are correct in the fact that spontaneous generation was a precurser for abiogenisis, but it is not the sole evidence/observation/phenomenom that you are claiming. It dealt solely with the hypothesis of complex living organisms arrising from decaying matter.

Thank you for citing this site. It is great evidence to support my argument that spontaneous generation of various different lifeforms was indeed the OBSERVATION that eventually led to the hypothesis of abiogenesis that life can come from non-living matter. The observations cited all show life forms spontaneously generating from some environment. Hence the hypothesis which explains the observations. That's how science works.

Biogenesis on the other hand was the contrary hypothesis which had little evidentiary support prior to the 1800's. Biogenesis was not proven in one experiment. It was proven and abiogenesis was disproven or falsified over a series of experiments over many years. Pasteurs was one of the final nails in the coffin. The LoB was declared many years later after the sustantive evidence continued to grow and be universal.

The article correctly states that the LoB does not make abiogenesis impossible...as I have stated many times.

One very important point to note here is that Pasteur did not seek to find an answer to the broad question, “Has spontaneous generation ever occurred?” Rather, as any good scientist, he limited his scope to a very narrow piece of the picture:

Then the article goes on to discuss life's first origin....

Alexander Ivanovich Oparin, a Russian scientist, published The Origins of Life, in which he described hypothetical conditions which he felt would have been necessary for life to first come into existence on early Earth, some scientists found it difficult to acknowledge that under the very different conditions which Oparin was proposing for early Earth, some form of “spontaneous generation” might indeed have taken place.

This is the primordial soup concept which still is in the textbooks and still is one of the philosophical faiths of modern day abiogenesis. And it today argues for the slow gradual emergence of life.

However, as correctly identified by your citation, at some point this mythical pre-life thing must reach a point where chemically it can metabolize and genetically reproduce. At that moment it will have spontaneously generated life. That's why this is bad science, because it relies totally on fuzzy words and undefined equivocating terms.

And finally, no where in your article does it mention anything about the HYPOTHESIS of SPONTANEOUS GENERATION. That's because spontaneous generation was the observation that led to the HYPOTHESIS OF ABIOGENESIS which states that life can come from non-living matter. Hypotheses are falsified, not observations. The hypothesis of abiogenesis was falsified, and the LoB triumphed victorious, and remains so as good observable, verifiable science today.

The slow gradual emergence of life over time is a philosophical faith. It is not a hypothesis, and it is not fasifiable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by rueh, posted 08-12-2008 3:42 PM rueh has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Blue Jay, posted 08-13-2008 2:27 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 2812 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 268 of 312 (478267)
08-13-2008 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by AlphaOmegakid
08-13-2008 9:38 AM


Again you prove you do not know what you are talking about with viruses.
Message 203
In message 203, I pointed out:

I would consider a virus bordering on what is life. I would consider prokaryotes-archaea and bacteria to meet all the criteria for life. They are the simplest forms known and agreed upon. Prokaryotes lack many cell organelles including the cell membrane. If you look at this graph from wiki, we can see that there is an overlap in size between the smallest prokaryotes and the largest viruses. This is contrary to what you claimed in message 96:

AOKid message96 writes:

Viruses are about 400x's smaller than the smallest known cell.


In fact, there is less than an order of magnitude between the largest proteins and the samllest known living thing.

Then in Message 215 I show you how viruses are not all agents of death.
You misrepresent this view in Message 220 by trying to say it agrees with you that they are all agents of death. WRONG

CS calls you out on this in Message 221

Now in Message 266 you make this claim:

AOKid writes:

Yes, fires are alive. They grow and they reproduce. They also evolve. I get it. Their alive! And by the way, many viruses do not have genes.

YOU WANT TO BACK THAT UP WITH SOME DOCUMENTATION? No? Because it is WRONG

AOKid writes:

Viruses on their own do nothing. They don't grow, reproduce or evolve.

Sorry AOKid...WRONG AGAIN They do evolve:

wiki writes:

However, viruses have genes and evolve by natural selection.

Now, Taz has a new thread that sites this new article in Scientific American

It shows that some viruses infect other viruses. So AOKid, How does this fit into your assertion that viruses are not alive?

I'll respond to your message 250 and hand waving when I get a chance.

Edited by dokukaeru, : Added viruses do evolve


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-13-2008 9:38 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-14-2008 9:37 AM dokukaeru has responded

  
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 2812 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 269 of 312 (478269)
08-13-2008 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by AlphaOmegakid
08-13-2008 9:38 AM


Here you go AOKid

the dr. writes:

And the word "atom" means "unsplitable", and the word "oxgen" means "causer of acidity".

Interesting unsupported and untrue argument. Please cite your sources. Did you learn this in abiogenesis school, or are you parroting this from evo forums?

wiki writes:

Lavoisier renamed 'vital air' to oxygène in 1777 from the Greek roots ὀξύς (oxys) (acid, literally "sharp," from the taste of acids) and -γενής (-genēs) (producer, literally begetter), because he mistakenly believed that oxygen was a constituent of all acids.[5]

The references to atoms in the West emerged a century later from Leucippus whose student, Democritus, systemized his views. In approximately 450 BCE, Democritus coined the term átomos (Greek: ἄτομος), which means "uncuttable" or "the smallest indivisible particle of matter", i.e., something that cannot be divided.

We continue to point out to you that WORDS ARE NOT AS IMPORTANT AS OBSERVATIONS AND EVIDENCE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-13-2008 9:38 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 895 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 270 of 312 (478278)
08-13-2008 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by AlphaOmegakid
08-13-2008 10:47 AM


Re: Spontaneous evidence
Hi, AOkid.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

And by the way, many viruses do not have genes.

Um... bull crap. Every virus has the genes to make its own capsid proteins.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

Unfortunately for you, we have a field of study called Biology. The study of .......L-I-F-E..........

And, unfortunately for you, the field of biology also includes the study of viruses. Isn't that interesting?

AOkid writes:

Dr Adequate writes:

And the word "atom" means "unsplitable", and the word "oxgen" means "causer of acidity".

Interesting unsupported and untrue argument. Please cite your sources. Did you learn this in abiogenesis school, or are you parroting this from evo forums?

What? Are you serious? In the immortal words of Rrhain:

Rrhain writes:

(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you?

Answers.com on “oxygen”:

Answers.com writes:

French oxygène : Greek oxus, sharp, acid + French -gène, -gen.

And, on “atom”:

Answers.com writes:

Middle English attome, from Latin atomus, from Greek atomos, indivisible, atom : a-, not; tomos, cutting (from temnein, to cut).

-----

AOkid writes:

The article correctly states that the LoB does not make abiogenesis impossible...as I have stated many times.

So, what does make Abiogenesis impossible, then?

And, what is your complaint, again?

-----

AlphaOmegakid writes:

(Biogenesis) was proven and abiogenesis was disproven or falsified over a series of experiments over many years.

I will no longer respond to this stupidity with anything except my previous explanation, which is a damn good one, by the way:

Bluejay, message #263, writes:

On the subject of "falsification," (which I said I wouldn't get involved in, but have now revoked my pledge) you provided this definition:

Wikipedia, I think, writes:


Falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science.

First of all, this is a definition of “falsifiability,” not “falsify.” I’m sure you know the difference there.
Here is a repeat of the portion I want you to look at closely:

Wikipedia writes:

That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment.

Note that the word in quotation marks is "falsifiable," not "falsified." Note that the second clause (after the semicolon) says that if something falsifiable is false, it can be shown to be false. That process of showing something to be false is called "falsification." Something that has undergone the process of "falsification" is considered "falsified." In other wrods, Something that has been shown to be false is “falsified.” (I've beaten this horse enough).

The underying point is that your definition does not describe "falsification" as tentative, nor does any proper definition of "falsification." This is because falsification is final and absolute. If an idea is not absolutely false, it is not falsified.

So, when you say that Abiogenesis has been falsified, you are saying that it has been shown to be false. That is the source of the problem we are having in this thread. Everyone is putting forth what you insist are strawman arguments, and Catholic Scientist is repeatedly calling you a troll, because you are not saying what you think you are saying (Granny Magda already said this once, in Message 242).

Nobody has falsified the hypothesis that life can arise through a gradual accumulation of interrelated organic molecules and reactions. Somebody has falsified the hypothesis that life can arise in a complex state from decaying material. These are two distinct classes of mechanisms, and only one of them has been falsified.


Darwin loves you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-13-2008 10:47 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
1617
18
192021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019