Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2019 9:53 PM
636 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 856,976 Year: 12,012/19,786 Month: 1,793/2,641 Week: 302/708 Day: 77/52 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
16171819
20
21Next
Author Topic:   Biogenesis
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 286 of 312 (478487)
08-15-2008 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by AlphaOmegakid
08-15-2008 4:08 PM


Re: Fallacious Idiot
Talk about idiots. People who believe that there are theories on abiogenesis are indeed idiots. They don't exist and you can't name one. It's like believing in fairies I guess. But of course, you do believe in the nature fairy of strong emergence.

Okay; Right here. Now I know you're not an idiot. You know what you are doing. You ARE a troll.

Honestly though, your equivocation skilz are impressive.

If there really are no theories on abiogenesis, then what is it that you are opposing they teach in schools?

From the OP:

quote:
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?

What is this "abiogenetic science" that you're referring too?

It seems that you believe that there are theories on abiogenesis. So according to you're own argument:

quote:
People who believe that there are theories on abiogenesis are indeed idiots.

You're an idiot?

I don't believe you. I honestly think you are trolling.

They don't exist and you can't name one {theories on abiogenesis}

Strawman. Of course I cannot name one theory of abiogenesis. From the wiki article I've linked to twice in this 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:

But you not really talking about that version abiogenesis.

You're talking about the old version of abiogenesis that was synonymous with spontaneous generation. The one that has been falsified. You even use the falsification of spontaneous generation as an argument against abiogenesis.

But the “abiogenesis science” that they are teaching in science classes today, the one you say shouldn’t be taught, is not the same abiogenesis that is synonymous with spontaneous generation.

Enter your equivocation.

You try to argue that the “most currently accepted models” on abiogenesis are “full of faith and little evidence”, but your arguments for that are based those against “spontaneous generation”.

I don’t believe that your idiocy has lead you to believe that the LoB, which falsifies spontaneous generation, falsifies the abiogenesis science that you don’t want in the classroom, troll.

Now, you have exposed your motive for this behavior when you mentioned God. The abiogenesis science that you oppose poses a problem for you faith. Your ultimate goal is to delegitimize the abiogenesis science to an equal level of your beliefs, which are based on faith. That is a shame to Christianity, IMHO, as they are based on lies.

The funny thing is, that anyone who knows anything about the science behind both spontaneous generation and the current models of abiogenesis, me for example, knows that the former is not a falsification of the latter.

But your arguments, which rely on equivocation of abiogenesis (by conflating spontaneous generation with the current models on abiogenesis) are clever. I’m not convinced that you are actually believing your own arguments, and thus you are lying. I don’t think that you are that stupid. You know what you are doing. I have correctly identified you as a troll.

Shame on you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-15-2008 4:08 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-16-2008 3:26 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1071 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 287 of 312 (478517)
08-16-2008 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by New Cat's Eye
08-15-2008 11:44 PM


Re: Fallacious Idiot
CS writes:

Okay; Right here. Now I know you're not an idiot. You know what you are doing. You ARE a troll.

Your ad hominen attacks on me aren't doing you any good. You call me an idiot because I have boxed you in on your own logic. You call me a troll, I guess, because you want me out of this forum. If so, that will be just one more example of scientific sensorship. Like taking LoB out of all the literature, because it presents problems for your faith.

Now you accuse me of doing what you hve been doing from the beginning. You personally have argued that spontaneous generation was falsified. Wrong. Theories get falsified. The theory that that life can come from non-living chemicals was falsified. And any honest person in science would realize that it is still falsified today. I don't have a problem if you and others want to pursue your religion, just don't teach it to my kids. I asked you personally to cite the theory of spontaneous generation. You said "I don't have time to look it up". That my friend is the epitome of lameness.

The eqivocation is on your hands by trying to exchange the observation of spontaneous generation with the theory that life can come from non-life. Biogenesis and Abiogenesis. Two theories. Abiogenesis is falsified. Biogenesis is verified and becomes universaly observed. Biogenesis becomes a recognized law of nature. Abiogenesis gets resurrected and repackaged with equivocating language.

If there really are no theories on abiogenesis, then what is it that you are opposing they teach in schools?

The faith in a falsified theory.

CS writes:

If there really are no theories on abiogenesis, then what is it that you are opposing they teach in schools?

You are beginning to realize it? Aren't you? No theories, No phemnomena to support a hypothesis. There is nothing left but faith. That is what I oppose.

CS writes:

They don't exist and you can't name one {theories on abiogenesis}

Strawman. Of course I cannot name one theory of abiogenesis. From the wiki article I've linked to twice in this thread:

You don't even understand a strawman argument. I didn't change your argument. I used your exact words...

CS writes:

All the while you've been talking about abiogenesis, you've been talking about spontaneous generation. Meanwhile, your opponents have been talking about the current theories on abiogenesis (the emergence of life, itself, instead of living organisms).

Those are your words and your argument. Of course you have changed your argument many times in this thread. Your fist argument was that there was no LoB. You have dropped that one.

CS writes:

But you not really talking about that version abiogenesis.

You're talking about the old version of abiogenesis that was synonymous with spontaneous generation. The one that has been falsified. You even use the falsification of spontaneous generation as an argument against abiogenesis.

But the “abiogenesis science” that they are teaching in science classes today, the one you say shouldn’t be taught, is not the same abiogenesis that is synonymous with spontaneous generation.

Enter your equivocation.

This is hilarious. You cannot deny that any hypothesis on the origin of life does not fall into the same category as life can come from non living chemicals. That hypothesis was falsified, and all the evidence points that it is still falsified.

You also claim that spontaneous generation is different from emergence. Baloney. In the RNA world models, you have lipid cellular structures that eventullay evolve to have the ability to metabolize. At that mutational moment, you have life. In the metabolism frst models you have a metabolic pathway that eventually can reproduce. At that mutational moment you have life. Both are spontaneous events. It is all just a bunch of equivocation which uninformed students don't recognize.

Then the ultimate equivocation is every model invokes evolution and natural selection for the cause of this emergence. But once again this is an equivocation on what evolution and natural selection are.

The only people equivocating are people like you. But you, like the many others in this forum have been trained in these fallacies, so you cannot event recognize illogical thought processes.

So I will stand against you and those in this forum an those in science who try to perpetuate illogical thought processes. That is why I am oposed to teaching this junk science to childre in schools. Come back when you have some evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-15-2008 11:44 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by bluescat48, posted 08-16-2008 6:20 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded
 Message 289 by Otto Tellick, posted 08-17-2008 7:39 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2385 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 288 of 312 (478521)
08-16-2008 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by AlphaOmegakid
08-16-2008 3:26 PM


Re: Fallacious Idiot
AlphaOmegaKid says
Abiogenesis is falsified.

How can it be falsified. There is no theory of abiogenesis. It is still a hypothesis, in fact several.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-16-2008 3:26 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-19-2008 12:55 PM bluescat48 has responded

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 525 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 289 of 312 (478565)
08-17-2008 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by AlphaOmegakid
08-16-2008 3:26 PM


Re: What does AlphaOmegakid really want?
The following sentiment has appeared several times (with a few minor variations in wording) in AOkid's posts on this thread:

AlphaOmegakid writes:

I don't have a problem if you and others want to pursue your religion, just don't teach it to my kids.

So, just to clear up the nature of the issues being argued here, I'd like AOkid to provide a direct and honest answer to the following question:

When a student in a U.S. public school asks "How did life begin on Earth?", what response would you like the science teacher to give?

  1. The answer is found in the Holy Bible, so you should look it up there.

  2. So far, the answer can only be guessed at on the basis of what we currently know about physics, chemistry, biology, and the first third or so of Earth's 4.5-billion-year history; a few different theories about the origin of life are being actively researched, and are being revised as more information becomes available, so we can look at how these theories differ, how they are changing, and what is still in doubt.

  3. We cannot discuss the question in this classroom, because it cannot be answered without violating the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which, among other things, bars the government from establishing any religion.

AOkid: if you really, honestly pick door #3, you are doing your kids a serious disservice (and you risk violating another important part of the first amendment: the right to freedom of speech). Choice #3 would simply be another example of how religious dogma (disguised as "consideration" for fundamentalist Christian beliefs) can be used to stifle learning, and it is simply wrong-headed.

If you are inclined to pick door #1, then you are in fact asking for a direct violation of the establishment clause in the first amendment, and there will be many more people (including me) saying that we don't want anything of that sort in our public schools.

Let me state this very clearly: door #2 is not a violation of the establishment clause, for it is not in any way a form of religious indoctrination or a presentation of religious doctrine. If that choice is completely unacceptable to you, and if you honestly don't want any of the other choices, what do you want the teacher to say?

Edited to add: I suppose we could consider a fourth choice -- which is really just a slight variation on choice #3 -- where the teacher says "there is no way to discuss the origin of life in a science class, because any attempt to answer this question is intrinsically a matter of faith or religion." I suppose this might be close to the sentiment that AOkid is trying to push, and much of the effort expended by others in this thread has been to clarify how and why this is a false assertion. There are ways to pose and explore the question scientifically, without basing our conclusions on faith; most of the vitriol on both sides of the discussion has arisen because of AOkid's singular inability to see (or unwillingness to acknowledge) this fact.

Edited by Otto Tellick, : Added last paragraph.

Edited by Otto Tellick, : a minor addition to the added paragraph.

Edited by Otto Tellick, : No reason given.


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-16-2008 3:26 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by dokukaeru, posted 08-17-2008 8:55 PM Otto Tellick has not yet responded

dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 2810 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 290 of 312 (478566)
08-17-2008 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by AlphaOmegakid
08-11-2008 10:12 AM


Re: Your argument can be reduced to 2 words HAND WAVING
AOKid writes:

1. It's a cartoon! Graphics and animation. I have accused people who believe in this stuff as having a great philosophical faith. This video is strong evidence of that. It is full of imagination with little or no evidentiary content.

wikitionary writes:


hand waving, hand-waving
(idiomatic) approximation, vagueness, educated guessing, or the attempt to explain or excuse vagaries.
The sales pitch sounded good, but they did a lot of hand-waving about the price.


The yellow in the quote above is HAND WAVING PERIOD. This is part of the reason why you failed in your explanation of the video. You try and dismiss the video of having little evidence to substantiate the claims, yet almost every step has experiments to back it up. Exactly which part of the video is not plausible?

PLEASE RESPOND TO EACH PART
1. Do you deny that the early Earth was different than Earth today?

2. Do you deny that the early Earth contained large amounts and variations of organic chemicals?

3. Do you deny that stable vesicles can form spontaneously?

4. Do you deny that these vesicles are permeable to small organic molecules?

5. Do you deny that these vesicles will incorporate fatty acids? Note: This is not cellular growth.

6. Do you deny that these vesicles can be mechanically divided without loss of contents? Note: This is not cell division.

7. Do you deny that it is possible for nucleotides to spontaneously polymerize? Note: This is not cellular growth.

8. Do you deny that nucleotide polymers would be trapped in a vesicle?

9. Do you deny that a nucleotide polymer inside a vesicle would separate under certain conditions such as high temperature near a thermal vent?

10. Do you deny that large vesicles would steal lipids from smaller vesicles through thermodynamics?(Origin of Competition). Note: This is not cellular growth.

11. Do you deny that a vesicle that splits into two would contain the same information?. Note: Not necessarily identical imformation in each daughter and this is not cell division.

12. Do you deny that a polymer sequence that is able to replicate faster would dominate a population of polymer containing vesicles?

13. Do you deny that a mutation that increases the rate of polymer replication would be selected for?

14. Do you deny that combining mutation and natural selection would equal increased information?

15. Can you show any other area where the video is not plausible as you claim?

This part is mostly off topic and hidden and is specifically for AOKid. Click peek


AOKid writes:

doku writes:

I could not have said what you are doing any better than you did yourself

AOKid writes:

The reality is that lipid bilayers and vesicles do grow and divide. The deception is in the equivocation of terms.
.
and later:
.
This is nothing more than an equivocating game which is wrong.

Your dishonesty is evident with your techniques of quotemining my words.


Sorry, but you fail here. This is not quote mining as defined by you earlier. I would have to misrepresent your position on equivocation. That is not what was done here. You clearly believe equivocating is wrong and deceptive, yet you do it with so many terms its no longer amusing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-11-2008 10:12 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 2810 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 291 of 312 (478567)
08-17-2008 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Otto Tellick
08-17-2008 7:39 PM


Re: What does AlphaOmegakid really want?
Excellent post Otto. I was just getting ready to formulate something like that.

I think one of the big problems is AOKid equivocates FAITH and IMAGINATION

merriam webster on Faith writes:

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

merriamwebster on IMAGINATION writes:

1: the act or power of forming a mental image of something not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality
2 a: creative ability b: ability to confront and deal with a problem : resourcefulness c: the thinking or active mind : interest
3 a: a creation of the mind; especially : an idealized or poetic creation b: fanciful or empty assumption

It is possible to talk about abiogenesis without faith by using imagination. It is impossible to talk of God without using faith.
AOKid believes that an imagination in science is the equivalent of faith in science. He believes students should not have an imagination.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Otto Tellick, posted 08-17-2008 7:39 PM Otto Tellick has not yet responded

  
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 2810 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 292 of 312 (478568)
08-17-2008 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by AlphaOmegakid
08-15-2008 10:52 AM


Re: more one liner hand waiving form doku
AOKid writes:

You argue that I made a mistake on the size of viruses. I admitted a partial mistake. And evidentlty, I now have made another mistake with decimal places. Big deal! ....you struggle to show simple irrelevant mistake that I may or may not be making while adding nothing to the OP

You can't argue any of these things so you wave your hands and try to discredit someone for making a mistake.

Sorry, but I am not struggling. It is relevant, but you must not see how. Your knowledge of viruses is outdated(1992 by your own admittance). Your knowledge of biogenesis is EXTREMELY OUTDATED . Why dont you do a scholar google search for biogenesis and see what papers(besides huxley's 1870 address) come up. All those papers cite the modern definition of biogenesis:

merriamwebster writes:

2 : the synthesis of chemical compounds or structures in the living organism — compare biosynthesis

AOKid writes:

And in regards to "genes" in viruses. I partially withdraw my claim there. The wiki article you cited refers to a paper that can be found here and was published in 2007 (very recent)

Irrelevant. You were still wrong. What is this partial crap you speak of?

AOKid writes:

You still claim that viruses are on the "edge of life" and they can evolve on their own.

Strawman in yellow AOKid. I never claimed they evolve on their own. They evolve.

AOKid writes:

I can see that you have been trained to argue this subject, but the person who really doesn't know very little about viruses is you.


Oh really? Let's set aside the fact that the first part(which is untrue) of this sentence has nothing to do with the second part. Why have I pointed out your ignorance of viruses? Some of the ignorance you still hold:
AOKid about lysogenic conversion writes:

Do you have a point here other than proving my point? You read it, you write it, and then you ignore it. That my friend is the definition ignorance.

You CONTINUE TO BELIEVE VIRUSES ARE ONLY AGENTS OF DEATH. This in spite of the above example of the V. cholerae bacteria WHICH DOES NOT DIE IN THE PROCESS OF LYSOGENIC CONVERSION

wiki on Lysogenic Conversion writes:

Lysogenic conversion
In some interactions between lysogenic phages and bacteria, lysogenic conversion may occur. It is when a temperate phage induces a change in the phenotype of the bacteria infected that is not part of a usual phage cycle. Changes can often involve the external membrane of the cell by making it impervious to other phages or even by increasing the pathogenic capability of the bacteria for a host.


CAN YOU SITE SOMEPLACE THAT REFERS TO ALL VIRUSES AS AGENTS OF DEATH? IF NOT YOU MUST CONCEDE THAT YOU HAVE MADE THIS UP

Here is another example that not all viruses are what you claim:

wiki on Gene Therapy writes:


Gene therapy is the insertion of genes into an individual's cells and tissues to treat a disease, and hereditary diseases in which a defective mutant allele is replaced with a functional one. Although the technology is still in its infancy, it has been used with some success....
and later....
Doctors and molecular biologists realized that viruses like this could be used as vehicles to carry 'good' genes into a human cell. First, a scientist would remove the genes in the virus that cause disease. Then they would replace those genes with genes encoding the desired effect (for instance, insulin production in the case of diabetics). This procedure must be done in such a way that the genes which allow the virus to insert its genome into its host's genome are left intact. This can be confusing, and requires significant research and understanding of the virus' genes in order to know the function of each.

AOKid writes:


I now have made another mistake with decimal places.

and
You argue I make a mistake on virus size, and you get lucky with a propositional definition change to genes. And I admit the mistakes, and that makes me ignorant.

IS THAT ALL IT WAS? Seems to me you were trying to be dishonest by showing that mycoplasma was much larger in size and volume than the largest virus.

WHAT ABOUT THIS LITTLE GEM YOU POSTED AOKID?

AOKid in 271 writes:

just happen to be three dimensional even though wiki doesn't want you to realize that.


sounds like a conspiracy.

AOKid writes:

but ignorant people ignore facts which you do.

What are these facts I am ignoring?

AOKid writes:

I destroyed your silly cartoon video


1. I did not post the video. Cavediver posted it.
2. No you did not. See Message 290

Would you like to discuss the relevance of viruses on abiogenesis any more? I still have some stuff you might be interested in learning.


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

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 893 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 293 of 312 (478594)
08-18-2008 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by AlphaOmegakid
08-15-2008 3:06 PM


Re: In Summation
Hi, the Kid.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

I am going to ask that you don’t respond until I have fully responded to your post.

Well, I waited.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

The fact is, that all debate, no matter what side you’re on is just semantics. This is all just a bunch of words and logic given by many different people. It is all semantics.

What if I argue that viruses evolve by natural selection, and my opponent argues that they do not. Then, we put viruses in a Petri dish, and we all watch as they do indeed evolve by natural selection. Is my argument still just semantics then?

AlphaOmegakid writes:

I think you may have meant that “science” does not revolve around definitions, but around data. If that is your argument, I disagree.

Alright, so, in other words, you believe science revolves around definitions and that it does not revolve around data.

Here are a couple of questions to get you thinking about the implications of this rather absurd notion. If you wanted to change a scientific definition, how would you go about doing this in a scientific manner? And, if you wanted to change some scientific data, how would you go about doing this in a scientific manner?

This should be a no-brainer.

-----

And, here’s another thought:

Look at an E-M spectrum diagram and mark for me exactly where “blue” ends and “violet” begins. No matter where you draw the line, you draw it between two things that are more similar to each other than either is to most of the rest of its side of the line. That is, if you provide for me an exact wavelength, I can show you how the wavelengths one nanometer to either side of the line produce a color that is more like the color directly across the line than it is to the wavelength fourteen nanometers deeper into its own side.

Now, you can argue to me that a certain wavelength should be considered the break point, and that such a wavelength is, in fact, accepted in science. But, given what I just said above, isn’t this definition just arbitrary? Why should an arbitrary distinction be considered acceptable support for any agument?

In fact, can you argue to me that any definition is not essentially arbitrary? Is an “atmosphere” different from “space,” and where do you draw the line between the two? Can you tell me where the forest ends and the prairies begin? What is the exact temperature or weather condition that tells you when the “cold season” has ended and the “warm season” has begun? At what point does a substance count as a “liquid,” and at what point does it count as a “solid?” Can you provide for me any example where nature provides a clear-cut distinction between two entities without some sort of spectrum (or "grey area") between them?

Nature does not deal in discreet definitions: nature deals in subtle spectra. This is true in nearly every observation ever made by science. Why do you think our data is always presented in the form of a regression with a statistical significance score, instead of as discreet, tightly-organized bundles? It’s simple, really. It’s because data does not organize itself into neat, discreet little bundles: scientists organize data into neat, discreet little bundles because it’s easier to understand if we put a name to things. But, in the end, the name we assign is essentially arbitrary, designed only to help us organize the information, and not to proscribe the functions of the universe.

Definitions are completely artificial. Yet, you are insisting that this arbitrary means of categorization somehow transcends the world of language and wields power over the elements.

That is why you have noticed that people in internet forums always bring up the "semantic argumentation" charge against you. It's not because your opponent's argument is losing; it's because you have an obsession with wordplay in a world that revolves around physical evidence.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-15-2008 3:06 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-18-2008 5:04 PM Blue Jay has responded

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1071 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 294 of 312 (478622)
08-18-2008 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Blue Jay
08-18-2008 10:43 AM


Re: In Summation
Bluejay writes:

Well, I waited.

Yes you did, and I appreciate that. I apologize I haven't responded to the rest yet, this weekend was very busy, and I didn't have much blog time.

bluejay writes:

What if I argue that viruses evolve by natural selection, and my opponent argues that they do not.

And how are you going to start an argument with anyone, unless a definition of “virus”, “evolve”, and “natural selection” are established and agreed upon by the parties. You establish the definition with evidentiary support of a dictionary, encyclopedia, website, or a scientific paper, etc. Once that is established, then you have a foundation to start your argument. This is all semantics, and it is the foundation of all logic.

bluejay writes:

Then, we put viruses in a Petri dish, and we all watch

Now you and your opponent are gathering data or evidence. This is only one part of an argument. The data should be exactly the same for you as it is for your opponent.

The definitions should also be the same for you as they are for your opponent.

bluejay writes:

as they do indeed evolve by natural selection.

If by definition, the viruses do evolve by natural selection in the Petri dish, then your opponent doesn't have a leg to stand on does he? But if the viruses by definition do not evolve by natural selection in the Petri dish, then you don't have a leg to stand on. Correct?

Now let us assume that both of us know what a virus is according to wiki. We know what evolution and natural selection is according to wiki. There is no disagreement between us on these definitions.

Now let us put a population of a particular virus on a Petri dish. Then let us seal the cover on the Petri dish to assure no contamination. Then we microscopically examine the Petri dish and both of us agree that there is no cellular life present in the Petri dish. Let's assume that we agree that the "setup" of the experiment is correct.

Now let us watch for a month and gather data. What we will see from scientific experience and previous experimentation is that the virus count will remain the same. None will grow, because they can't metabolize the food. None will reproduce, because they don't have that capability. Now how do I know this? Well actually I know it from the definition of a virus.

Then I can conclude logically that viruses cannot evolve by natural selection on their own without a host cell. Now how can I validly conclude this? Well it is because of the definition of evolution and natural selection. You must have reproduction to have evolution and natural selection. Without reproduction, there is no evolution.

Now, I gather from your example, that you may be thinking that viruses do indeed metabolize and reproduce on a Petri dish without other bacterial life. I certainly hope you don't have this understanding, because your semantical definitions are wrong.

Now I apologize for this long drawn out example, but it was yours, and it clearly demonstrates the importance of definitions, semantics, and logic in relationship to data and evidence.

bluejay writes:

Alright, so, in other words, you believe science revolves around definitions and that it does not revolve around data.

No not at all. This is a strawman argument. Here is exactly what I said...

AOkid writes:

Science is as much about reasoning, definitions and logic as it is about data. Viruses and observable evidence about viruses is data. The rest is reasoning.

From that, how can you possibly conclude that I believe that "science does not revolve around data." Data and observations are extremely important in science. Definitions, semantics, and logic are equally important in science. How can you have data on speed if you can't define speed? How can you have data on cellular growth if you cannot define growth? How can you make a parsimony chart of homologies if you don't define homology? Definitions are important.

bluejay writes:

Here are a couple of questions to get you thinking about the implications of this rather absurd notion.

The only thing absurd is your fallacious strawman.

Bluejay writes:

If you wanted to change a scientific definition, how would you go about doing this in a scientific manner?

Bluejay, the reason I asked you to wait to respond, is because I am detecting that you really don't read what I write. Your mind picks up on certain key phrases and eliminates the rest. Here is clear evidence of this: Earlier I said:

AOkid writes:

You are right that I will defend definitions. Definitions in science are extremely important. Definitions in science are slow to change and difficult to change. And when they do change, they are usually backwards compatible. That’s why we have debate in science. Just because some scientists see “gray” areas in definitions, does not mean all scientists do. The people who see those “gray” areas must generate the observations worthy of changing the definitions. Then they must submit those redefinitions for peer review. Then those redefinitions must eventually become accepted by the scientific community. If they can’t then it is just equivocation of existing definitions. The article I cited on the redefinitions of “genes” is a good example. That has followed the scientific process. It would not be right to teach that genes are much more complicated than we originally thought, before we had the evidence to support the argument and the redefinition.

The answer to your question is in the highlighted areas.

Bluejay writes:

And, if you wanted to change some scientific data, how would you go about doing this in a scientific manner?

Observations are observations. They can't be changed. But a different set of logic can be applied to them. This happens all the time in science. Data is basically defined observations. Again, the observations don't change, but data can change as definitions change.

Take a fossil for instance. You and I observe a set of bones. They look exactly the same to me as they do to you. Now we must interpret those bones. You apply your logic and I apply my logic. We probably will have two different conclusions depending on the foundation of our logic.

bluejay writes:

That is why you have noticed that people in internet forums always bring up the "semantic argumentation" charge against you. It's not because your opponent's argument is losing; it's because you have an obsession with wordplay in a world that revolves around physical evidence.

The physical evidence before me is nothing more that a bunch of letters organized in a particular fashion. Without definition it's the same as my grandaughter playing with her alphabet magnets on my refrigerator. Meaningless! Your typing is meaningless without definition and logic. The world revolves around definitions, semantics, logic, and physical evidence. To argue that definitions are not as important as physical evidence would get you laughed out of any logic class. But of course, some teachers probably teach this stuff. You certainly have learned it somewhere.

And by the way, God loves all Darwinians!

Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Blue Jay, posted 08-18-2008 10:43 AM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Blue Jay, posted 08-18-2008 6:40 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 893 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 295 of 312 (478626)
08-18-2008 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by AlphaOmegakid
08-18-2008 5:04 PM


Re: In Summation
Hi, AlphaOmegakid.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

Now, I gather from your example, that you may be thinking that viruses do indeed metabolize and reproduce on a Petri dish without other bacterial life. I certainly hope you don't have this understanding, because your semantical definitions are wrong.

Grow up, dude: you’re forty-six!!

You know damn well that I know what a virus needs to survive and evolve: you are only picking at words. Stop playing dumb, give your opponent the benefit of the doubt, and find a way to get over my exact wording, because you know damn well that this sort of “debate” is only going to piss people off, and that it doesn’t support your argument at all.

What the hell difference does it make whether I added, “with an appropriate bacterial host, grown on a substance of potato agar, and allowed to incubate at 36 degrees Celsius for seven years, extracting individuals from the population each week to run DNA extraction and PCR to look for mutations and their possible effect on the host, while simultaneously growing multiple control cultures that are kept virus-free in order to replenish the infected populations in the event of a die-off”? That would have been a very awkward clause in the middle of that sentence, don’t you think? I was assuming that both parties knew what was needed for viruses to grow, and that it thus didn’t need to be explained in detail, but you weren’t willing to extend the same courtesy, and instead used my attempt at brevity as a reason to poke in a little insult.

Whether or not you realize it or intend it, that is trolling. Stop doing it.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

And how are you going to start an argument with anyone, unless a definition of “virus”, “evolve”, and “natural selection” are established and agreed upon by the parties. You establish the definition with evidentiary support of a dictionary, encyclopedia, website, or a scientific paper, etc. Once that is established, then you have a foundation to start your argument. This is all semantics, and it is the foundation of all logic... (abbreviated for space)

...Now I apologize for this long drawn out example, but it was yours, and it clearly demonstrates the importance of definitions, semantics, and logic in relationship to data and evidence.

It also clearly demonstrates that you did not understand the point that I was trying to make, so I will try again, just in case it’s my fault for explaining it poorly.

First, the whole reason we go through the “establish the definition with evidentiary support” step is so that we’re not just arguing words. Scientists seek out physical evidence instead of quotes because we don’t want to be debating semantics, we want to be debating reality. Unfortunately, Bible-thumpers and political conservatives have been trained since youth to interpret words rather than principles, so we never get past the “agreement of terms” step in any debate on EvC.

Second, as I said in the message you just responded to:

Bluejay writes:

(D)ata does not organize itself into neat, discreet little bundles: scientists organize data into neat, discreet little bundles because it’s easier to understand if we put a name to things. But, in the end, the name we assign is essentially arbitrary, designed only to help us organize the information, and not to proscribe the functions of the universe.

You are not using definitions in this debate as tools for organizing data and formulating a debate: you are trying to assert them as proof of your point. As you said, in a debate, the parties must agree upon definitions, but not because the definitions actually have any power to command nature, but because the definitions are our way of communicating with one another. I still do not agree with your definition of “life” on the basis that it does not delineate a meaningful division in relation to the scientific laws that govern "life" and nothing else, but your only response to my challenges is the reiteration of the definition I am challenging. It’s as if you think your definition is immune to my challenges just because it’s a definition. That is not the process you described in that quoted segment above.

And, in earlier parts of this debate, we granted you your definition of life, and showed how your argument, based on that definition, violates many other obvious observations and mathematical models. Since you’re still unwilling to let that penetrate, we’re trying this new angle of attack because it probably hits closer to home when we talk about words and definitions.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

Bluejay writes:

If you wanted to change a scientific definition, how would you go about doing this in a scientific manner?

Bluejay, the reason I asked you to wait to respond, is because I am detecting that you really don't read what I write. Your mind picks up on certain key phrases and eliminates the rest. Here is clear evidence of this: Earlier I said:

AOkid writes:

You are right that I will defend definitions. Definitions in science are extremely important. Definitions in science are slow to change and difficult to change. And when they do change, they are usually backwards compatible. That’s why we have debate in science. Just because some scientists see “gray” areas in definitions, does not mean all scientists do. The people who see those “gray” areas must generate the observations worthy of changing the definitions. Then they must submit those redefinitions for peer review. Then those redefinitions must eventually become accepted by the scientific community. If they can’t then it is just equivocation of existing definitions. The article I cited on the redefinitions of “genes” is a good example. That has followed the scientific process. It would not be right to teach that genes are much more complicated than we originally thought, before we had the evidence to support the argument and the redefinition.

The answer to your question is in the highlighted areas.

I was aware that all of that was there, AOkid. I didn’t quite think you realized that it was there, though. The point in my asking you how definitions are changed in science was to get you to say, for perhaps the sixth time, that definitions can be overturned by data, whereas data cannot by overturned by definitions. I hoped it would help you see that data have power over definitions. In fact, you have even said that definitions are based on data. Yet, you continue to believe that definitions are just as important as data, and continue to assert that your definition of “life” has the power to deflect my challenges without using anything but its own assertions.

Since Big Bang Theory has hordes of mathematical and observational data to support it, we must consider the implications of the theory to be real. The implications include a period of time in the past when “life” (of whichever definition) could not exist. Therefore, there had to have been a beginning of “life,” whether or not “life” includes viruses. A beginning of life automatically falsifies Biogenesis’s tenet of “all life from pre-existing life.”

Data to hypothesis to more data to more hypotheses and, eventually, to theory. That’s science. That’s Abiogenesis.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-18-2008 5:04 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-19-2008 10:27 AM Blue Jay has responded

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1071 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 296 of 312 (478667)
08-19-2008 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Blue Jay
08-18-2008 6:40 PM


Re: In Summation
bluejay writes:

Since Big Bang Theory has hordes of mathematical and observational data to support it, we must consider the implications of the theory to be real. The implications include a period of time in the past when “life” (of whichever definition) could not exist. Therefore, there had to have been a beginning of “life,” whether or not “life” includes viruses. A beginning of life automatically falsifies Biogenesis’s tenet of “all life from pre-existing life.”

It seems to me somehow you don't have any DATA to support your position. Now hear me out please. You have made a logical inference of falsification, but no data.

You said yourself......

bluejay writes:

The implications include a period of time in the past when “life” (of whichever definition) could not exist.

Your implications are logic. Your logic is based on whichever definition of life you choose. Certainly not mine. But you haven't observed the first life from chemicals. Have you? No data. You haven't observed the environment of the first life on this earth. You can't even accurately define what it was. No DATA. You can't even come up with a plausible series of chemical steps and demonstrate them for the creation of life. No DATA.

What you do have is life wasn't here and now it is. That's data. The rest in definition and logic. And your definitions, I believe are equivocations, because they involve redefining words without the evidentiary support to do so. No DATA. Your logic is then based on these redefinitions. That logic is fallacious without the evidentiary support for the redefinition of "life", "growth", "reproduction", "metabolism", "evolution", and "natural selection."

None of you have presented any reasonable DATA for the changing of any of these definitions, but you are basing hypotheses that you want to teach to children based (foundation)on this fallacious logic. Without the DATA to back it up.

On the other hand, you have the law of biogenesis which has uncountable amounts of data to support it. Observation after observation. It can be verified in the lab, on the farm, in the hospital, in the schools, and everywhere on this earth. Many in this forum have argued that this law doesn't exist and it is vitually meaningless. All of you have argued including yourself that it has been falsified. But implications and inferences don't falsify anything. Data and observations falsify hypotheses. You have argued ad populum that no scientific papers discuss this law. But none of you can logically deny the reality of this natural law.

This is why I have argued from the beginning that abiogenesis has no evidence. No data. You are making your implications, inferences, deductions, and inductions into data. Shame. This is not science, this is faith.

The LoB however, has data coming out of its ears and you want to silence and declare a falsification of this law.

Call me a troll if you want. But your arguments fail. They have no legs, because they don't have evidentiary support. They have implications, inferences, equivocation, but very little DATA as I said in my OP.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Blue Jay, posted 08-18-2008 6:40 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Fosdick, posted 08-19-2008 11:29 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded
 Message 299 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-19-2008 12:18 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded
 Message 300 by Blue Jay, posted 08-19-2008 12:46 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3695 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 297 of 312 (478669)
08-19-2008 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by AlphaOmegakid
08-19-2008 10:27 AM


Re: In Summation
Hi AOkid,

Another way to summarize this thread is to paraphrase what others—real biologists—have already said about "the law of biogenesis": Wha?

After a career of 40 years as a professional biologist, I have never ever invoked such a "law" to explain anything. Stephan J. Gould, in his 1433 p. treatise on The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (2002), never mentions it once. But he does mention Haeckel's "biogenetic law," which is another term for "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." Maybe you should start another thread to discuss this one, because your so-called "LoB" is nothing more than a fish painted on the outside of an aquarium.

Here's a law for ya: "The Law of Pre-Model-A Saviorism." It declares that Jesus never drove a Ford. Or do you have any DATA to prove otherwise? And if you did what difference would it make?

—HM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-19-2008 10:27 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-19-2008 11:35 AM Fosdick has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1071 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 298 of 312 (478670)
08-19-2008 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by Fosdick
08-19-2008 11:29 AM


That's a hoot
Your joke represents only your ignorance of science.

If this is evidence of a forty year carreer as a biologist, then God help us all.

Ya know, come to think of it, God never mentioned Hoot Mons in his scripture.

If you are a real biologist, then I have a bridge I want to sell you in Alaska. It goes nowhere.

No DATA.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Fosdick, posted 08-19-2008 11:29 AM Fosdick has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 299 of 312 (478672)
08-19-2008 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by AlphaOmegakid
08-19-2008 10:27 AM


Re: In Summation
bluejay writes:

The implications include a period of time in the past when “life” (of whichever definition) could not exist.

Your implications are logic. Your logic is based on whichever definition of life you choose.

We don't have to get down to the gnat's ass on the definition of life though. There was a point in time in our universe when even ATOMS didn't exist. No matter the definition of life, it has to be made of atoms. No atoms = no life, no matter the definition of life you want to use.

You are just plain wrong that we have to redefine things.

What you do have is life wasn't here and now it is. That's data. The rest in definition and logic. And your definitions, I believe are equivocations, because they involve redefining words without the evidentiary support to do so. No DATA. Your logic is then based on these redefinitions. That logic is fallacious without the evidentiary support for the redefinition of "life", "growth", "reproduction", "metabolism", "evolution", and "natural selection."

But we don't have to redefine "life" to know that at some point in the past, when there were no atoms, it was impossible for life to exist (by any definition).

On the other hand, you have the law of biogenesis which has uncountable amounts of data to support it. Observation after observation. It can be verified in the lab, on the farm, in the hospital, in the schools, and everywhere on this earth.

You're wrong.

Yes, we have observations of life comming from life. But no, we don't have observations that life cannot come from non-lie.

Seeing life come from life doesn't meant that it cannot come from non-life.

Again, you're just plain wrong.

Many in this forum have argued that this law doesn't exist and it is vitually meaningless.

Well that's because the Law says, literally, that "spontaneous generation is a dream". It disn't say that ALL life comes from life like you think it did, it says that life comes from an egg.

from wiki:

quote:
Law of biogenesis
"La génération spontanée est une chimère" ("Spontaneous generation is a dream") (Louis Pasteur)

Pasteur's (and others) empirical results were summarized in the phrase, Omne vivum ex vivo (or Omne vivum ex ovo), Latin for "all life [is] from [an] egg". This is sometimes called "law of biogenesis" and shows that modern organisms do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life.


This is why I have argued from the beginning that abiogenesis has no evidence.

But the abiogenesis you are talking about is not the same as spntaneous generation. There was nothing spontaneous about it at all.

It was a gradual emergence of life, itself. That is very different from modern organisms spontaneously arrising from non-life.

But we've been over this already.

Why can you not realize that the LoB says nothing against current theories on abiogenesis?

I think its because abiogenesis present a problem for you religion so you want to discredit it so that it is not better than your religion.

It just makes out to look like an idiot though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-19-2008 10:27 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Fosdick, posted 08-19-2008 12:56 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 306 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-19-2008 4:59 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 893 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 300 of 312 (478674)
08-19-2008 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by AlphaOmegakid
08-19-2008 10:27 AM


Re: In Summation
Hi, AlphaOmegakid.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

Your logic is based on whichever definition of life you choose.

How is my logic based on a definition when no definition that has been discussed allows “life” to exist for maybe 500,000 years after the Big Bang? You can’t come up with a definition that allows this unless you would be willing to also include as life, not only viruses, but planets, stars, asteroids, individual amino acids, rocks, every atom in the periodic table, and all the baryons modern science has ever identified. But, if you use such a definition, the Law of Biogenesis becomes a useless restatement of thermodynamics and doesn’t prevent cells from coming out of raw chemicals.

It is for this reason that I say your argument has been falsified. If your definition is correct, your argument fails. If your argument is correct, your definition fails. Either way, you have cells coming from non-cells. It’s a catch-22.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

But you haven't observed the first life from chemicals. Have you? No data. You haven't observed the environment of the first life on this earth. You can't even accurately define what it was. No DATA. You can't even come up with a plausible series of chemical steps and demonstrate them for the creation of life. No DATA.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

What you do have is life wasn't here and now it is. That's data.

So, which is it? Do I have data, or not?

What more do I need to disprove origins by LoB than, “life didn’t exist 13 billion years ago, and now it does”? How does this not disprove Biogenesis as a hypothesis on origins?

AlphaOmegakid writes:

And your definitions, I believe are equivocations, because they involve redefining words without the evidentiary support to do so. No DATA. Your logic is then based on these redefinitions.

I have not proposed a redefinition, AOkid, nor have I made an argument that requires a specific redefinition in order to succeed. I have argued that your definition is arbitrary, and I have even shown you how your definition defeats your own argument. Your definition is the focus of this debate, and mine is, at best, of peripheral concern. I do not hold an opinion as to what the term “life” refers to, nor do I intend to support a single definition: it is my intent to show you that LoB, of your usage, is impotent no matter what definition of “life” we use, and that that is why it is not taught in science classrooms.

If your origins by LoB theory is false, what alternatives remain? Wouldn't any alternatives be accurately called “Abiogenesis” by default? And, there are many different competing hypotheses of Abiogenesis, no one of which is being exalted above the others in any current textbook that I am aware of. If this is being done in some high school textbook, I will support you in your protest against said textbook. I will not, however, support your argument that LoB falsifies Abiogenesis.

Edited by Bluejay, : space after a comma


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-19-2008 10:27 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
16171819
20
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019