Biogenesis

AlphaOmegakid writes: I will be glad to discuss any subject intellectually with anyone. But from my scientific observations, that is hard to do with someone who is full of logical fallacies (ad hominen attacks). The evidence demonstrates that your thinking is fallacious and illogical. This is not intended to be an ad hominen attack against you, it is the reality of your argument. I hope I can discuss scientific matters in an intellectual way with respect and dignity.

A word of advice. Using more than 2 big words in a sentence gives away the fact that you're trying really hard to impress people. But what really gives you away is your wrongful accusation of an ad hominem. Some people, like myself, have grown quite clever at wording our arguments to make them look fallacious to the typical newbie. In fact, it's second nature for me and I don't even think about it anymore.

That said, perhaps you'd like to counter my argument rather than just throwing out big words?

Added by edit.

By the way, you do realize that what you did was quote-mining, yes?

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

AlphaOmegakid writes: The law of biogenesis is virtually non existent in modern scientific literature and textbooks. However, modern textbooks have chapters on the origin of life and abiogenesis. With biogenesis we have overwhelming evidence and plenty of application for the good of humanity. With abiogenesis we have zero evidence and no application for the good of humanity. So why the disparity in what is being taught?

As has been pointed out to you many times, the so-called "law of biogenesis" isn't usually referred to as "law of biogensis". Instead, the concept is taught pretty much from 5th grade in just about every curriculum in the country. Again, have you been paying attention in your biology classes? Heck, I even remember learning about Pasteur and the scientific discipline that resulted from his experiments in history class.

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

Just so you know, it's not strawman in this particular case. It's just simple misunderstanding.

You really ought to familiarize yourself more with the fallacies before you use them on the battlefield... I mean during debate.

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

With biogenesis we have overwhelming evidence and plenty of application for the good of humanity. With abiogenesis we have zero evidence and no application for the good of humanity. So why the disparity in what is being taught?

Well, the difference between them is:

(1) We know that abiogenesis has taken place.

(2) The "law of biogenesis" is, therefore, falsified, and is known in the light of modern science to be based on false and exploded biological hypotheses.

There is, obviously, no benefit to humanity in teaching children rubbish. I don't see any great benefit to them knowing the truth, I must admit, but I don't think that education should be strictly utilitarian.

AOkid writes: All scientific laws potentially can be broken or there can be exceptions under certain circumstances.

When an exception to a scientific law is found, that generally means that that scientific law has to be changed in some way to accommodate the new evidence. So, you don't really ever run into a situation where there's an exception to a scientific law (I actually prefer the term "theory" over "law").

AOkid writes: With biogenesis we have overwhelming evidence and plenty of application for the good of humanity.

All the "overwhelming evidence" says is, "life makes more life." This is not the same as, "non-life cannot make life." We have no overwhelming evidence to support that last statement, other than "we've never seen it." There are a lot of things that we've never seen, but still exist (I know a guy who recently discovered over a dozen never-before-documented species of fly on one tiny island in the South Pacific--guess what will happen when people like him get to study in Malaysia and the Amazon).

AOkid writes: With abiogenesis we have zero evidence and no application for the good of humanity.

Well, Dr A has already pointed out that this is false: we can't find any evidence of life in rocks 4 billion years old, but we have found evidence of life in rocks 3.8 billion years old. That life had to have come from one of two things:

(1) something
(2) nothing

Side note: I have a lot of bitter feelings toward the "benefit of humanity" arguments. Truth has inherent superiority over humanity's benefit, even where the two are in conflict, despite what religious leaders and politicians will tell us.

Edited by Bluejay, : Rewording

---

Darwin loves you.

Alasdair writes: I was being a bit silly - what I meant is that there is nothing inherently different from a molecule that is part of a living organism and a molecule that is not. There's nothing special.

Yes, I agree with you, but this has nothing to do with the law of biogenesis. Life not only has molecules, it requires a certain organization of those molecules. Have you ever squished a bug? All the molecules are there. Life also requires a metabolic process to sustain the life and within this is the process of respiration.

Alasdair writes: What? The defining quality of life is self-replication.

No, I think you are referring to reproduction. Replication is just one facet of reproduction. Most of the molecules in the cell do not replicate during reproduction.

Alasdair writes: I still haven't seen the existence of this law except from your assertion.

I'm going to respond to this so everyone can read it. I have posted the link earlier. Here is the citation of Huxley's address. Please read this and all of you stop arguing from the position of ignorance.

Biogenesis and Abiogenesis

These experiments seem almost childishly simple, and one wonders how it was that no one ever thought of them before. Simple as they are, however, they are worthy of the most careful study, for every piece of experimental work since done, in regard to this subject, has been shaped upon the model furnished by the Italian philosopher. As the results of his experiments were the same, however varied the nature of the materials he used, it is not wonderful that there arose in Redi's mind a presumption, that, in all such cases of the seeming production of life from dead matter, the real explanation was the introduction of living germs from without into that dead matter.4 [236] And thus the hypothesis that living matter always arises by the agency of pre-existing living matter, took definite shape; and had, henceforward, a right to be considered and a claim to be refuted, in each particular case, before the production of living matter in any other way could be admitted by careful reasoners. It will be necessary for me to refer to this hypothesis so frequently, that, to save circumlocution, I shall call it the hypothesis of Biogenesis; and I shall term the contrary doctrine–that living matter may be produced by not living matter–the hypothesis of Abiogenesis.

Now after a long review of the history of experiments in these fields, Huxley concludes his remarks with these statements...

I commenced this Address by asking you to follow me in an attempt to trace the path which has been followed by a scientific idea, in its long and slow progress from the position of a probable hypothesis to that of an established law of nature.

Now, that is called peer review. In fact, this peer reviewer was an ardent evolutionist and abiogenesist. So I hope we can agree at least that there is a law of biogenesis.

Alasdair writes: All experiments and observations made have been "fully developed life doesn't just pop out of nowhere" - IE spontaenous generation - never "organic matertial cannot form from non organic material".

I'm not sure what you mean by "fully developed life". It seems like equivocating language to me. Is there any life that is not fully developed? I don't think so. If you do, then please provide some support for your argument.

And in case you don't understand...No life can come from non organic material. There is not one hypothesis which even attempts such a thought. All current hypotheses in the area of abiogenesis require organic molecules. If you are thinking about Miller/Urey, their experiment had nothing to do with life. The experiment was only to see if certain organic molecules could form in a certain environment. They made a racemic mixture of a limited number of amino acids. Big deal. That's light years away from life.

Alasdair writes: The "law of biogenesis" that you keep on bringing up is referring to spontaenous generation.

No I'm afraid the hypothesis of abiogenesis is referring to spontaneous generation. The observations of spontaneous generation were the evidentiary support for the theory of abiogenesis. The observations were shown to be wrong. The evidence for abiogenesis dissapeared. There still is no evidence for it today. If you have some, I would like to see it.

Alisdair writes: There is no law in science that says that organic matter can't form from inorganic matter.

This is a nice strawman. Actually it has been shown that organic matter can come from inorganic matter. This has nothing to do with life coming from organic or inorganic matter.

Within all of your arguments, you are demonstrating my OP very well. You have been taught that abiogenesis is possible, and I think you believe that. You haven't been accurately taught that there is no evidence for abiogenesis, but there is enormous evidence for biogenesis. Why is that?

Taz writes: By the way, you do realize that what you did was quote-mining, yes?

And like you don't understand ad hominen arguments you also don't understand quote mining.

Quote mining is the practice of purposely compiling frequently misleading quotes from large volumes of literature or speech.[1] The term is pejorative. "Quote miners" are often accused of contextomy and misquotation, in an attempt to represent the views of the person being quoted inaccurately. For example, if a person being quoted disagrees with some position, a quote miner will present quotes that suggest that instead, this person is supportive of this position. Material that ostensibly bolsters this position is often taken out of context. Exposition that is at odds with the argument being made in the same text is excluded or otherwise obscured. - from wiki

I cited the whole article. I quoted in context. And I did not mislead with Huxley's comments.

I have some shovels for you though. Your hole is getting deeper.

Dr Adequate writes: Well, the difference between them is: (1) We know that abiogenesis has taken place.

We know no such thing. Just because the geological record shows evidence of life not existing on earth in some previous eon is not evidence for abiogenesis. This is however, viable evidence for panspermia, and of course there are creation theories which modern day science doesn't allow.

Dr Adequate writes: (2) The "law of biogenesis" is, therefore, falsified, and is known in the light of modern science to be based on false and exploded biological hypotheses.

I think most real doctors would fall out of their chairs laughing at such a statement. No modern scientist can demonstrate abiogenesis. Your statements are baseless. Submit some evidence rather than this "rubbish"

I'm not sure what you mean by "fully developed life". It seems like equivocating language to me. Is there any life that is not fully developed? I don't think so. If you do, then please provide some support for your argument.

Abiogenesis suggests that life did not form, fully-developed, from non-living matter.

If you look at my Message 19 you will see a simple outline. First, organic molecules need form from inorganic ones (Miller-Urey), then phospholpids, then RNA then later DNA then...

The point is that it is a gradual process. There is no "point" where life comes into play.

No I'm afraid the hypothesis of abiogenesis is referring to spontaneous generation.

Absolutely not! Spontaneous generation is fully formed living organism comming from non-living material while abiogenesis is a gradual process.

Actually it has been shown that organic matter can come from inorganic matter. This has nothing to do with life coming from organic or inorganic matter.

Sure it does. You need the organic material for life to form from. If inorganic material couldn't form organic material, then that would be a big problem for abiogenesis. A much bigger one than the law of biogenesis (which doesn't say what you think it says).

You haven't been accurately taught that there is no evidence for abiogenesis, but there is enormous evidence for biogenesis. Why is that?

Evidence for biogenesis is that we see living organisms comming from living organisms. This is not evidence that living organisms cannot form from non-living matter.

And there is evidence that suggests that abiogenesis is possible.

You might be interested in this thread.

Dr Adequate writes: Well, the difference between them is: (1) We know that abiogenesis has taken place. We know no such thing. Just because the geological record shows evidence of life not existing on earth in some previous eon is not evidence for abiogenesis. This is however, viable evidence for panspermia, and of course there are creation theories which modern day science doesn't allow.

Panspermia only pushes the question back farther. Where did that life come from?

When know that at some point in the past, there was no life in the universe. Then at some point after that, there was life in the universe. That life could not have formed from pre-existing life, since life didn't exist before it. Therefore, life, at some point in the past*, had to have come from non life. The objection to this is that life has always existed, which we know is impossible.

*not implying that it wasn't a gradual process by referring to a "point" at which life emerged.

The point is that it is a gradual process. There is no "point" where life comes into play.

Uhm... You have reached a logical dilemma. If there is no "point" where life comes into play, then there is no abiogenesis.

This is all just a bunch of silly equivocation on the definitions of life. It's all a logical fallacy. The same applies to the undefined phrase "fully developed".

Uhm... You have reached a logical dilemma. If there is no "point" where life comes into play, then there is no abiogenesis.

Wrong. Abiogenesis is a gradual process. Life doesn't emerge at some "point". Organic molecules gradually combine in the formation of life.

This is all just a bunch of silly equivocation on the definitions of life. It's all a logical fallacy. The same applies to the undefined phrase "fully developed".

The only equivocation I've seen in this thread is the ones you've used for biogenesis and abiogenesis.

They aren't like you've described them.

I hope we can agree at least that there is a law of biogenesis.

So your source for your definition of the LoB is the Huxley article. There are several problems with this.

That address took place in 1870, hardly a good source for representing the views of modern science. One might as well ask why the theory of bodily humours is not taught as fact. Science has moved on somewhat since the nineteenth century.

Huxley was just one man. Much as I respect him, just because Huxley says it, does not make it so.

Most strikingly, the very source you cite disagrees with you as to the all-encompassing remit of the LoB. You say that it means "all life comes from preexisting living matter", but in your cited article, Huxley says;

quote:

---

But though I cannot express this conviction of mine too strongly, I must carefully guard myself against the supposition that I intend to suggest that no such thing as Abiogenesis ever has taken [256] place in the past, or ever will take place in the future. With organic chemistry, molecular physics, and physiology yet in their infancy, and every day making prodigious strides, I think it would be the height of presumption for any man to say that the conditions under which matter assumes the properties we call "vital" may not, some day, be artificially brought together. All I feel justified in affirming is, that I see no reason for believing that the feat has been performed yet.

And looking back through the prodigious vista of the past, I find no record of the commencement of life, and therefore I am devoid of any means of forming a definite conclusion as to the conditions of its appearance. Belief, in the scientific sense of the word, is a serious matter, and needs strong foundations. To say, therefore, in the admitted absence of evidence, that I have any belief as to the mode in which the existing forms of life have originated, would be using words in a wrong sense. But expectation is permissible where belief is not; and if it were given me to look beyond the abyss of geologically recorded time to the still more remote period when the earth was passing through physical and chemical conditions, which it can no more see again than a man can recall his infancy, I should expect to be a witness of the evolution of living protoplasm from not living matter.

---

This has already been pointed out to you by other members, so I am somewhat perplexed as to why you are continuing with this line of argument. It has been refuted. The article makes clear over and over again that the LoB as Huxley understands it is referring to spontaneous generation, not the first origins of life as a whole, which he regards as an open question, one to which he judges that the likely answer is abiogenesis, in the modern sense.

It is also worth noting that physicists are able to track the progress of the universe back to a period just after the big bang, when the universe was the size of a grapefruit. Unless you think that life could exist in a grapefruit sized universe, it seems pretty clear that life must at some point have come from non-life. Even the Bible has God creating Adam from dirt, a clear passage from non-life to life, so I really can't imagine what your objection to abiogenesis is.

---

Mutate and Survive

AlphaOmegakid writes: I cited the whole article. I quoted in context. And I did not mislead with Huxley's comments.

Huh? I was talking about you quote-mining me. You specifically left out all the contents with meat and only quoted the side comments to give the impression that the side comments were the entirety of my argument.

I have some shovels for you though. Your hole is getting deeper.

Haha, ok.

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

AOkid writes: Now, that is called peer review. In fact, this peer reviewer was an ardent evolutionist and abiogenesist. So I hope we can agree at least that there is a law of biogenesis.

The link you provided is a collection of essays written by Huxley. As far as I can tell, this essay was never peer-reviewed, nor was it published by any scientific periodical, nor was it ever tauted as an authoritative treatise on the subject, so I don't see how this proves your point that there is a law of biogenesis.

---

I would like to take a side-trip here and point out that you are treating scientific writings as if scientists regard them as their sacred Bible. There have been millions of scientific studies, papers, posters, essays and books in the history of science, and I would wager that the average scientist today will reject (at least in part) the findings of at least half of all these publications. We are not bound by the semantics (or even the opinions) of our predecessors, because, frankly, they didn't know as much as we know now.

So the mere fact that there was once a scientist (probably multiple scientists, in this case) who espoused a certain view cannot seriously be considered evidence of anything more than that there was once such a scientist (or scientists) who said such a thing.

You have overstepped the bounds of the data and ascribed to it explanatory power that it does not have.

---

Darwin loves you.

AOK writes: I think most real doctors would fall out of their chairs laughing at such a statement.

Well, most real doctors used to fall out of their chairs laughing when they were told to wash their hands before doing anything with their patients. This was, of course, before the germ theory of disease.

Doctors make lousy scientists.

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.