Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
65 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (1 member, 64 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 8/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transition from chemistry to biology
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 47 of 415 (385519)
02-15-2007 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by sidelined
05-30-2004 1:12 PM


We have the building blocks ...
Why is it not within the realm of possibilty that chemical elements in proper combinations and enviroment can give rise to living organisms without the need for supernatural intervention?

I would like to concentrate on debating this without going off on a tangent.

I think it is entirely possible by a number of different routes. See my RAZD - Building Blocks of Life, if you haven't already read it, for some of those routes. Which one was actually used is, and will be, a matter of speculation.

We've seen a number of replication systems that have been developed and a number of ways to concentrate reactions. With those in sufficient quantity it would only be a matter of time. A billion years maybe eh? Maybe there were a couple of false starts too.

Unfortunately the oldest rocks that we know of so far (3.5 billion years old) that can show signs of life already do so - the older rocks are too transformed by heat and pressure for evidence to have survived - so we don't know when it started or have any evidence of the process.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by sidelined, posted 05-30-2004 1:12 PM sidelined has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by traste, posted 02-13-2009 10:33 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 49 of 415 (385686)
02-16-2007 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Brad McFall
02-16-2007 6:36 PM


arbitrary or non-arbitrary?
There is another aspect here as well. Part of my personal belief is that the universe was created primed for life to occur - not just any life nor a specific end-product life (us???), but a most diversified kind: the universe was made to test the ability of life under as wide a variety of circumstances as possible, with the underlying credo "surprise me" as the final word.

In this way we see subatomic particles coming together to form non-arbitrary units that also come together to form non-arbitrary units, and these keep building in complexity.

Atoms do not form arbitrary molecules with other atoms, but only form specific compounds in specific ways under specific conditions. The more complex the molecule the more the 'rules of the game' interact in the process (for shape has as much to do with interactions as valence bonds).

If one accepts an ultimate design concept, then logically this non-arbitrary progression would continue to the formation of replicating molecules and then to life (and not just here and not just us or anything like us).

If one does not accept an ultimate design concept, then logically this non-arbitrary clumping of particles into every increasing complexity makes for a mystery.

The how is the same, the result is the same, but the why is different.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Brad McFall, posted 02-16-2007 6:36 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Woodsy, posted 02-17-2007 7:41 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 52 by Brad McFall, posted 02-17-2007 9:17 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 51 of 415 (385805)
02-17-2007 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Woodsy
02-17-2007 7:41 AM


Re: arbitrary or non-arbitrary?
Mystery does not equate to magic, it just means we don't know.

And that is the logical conclusion based on the evidence. You make your choices after that based on what you feel or believe.

The question of the whys may indeed be meaningless.

Or just unknowable, which comes to the same end.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Woodsy, posted 02-17-2007 7:41 AM Woodsy has taken no action

RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 53 of 415 (385827)
02-17-2007 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Brad McFall
02-17-2007 9:17 AM


Re: arbitrary or non-arbitrary?
This is what distinguishes a thought of physics and one of biology for me.

The problem I have is that between those two lies chemistry and the way molecules come together. The molecules are non-arbitrary. Water only forms in lumps of H2O that form pseudo-chains with weak bonds due to the slight angular position of the Oxygen atoms. Other molecules only form in certain shapes, and these affect how they interact as much as the valence bonds and ionizations.

Looking at the World Community Grid Proteome Folding simulations shows that the folding of proteins impacts how they act in biological systems -- two molecules with identical atomic properties act differently due to shape.

This did not come about after life began, but is part of the chemical world that existed before replication systems occurred. Some molecules are more stable than others, and I expect we will find that some folding patterns are more stable than others, while others will transform under other chemical stimulii to react and form new molecules. As new stable molecules are formed they will persist longer than those that are less stable. A form of selection?

I would sooner think that the periodic table of elements is actually infinite than that a physicists forces were conceptually equivalent to Dyson's differences.

I am sure there are many isotopes of existing elements as well as atoms off our current table in existence in the universe. It is a matter of energy and pressure. Of course at the ultimate plasma end of the spectrum all atoms merge into one field - become one?

... as I do not accept that there are Martins on Mars, unless it was shown so.

Nor do I, but I do not rule out the possibility either.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Brad McFall, posted 02-17-2007 9:17 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Brad McFall, posted 02-17-2007 4:48 PM RAZD has seen this message

RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 58 of 415 (385927)
02-18-2007 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by lovefaithhope
02-18-2007 12:52 AM


Re: words of life chemistry
The elements of this universe are all the breath of God!

If you truly believe this then all science is just the proper study of the "breath of God" and the better a job science does of that -- unhindered by any dogmatic interference or preconception -- the closer it comes to finding that breath of truth that is the real creation.

A better place to discuss this is NOT on this thread (where it is off-topic) but at Perceptions of Reality ... when your suspension ends. See Message 158.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by lovefaithhope, posted 02-18-2007 12:52 AM lovefaithhope has taken no action

RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 186 of 415 (498848)
02-14-2009 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by traste
02-14-2009 5:25 AM


We have the definitions & We have the maths
Hey traste,

Having fun making up random responses to information that invalidates your opinions?

In Message 145 you state:

I dont think so.That definiton is correct only for supporters of evolution dont you think so?

The problem you have, is that those definitions are the ones used in the science. Thus they are the definitions that are applicable if you are talking about the science. If you are criticizing the science, then these are the definitions you MUST use, as they are the ones that apply to the science - otherwise you are just babbling uniformed nonsense while pretending to be informed. You can fool yourself, but not anyone in the sciences.

Excuse me!I Have undergone rigid training in mathemathics.Not just a beginner.Since you are implying that mathemathics supports evolution could you give some?

Curiously, mathematics was at the core of the genetic infusion back into evolution, resulting in the modern synthesis. The maths revolved around population genetics and the relation between mendelian genetic inheritance and natural selection of phenotypes. Many mathematical models have been made to show how evolution works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_genetics

quote:
Population genetics is the study of the allele frequency distribution and change under the influence of the four evolutionary processes: natural selection, genetic drift, mutation and gene flow. It also takes account of population subdivision and population structure in space. As such, it attempts to explain such phenomena as adaptation and speciation. Population genetics was a vital ingredient in the modern evolutionary synthesis, its primary founders were Sewall Wright, J. B. S. Haldane and R. A. Fisher, who also laid the foundations for the related discipline of quantitative genetics.

This occurred back in the 1930's so your claim of maths not being involved in evolution is very current.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_reproductive_value

quote:
Fisher's reproductive value was defined by R. A. Fisher in his 1930 book The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection as the expected reproduction of an individual from their current age onward, given that they have survived to their current age. It is used in describing populations with age structure.

and this is still a robust field within the science of evolution:

Sample pages of recent book on population genetics

This sampling from a (gasp) modern (2004) book, and the sample shown is related to Wright-Fisher model of genetic drift, while the book as a whole:

quote:
This concise introduction offers students and researchers an overview of the discipline that connects genetics and evolution. Addressing the theories behind population genetics and relevant empirical evidence, John Gillespie discusses genetic drift, natural selection, nonrandom mating, quantitative genetics, and the evolutionary advantage of sex. First published to wide acclaim in 1998, this brilliant primer has been updated to include new sections on molecular evolution, genetic drift, genetic load, the stationary distribution, and two-locus dynamics. This book is indispensable for students working in a laboratory setting or studying free-ranging populations.

Population Genetics: A Concise Guide
By John H. Gillespie
Edition: 2, illustrated, revised
Published by JHU Press, 2004
ISBN 0801880092, 9780801880094
214 pages

You can do a google on fisher population genetics and get pages and pages of results. A gold-mine for someone who wants to learn.

And yes, the mathematics supports evolution (just in case you can't be bothered looking into it). Of course, the fact that the mathematical models support what actually occurs should be no surprise: math only models reality, so a good model can model and predict reality, while a bad model (like the formation of proteins de novo) can't. When there is a difference of opinion, math loses to reality.

In Message 182 you state:

So Sir Fred Hoyle does not know well how mathemathics work since he use mathemathics to refute evolution?You sound like an idiot on that reasoning.

Yes, he amply demonstrated that when the mathematical model does not match reality it is the mathematical model that is discarded. Of course he also demonstrated ignorance of how evolution works, so it is not surprising that his model did not reflect reality.

Enjoy.

btw - your "habit" of posting many short replies, often to the same person and the same post causes a lot of extra messages to be posted than are necessary. There is generally a limit of ~300 posts to a thread, so if you really want to deal with the issue before we get their, you (I'm sure you can calculate it) need to be more effective in your use of posts. One technique would involve a complete response to each person eliminating necessary multiple posts, and another is to combine responses to posts from the same person as I have done with you.

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.

For other formating tips see Posting Tips

If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):


... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it.

For instance if you use "peek" you would see that

In Message 145 you state:

was written

In [msg=-145] you state:

You also might try spaces after periods, and small paragraphs instead on all one lump that appears more like rambling than cohesive thought.

Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

Edited by RAZD, : example.

Edited by RAZD, : clarity


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 5:25 AM traste has taken no action

RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 189 of 415 (498872)
02-14-2009 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by traste
02-14-2009 3:38 AM


Let's play the Creolution game
Evolution implies randomness,in fact it implies that the complexities observe in life came by chance.

This is a common misunderstanding of evolution, and what it neglects from the equations is selection. So let's play the Creolution game to show how selection works on randomness.

We will each throw 10 dice (to make calculating averages easy) and ...

Creolutionists (only random events) average the results of their throw:

  • if the average a is 3 ≤ a ≤ 4 then you are in stasis and don't move
  • if the average a is a < 3 then you move back one space
  • if the average a is a > 4 then you move forward one space

Evolutionists (random events + selection) remove any ones and average the remaining results of their throw:


  • if the average a is 3 ≤ a ≤ 4 then you are in stasis and don't move
  • if the average a is a < 3 then you move back one space
  • if the average a is a > 4 then you move forward one space

Each throw represents a generation, and 10 dice are used to represent a population, the evolutionist selection of eliminating 1's represents natural selection operating against the individual organisms that don't succeed in survival and breeding, while the randomness of the dice represents random mutations.

Care to place any wagers on which team will reach 100 positive moves first?

You are, after all (at least by assertion), a mathematician familiar with calculating probabilities.

Note, if you get this pattern:


Click to enlarge

Then you can say the great god escher did it.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : format


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 3:38 AM traste has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Coyote, posted 02-14-2009 5:16 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 191 of 415 (498879)
02-14-2009 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Coyote
02-14-2009 5:16 PM


Re: Let's play the Creolution game
I ran a quick spreadsheet with random generators for the dice, and after 100 generations the score was Creo 13 to Evo 52, and after 200 generations it was Creo 8 to Evo 92.

Even just a little selection can thus cause significant change over time.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Coyote, posted 02-14-2009 5:16 PM Coyote has taken no action

RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 193 of 415 (498884)
02-14-2009 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by traste
02-13-2009 10:33 PM


Re: We have the building blocks ... but some concepts can't stack one on the other.
The real problem is you could not demonstrate those things(complexities observe in life )came by change whether by mathemathical induction or scientific rigor.All current theories that supports abiogenesis is nothing but exposition of ignorance.The real conclusion is "God" did it.

Yes, when you ignore all evidence to the contrary the only conclusion left is that magic did it.

You are absolutely correct.

Of course if you need to deny all the evidence of the universe in order to enable your belief to stand, then it is a poor belief, because it has no reference to the richness of reality.

The other problem is that when you have eliminated any way to distinguish truth from fantasy, you have not shown, cannot show, that your belief is worth anything compared to the belief of anyone else. The result is as pointless as solipsism and last-thursdayism.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by traste, posted 02-13-2009 10:33 PM traste has taken no action

RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 195 of 415 (498928)
02-15-2009 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Coyote
02-14-2009 5:16 PM


Re: Let's play the Creolution game
Out of interest I ran this again to compare using 10 dice and using 50 dice for the population. The results were:
For 10 dice:
Creo Creo Evo Evo
Average Score Average Score

3.46 -17 4.02 91

For 50 dice:
Creo Creo Evo Evo
Average Score Average Score

3.48 -3 4.00 95

You will see that the overall average is what would be predicted from averaging 1 thru 6 (3.5) and 2 thru 6 (4.0). Both of these averages are set to result in stasis in the scoring, but the slight shift in the standard deviation distribution results in significant advantage to selection over just random mutation.

You can also see from all these results that they are close to predicted results of no overall significant gain or loss in the creolution model (should tend to 0 as number of generations increase), and that the predicted results for the evolution model should have ~1/2 of the distribution resulting in a positive step.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Coyote, posted 02-14-2009 5:16 PM Coyote has taken no action

RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 200 of 415 (498991)
02-15-2009 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by traste
02-15-2009 9:12 PM


Re: A bio genesis
It is not difficult to learn how to do quotes. You can "peek" at the coding other use with the "peek" button next to the reply button, or you can use one of these tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

For other formating tips see Posting Tips

It is a beginning without life (from non life to life)
(You are now in conflict with Blue Jays translation.You are very dis honest guys.)

Really? Care to show how Bluejay's definition of abiogenesis is different?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

quote:
In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how living things have changed over time. Amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", occur naturally, due to chemical reactions unrelated to life. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Thus the question of the origin of life is a question of how the first nucleic acids came into existence.
(color for empHAsis).

Is that not similar?

Bluejay in Message 136 says:

Abiogenesis is the common idea underlying many hypotheses about the origin of the very first life form. In simplest terms, "abiogenesis" basically means that, at some point, there was a first life form, and, since no life predated that life form, that life form could only have come from something other than a pre-existing life form. This concept has no templates: it is a haphazard compilation of random elements into something workable.

Bluejay in Message 153 says:

If you and I were to see abiogenesis happen right now, we would see one set of molecules become associated with another set of molecules. That's it.

... and abiogenesis is a way for chemistry to gradually become complex enough to perpetuate itself.

I see no conflict between these definitions - they all proceed from non-living chemicals to living biological systems sufficiently developed to be subject to evolution.

How many more posts are you going to waste on not understanding this really simple concept? This is what the term means, you do not get to revise it, you do not get to redefine it, you do not get to argue about it, you do not get to vote on it, you get to live with it.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by traste, posted 02-15-2009 9:12 PM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by traste, posted 02-16-2009 12:00 AM RAZD has seen this message

RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 202 of 415 (499008)
02-15-2009 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by traste
02-15-2009 11:06 PM


Re: We have the building blocks ...
See, when you don't use quotes all you create is confusion. People reading this think the first paragraph is you rather than cavediver.

By your own admission (Message 14) it appears that you are not concerned with clarity and preventing confusion:

quote:
Thanks for the suggestion but,I like to do things in my own style.

You may find that people get tired of posters that play games.

You are in a very weak ground now.Prof.Richard Dawkins in his book the Selfish Gene deals with many improbable accident I think you have a trouble with him in understanding that thing.So because you said order it implies intelligent design.

Except that Dawkins and cavediver both use the filter of selection rather than any implication of intelligent design.

Misrepresenting what people say is either because you don't understand it or because you are being dishonest.

One can be cured.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by traste, posted 02-15-2009 11:06 PM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by traste, posted 02-16-2009 1:02 AM RAZD has seen this message

RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 346 of 415 (514323)
07-06-2009 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 338 by traste
07-06-2009 1:53 AM


Still a logical fallacy
Hi traste

------------------------------------------------------------------------
First off, an appeal to autority is a logical fallacy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I,think you must review your logic class. A thing will become only an appeal to authority if an only if he or she is not an expert of that field. For example if we talk about gravity and you will quote Darwin that fallacy is appeal to authority since Darwin is not an expert on physics.

Interestingly, it is still an appeal to authority. The fallacy is that it makes the assumption that what the person says is true, rather than relying on the premise itself being true.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

you know it's a lot easier, quicker and more consistent to type

[qs]First off, an appeal to autority is a logical fallacy[/qs] than to type all those dashes.

Logically you should use a system that is simple and that conveys more information for less keystrokes.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just because Pasteur may have said something doesnt make it true.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
And why??? Produce your evidence that it is not true.

Doesn't have to: this is the essence of science, that theories can be wrong, and the fact that a lot has happened in biology since the time of Pasteur means it is inevitable that something he said was wrong.

So if I quote Eienstien idea on relativity it means nothing for you??

Curiously, Einstein was wrong about a cosmic constant. Authorities can be wrong even within their field, and this is why the appeal to authority is always a logical fallacy.

What a stupid mind do you have!!!

Ah, now we have the ad hominem logical fallacy, one that betrays an empty argument.

Franky I dont like this tone of reasoning, so emotional. Have you ever prove experimentally that he was incorrect.??

Now you're projecting.

There is nothing remotely emotional about pointing out the FACT that Pasteur's experiments had absolutely nothing to do with (a) self-replicating molecules (no amino acid brews were involved), nor (b) recreating the ecology\environment of an early earth (no altered atmosphere were involved).

What Pasteur proved was that you could sterilize food and delay spoiling, hence we have pasteurized milk.

What is incorrect, what is false, what is a lie, is to say that Pasteur's experiments show that life cannot arise from chemicals, especially when those chemicals involve self-replicating molecules in amino acid brews with an altered environment designed to match that of an early earth.

For every quote you could produce from Pasteur, there are hundreds of quotes one could find from modern scientists studying abiogenesis that talk about the possibilities involved. Not one of those scientists would say that Pasteur's experiment was wrong or that his conclusions were wrong, just that they do not apply to the field of abiogenesis because Pasteur's experiments had absolutely nothing to do with (a) self-replicating molecules (no amino acid brews were involved), nor (b) recreating the ecology\environment of an early earth (no altered atmosphere were involved).

It is logically impossible for his experiments to even address the issue of abiogenesis involving self-replicating molecules in amino acid brews with an altered environment designed to match that of an early earth.

Pasteur's experiments are as relevant to the field of abiogenesis as the experiments on gravity.

An increasing number of scientist most particularly a growing number of evolutionist argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theoryu at all many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.---( New Scientist)

You need to stop telling yourself lies, and making up quotes is lying.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by traste, posted 07-06-2009 1:53 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by traste, posted 07-07-2009 5:34 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 356 of 415 (514466)
07-07-2009 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by traste
07-07-2009 5:34 AM


so you like authority eh? Here are authorities on the argument from authority ...
Hi traste, still have that chip I see.

Take my advice. Join Rahvin in reviewing his logic lesson. There is no assumption in Pasteur's experiment it was proven experimentally my friend. The real assumption is abiogenesis which contradicts current data. The premise of Pasteur's experiment is this. Organic things did not begin from inorganic thing. So the logic is. Every oganic thing came only from organic thing.

Let's not change the subject and try to pretend to discuss the same thing - that's called the logical fallacy of equivocation - or introduce new topics before dealing with the current one - that's called the logical fallacy of the red herring.

Message 338

traste in his own words writes:

A thing will become only an appeal to authority if an only if he or she is not an expert of that field. For example if we talk about gravity and you will quote Darwin that fallacy is appeal to authority since Darwin is not an expert on physics.

Please note that this statement has nothing to do with Pasteur's experiment or the assumptions of abiogenesis - it is just you being wrong. You seem to like authority, so here are some for you to chew over:

Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam):

quote:
While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:
1. the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,
2. experts in the field disagree on this issue.
3. the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious.

Note that this specifically does NOT say that a quote from a qualified person is always appropriate.

Ad verecundiam fallacy - (to authority or veneration):

quote:
The appeal to authority rather than logical argument and verifiable evidence to support an idea. Authorities include: experts, teachers, leaders, customs, traditions, institutions (religions or ideologies), individuals holding respected positions in government, business, or other organizations, or any individuals or groups whose opinions are regarded as authoritative.

Using authority in argument or reason is not itself a fallacy, it is when authority is used instead of reason, or when the supposed authority is not a valid one, that a fallacy is committed.


Argument from authority:

quote:
Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

Source A says that p.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premisses can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). [1]


Now compare these to what I said:

Message 346

quote:
Interestingly, it is still an appeal to authority. The fallacy is that it makes the assumption that what the person says is true, rather than relying on the premise itself being true.

Note that NOT ONE of these authorities on logic and the argument from authority agree with you.

My real point is quoting an authorithy is sensible ... but it doesnt mean that quoting them is always alogical fallacy it is sensible to appeal to someone in a particular field when we are not an expert of that thing.

Ergo you are also wrong by your own argument on the validity of using the argument from authority.

I have no quarel with the idea that theories can be wrong. Newton can be wrong, Hawkings can be wrong,yet the real point is we should rely on current data not just on wishful speculations and boundless optimism.

Which is why the appeal to authority INSTEAD of going to the data is a logical fallacy and insufficient to establish the veracity of your argument.

Because Pasteur said something is insufficient reason to believe the veracity of the statement - you implied that it was, you made the appeal to authority INSTEAD of going to the data.

My real point is quoting an authorithy is sensible I say nothing about cosmic constant. Yes an authorities can be wrong ...

Exactly - the authority can be wrong, so when you claim that something is true because an authority said so, you are ignoring the fact that the authority can be wrong.

... but it doesnt mean that quoting them is always alogical fallacy it is sensible to appeal to someone in a particular field when we are not an expert of that thing.

Better to cite the evidence and a multitude of sources that are in broad agreement within the field.

The real assumption is abiogenesis which contradicts current data. The premise of Pasteur's experiment is this.

Curiously, Pasteur was not an abiogenecist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur

quote:
Louis Pasteur (December 27, 1822 – September 28, 1895) was a French chemist and microbiologist born in Dole. He is best known for his remarkable breakthroughs in the causes and preventions of disease. His discoveries reduced mortality from puerperal fever, and he created the first vaccine for rabies. His experiments supported the germ theory of disease. He was best known to the general public for inventing a method to stop milk and wine from causing sickness - this process came to be called Pasteurization. He is regarded as one of the three main founders of microbiology, together with Ferdinand Cohn and Robert Koch. Pasteur also made many discoveries in the field of chemistry, most notably the molecular basis for the asymmetry of certain crystals.[1]

Nothing about abiogenesis there. Then there are his experiments:

quote:
He exposed boiled broths to air in vessels that contained a filter to prevent all particles from passing through to the growth medium, and even in vessels with no filter at all, with air being admitted via a long tortuous tube that would not allow dust particles to pass. Nothing grew in the broths unless the flasks were broken open; therefore, the living organisms that grew in such broths came from outside, as spores on dust, rather than spontaneously generated within the broth. This was one of the last and most important experiments disproving the theory of spontaneous generation. The experiment also supported germ theory.[8]

Nothing about recreating the conditions of an ancient earth, nothing about investigating proto-cell development or self-replicating molecules. What we have are sterilized containers, and the suppression of bacterial growth by sterilization. This allows us to sell milk in stores with good assurance that the milk will not spoil before the "best before" date stamped on the container. This too is not abiogenesis.

Pasteur died in 1895, and the field of abiogenesis really began with the Miller-Urey experiments in 1924. Since that time a lot of work by a lot of scientist have added volumes of information that Pasteur was completely unaware of.

Therefore Pasteur is not an authority on abiogenesis, no matter what he said, no matter what he did, no matter what he knew.

Not only is it a logical fallacy to quote an authority, but your authority is past it's "best before" date.

The real assumption is abiogenesis which contradicts current data.

The current data shows that at 4.55 billion years ago we had a primal earth, but no life. The current data shows that the oldest known fossils at 3.5 billion years of age show life forms, cyanobacteria type algae. The current data shows that between those dates life came to earth, but the exact beginning is not known.

One theory is that chemicals formed a self-replicating system that was then able to evolve into life. There is no data that contradicts this theory.

The premise of Pasteur's experiment is this. Organic things did not begin from inorganic thing.

No, the premise that can be derived from the grand totality of all of Pasteur's experiments, is that fully formed organisms do not arise in a few weeks inside a sterile container in a laboratory under today's prevailing conditions. It says nothing about any other conditions.

So the logic is. Every oganic thing came only from organic thing.

Which is not supported by the evidence above of life beginning between 3.5 billion years ago and 4.55 billion years ago.

I don't know how to enable the html.

It's not html, and it doesn't need to be enabled to use the coding I've given you several times now. All you need to do is type either of what is shown in magenta here:

  • [qs] ... (insert copied quote here) ... [/qs]
    or
  • [quote] ... (insert copied quote here) ... [/quote]
The magenta text is the coding to make either

the qs box
or
quote:
the quote lines

Try it.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by traste, posted 07-07-2009 5:34 AM traste has taken no action

RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 357 of 415 (514467)
07-07-2009 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 355 by cavediver
07-07-2009 5:47 PM


biogenesis, Pasteur and abiogenesis
Hi cavediver,

I think we saw the same argument with Alphaomegakid ...

Got it in one

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by cavediver, posted 07-07-2009 5:47 PM cavediver has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022