Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8960 total)
403 online now:
caffeine, JonF, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 400 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,542 Year: 1,290/23,288 Month: 1,290/1,851 Week: 414/320 Day: 23/91 Hour: 1/16


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transition from chemistry to biology
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 124 of 415 (485966)
10-14-2008 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by eial
10-13-2008 11:54 PM


Re: Conclusions
quote:

I have concluded that since there is absolutely no evidence for abiogenesis, since this idea contradicts cell theory and Law of Biogenesis (already a post), and that there is not even a scientific model concerning abiogenesis, it is logical to dismiss it as a hypothetical

As has already been pointed out there is no good reason to think that the alleged "law of biogenesis" is a real scientific law. Nor is there any alternative to natural abiogenesis that is even equally good by your own criteria. Thus the only consistent conclusion you could adopt is one of complete agnosticism on the origin of life.

quote:

Doesn’t science work in the exact opposite? Are we not supposed to make the observations and then make conclusions.

What are the research experiments but ways of making observations ?

quote:

What observations are there in abiogenesis- there was no life, then there was? Seems to me this type of observation leaves a lot of room for other interpretations

There are all the experiments carried out by the researchers. And really what possiiblity other than life coming from non-life is consistent with the observation "there was no life, then there was ?" There may be many possibilities on HOW life came from non-life but ALL of them would be abiogenesis (by definition).

quote:

I was brought up that everything was created by God. But then, once I got into college (secular university) I began to question the evidence for a creator. This search for evidence has brought me to what I believe a very open-mined, unbiased (albeit not completely) search for truth.

Since you're citing bogus "evidence" (the "law of biogenesis"), not consistently applying your own criteria and apparently badly misconstruing the arguments offered, I have to say that bias seems to dominate your conclusion.

quote:

I have heard so many times that abiogenesis and evolution are two totally different ideas. Well, this may be true by definition (the textbooks sure lump them together), but they are definitely tied together.

The origin of life has some implications for the way life developed, but that is pretty much about it.

quote:

Abiogenesis is the cornerstone of evolution. This is why scientists are so frantically trying to come up with any sort of evidence that even remotely appears to address abiogenesis. T

Definitely false. Firstly anti-evolutionists frequently appeal to additional abiogenesis events (creation) that are definitely at odds with Pasteur's actual observations (i..e they require complex multi-cellular life forms to come into existence). Abiogenesis is a cornerstone of THEIR beliefs. Abiogenesis is a very big and very interesting problem which is the real reason for interest in it. Even if abiogenesis were proven impossible the evidence for evolution would mean that evolution remained, untouched.

Your bias is showing again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by eial, posted 10-13-2008 11:54 PM eial has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by traste, posted 02-10-2009 7:50 AM PaulK has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 133 of 415 (498409)
02-10-2009 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by traste
02-10-2009 7:50 AM


Re: Conclusions
Wrong. The "law of biogenesis" is not a scientific law because there are no good reasons to think that it is absolute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by traste, posted 02-10-2009 7:50 AM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by traste, posted 02-10-2009 8:31 AM PaulK has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 135 of 415 (498422)
02-10-2009 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by traste
02-10-2009 8:31 AM


Re: Conclusions
Pasteur's experiment was aimed at the idea that the (modern) microrganisms associated with decay were the product of that decay rather than the cause. It is utterly absurd to suggest that his experiments ruled out the possibility of life forming be natural processes.

quote:

Do you agree if I say if a certain theory is contradictory to prove idea the theory need to be reconsider?

The statement is too unclear for me to agree with it or disagree with it.

quote:

I THINK THAT IS A CHARACTERISTIC OF GOOD SCIENCE

I think that jumping to conclusions far in excess of the evidence - as you do in your assessment of Pasteur's experiments - is not a characteristic of good science at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by traste, posted 02-10-2009 8:31 AM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by traste, posted 02-10-2009 9:55 PM PaulK has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 142 of 415 (498478)
02-11-2009 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by traste
02-10-2009 9:55 PM


Re: Conclusions
quote:

Oh!Is that all?

He did a lot of other things but that is the experiment you're talking about.

quote:

Isnt he perfomed also experiment about whether abiogenesis genaration could have taken place?

No. The closest he got to that was the experiment I was talking about.

quote:

In fact he said "never will the doctrine spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."

By which he meant the idea that modern microorganisms appeared as a product of decay...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by traste, posted 02-10-2009 9:55 PM traste has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 168 of 415 (498819)
02-14-2009 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by traste
02-13-2009 9:06 PM


Re: Conclusions
quote:

I thougth you can read well.And what is decay in the following statement"never will the doctrine of spontaneus genaration recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment"?

It's part of the "doctrine of spontaneous generation" referred to.

You can't hope to understand what the experiment proved unless you know what the experiment was.

quote:

Some microbiolgist define spontaneous generation as a theory that living things is come from non living things.If you like to argue with that argue them not me

If they do, then they are not using the words in the exact same sense as Pasteur.

quote:

Since some of you are quoting Pilbeam as a source of your "decay"

Nobody is quoting Pilbeam on this subject. YOU wrongly tried to discuss your arguments in a thread concerning a quote from Pilbeam - even though it had nothing to do with the subject you wanted to discuss.

quote:

I will quote Stephen Meyer

I know who Meyer is. Quoting him won't do you any good.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by traste, posted 02-13-2009 9:06 PM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 5:45 AM PaulK has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 173 of 415 (498826)
02-14-2009 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by traste
02-14-2009 5:45 AM


Re: Conclusions
quote:

Why you are so clever in manupulating facts?

Does "manipulating facts" mean "telling the truth" ? Because that's all I'm doing.

quote:

The microbiologist I'll talk about use the same sense as Pasteur it was discuss in there book that Pasteur's experiment settle the idea that surrounds spontaneous genaration.

In that case it has no great significance to the modern study of abiogenesis. Because that in no way contradicts the outcome of Pasteur's experiment.

quote:

You said quoting Miller would not do me any good,you are right but that is if I am supporter of evolution.

I said that quoting Meyer would do you no good. And the reason that it will do you no good is that Meyer is mainly a propagandist for ID.

quote:

Im so tired in replying you guys.

Yes, many creationists have a problem in dealing with well-informed and honest people. Maybe you should try to think about why that is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 5:45 AM traste has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 214 of 415 (499025)
02-16-2009 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by traste
02-16-2009 2:07 AM


Re: You are Confused
As I've already told you Pasteur's experiment was all about the controversy over whether (modern) microorganisms caused decay or were the product of decay. His statement asserted that his experiment conclusively proved that the former was true and that the latter was false.

Given the nature of the experiment there is simply no way that it could rule out modern ideas of abiogenesis. So all you are doing is insulting Pasteur's memory by painting him as a fool who completely failed to understand the limits of his own experiment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by traste, posted 02-16-2009 2:07 AM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by traste, posted 04-21-2009 10:45 PM PaulK has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 262 of 415 (506045)
04-22-2009 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by traste
04-21-2009 10:45 PM


Re: Re; Im not confused ,you are
quote:

It sounds that you dont really know his experiment,so stop pretending.Pasteur showed that even minute bacteria did not assemble in sterilized water protected from contamination.

My memory is that Pasteur used soup, not distilled water. And of course if he HAD used distilled water the results would have been completely unsurprising - even at the time. Nobody would remember it as important.

These sites confirm my memory:
http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Spontaneous_Generation.php
(Stating that he used "meat broth")

http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio114/spontgen.htm
(a more detailed description of the experiment and what it showed)

and here
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/b.gardner/pasteur.htm

None mention a relevant experiment using distilled water

So now we know who was really "pretending".

quote:

His statement was proven experimentally.

And your point is ?

quote:

It does ruled out abiogenesis and that was the experiment showed.

No, it only ruled out abiogenesis under conditions and timescales sufficiently similar to those in the experiment. That is a limit of the experimental method.

quote:

I'll agree to some degree,but his experiment clearly points out that both abiogenesis and spontaneous genaration are fraud science.HAVE FAITH THEN.

By which you mean that you think that you can use Pasteur's experiment as an excuse to slander honest scientists .


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by traste, posted 04-21-2009 10:45 PM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by traste, posted 05-25-2009 12:22 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020