Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
98 online now:
kjsimons, Phat, Stile, vimesey (4 members, 94 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,185 Year: 6,297/6,534 Month: 490/650 Week: 28/232 Day: 5/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transition from chemistry to biology
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 83 of 415 (482998)
09-19-2008 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by eial
09-16-2008 11:09 PM


Re: Evidence for abiogenesis
Hi, Eial.

Welcome to EvC!

Can I suggest that you read this recently closed topic on the subject of abiogenesis/biogenesis? It is a long thread, and spends a fairly lengthy amount of time arguing definitions, but there is a great deal of good information in that thread about abiogenesis and the "law" of biogenesis.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by eial, posted 09-16-2008 11:09 PM eial has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 107 of 415 (485118)
10-05-2008 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by AlphaOmegakid
10-03-2008 5:16 PM


Hi, Kid.

As per my promise on the Birthday Thread...

AOkid writes:

From History, you need to understand that spontaneous generation was "mainstream science".

AOkid writes:

Now the two opposing theories are clearly identified in Huxley's address.

You get a two-fer: I agree with both of these. Happy birthday!!

-----

AOkid writes:

Great ! Come to papa!

...Great! you took your first step!

...Halelujah! He took his second step!

...Mama! He just face planted. Poor thing, now let me help you back to your baby feet. If you had listened to papa...

You're an arrogant dick.

-----

AOkid writes:

The theory is clearly stated. Abiogenesis says that life can come from non-living matter. Pasteur's and others experiments over time showed that this doesn't happen in nature.

So, if I kept two parakeets in a cage, and they lived for ten years without giving birth to zebra finches, does that falsify evolution?

Edited by Bluejay, : I only really needed to insult him once. Sorry, AOkid.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-03-2008 5:16 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-06-2008 10:30 AM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 111 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-06-2008 11:17 AM Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 114 of 415 (485241)
10-06-2008 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by AlphaOmegakid
10-06-2008 11:17 AM


Hi, AlphaOmegakid.

AOkid writes:

Bluejay writes:

So, if I kept two parakeets in a cage, and they lived for ten years without giving birth to zebra finches, does that falsify evolution?

And what does this have to do with the price of eggs in China?

I didn't say anything about eggs or China.

How come my birds-in-a-cage example is irrelevant, yet an experiment of a parallel design falsifies abiogenesis?

From now on, whenever you bring up Pasteur, I'll just reply with the same line: "What does this have to do with the price of eggs in China?"

It fits just as well.

-----

AOkid writes:

I used no ad hominen attack. But I used his [baby steps] metaphor to destroy his argument.

No, you used his baby steps analogy to insult him. There was no connection between the baby steps analogy and the argument you were making, so it was a pointless addition by you to get in a cheap shot at Onifre. This is probably why the moderators don't step in when other people insult you.

Besides, I didn't complain about an ad hominem: I complained about your arrogance. Stop arguing strawmen. :P

Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-06-2008 11:17 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 136 of 415 (498435)
02-10-2009 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by traste
02-10-2009 8:31 AM


Ontogeny vs. Phylogeny
Hi, Traste.

Although, if you had looked hard enough, you certainly would have found this written multiple times in the threads I linked you to from the Pilbeam thread, I think you may still benefit from reading this one more time:

Spontaneous generation was a hypothesis about how organisms reproduce. It suggested that some animal reproduction (ontogeny) was accomplished by the environment, instead of by sex or cell division. That is, some animals were born from leaf litter, water, rotting carcasses or dirt. This concept calls for a mechanism that allows decaying matter to be transformed into an animal by means of a pre-existing template.

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/Mantis/Thylacosmilus

Darwin loves you.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by traste, posted 02-13-2009 10:08 PM Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 153 of 415 (498796)
02-14-2009 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by traste
02-13-2009 10:08 PM


Re: Ontogeny vs. Phylogeny
Hi, Traste.

I realize you're getting a lot of pressure from a lot of people, so I understand your frustration. But, let's keep it calm and rational, okay?

traste writes:

Who is Pilbeam in the first place?

I don't know who Pilbeam is. I'd never heard of him before. I was referring to the first thread you posted on at EvC (here is a link to that thread), which had something to do with quote-mining and somebody named Pilbeam.

-----

traste writes:

If I say that I believe that spontaneous generation is just the same as abiogenesis because that is what Stephen Meyer said we will end quoting people isnt it?

Is English your first language? This sentence gives me a headache.

Stephen Meyer was never designated as the official spokesman of the scientific community, so I am not duty-bound to regard his words as sacred. I am also under no obligation to concede an argument because you were able to find somebody who disagrees with me. So, instead of providing the words that somebody once said, I prefer to provide logical argumentation of my own divising.

For example, let's review once again the concepts of spontaneous generation and abiogenesis, in the hopes that you will be able to see that Louis Pasteur tested one of those hypotheses, and not the other.

If you and I were to see spontaneous generation happen right now, we would see, for example, a lump of mud, without provocation, metamorphose into a bullfrog.

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.

Spontaneous generation is a way for animals to reproduce, and abiogenesis is a way for chemistry to gradually become complex enough to perpetuate itself.

-----

traste writes:

By the way could you demonstrate with mathemathical rigor that the complexities and organization observe in life in general came about by random change?

I don't understand: why do you think that this is necessary?


-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by traste, posted 02-13-2009 10:08 PM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Coyote, posted 02-14-2009 1:42 AM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 156 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 3:23 AM Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 188 of 415 (498869)
02-14-2009 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by traste
02-14-2009 3:23 AM


Re: Ontogeny vs. Phylogeny
Hi, Traste.

Please use quote boxes: it makes it easier to know what you're responding to.

traste writes:

(Demonstration with mathematical rigor) is necessary since we are talking chance events.

You've reversed the methodology of science, Traste. Scientists learned long ago that you can't really prove anything with 100% certainty.

We design experiments to disprove our hypotheses. If our experiment fails, we regard this as evidence that our hypothesis is valid. And, the hypothesis remains valid until one of our experiments succeeds in disproving it.

-----

There are two possibilities for the origin of life: spontaneity (randomness) and teleology (purpose).

Ironically, spontaneous generation was a teleological hypothesis: it proposed a directed, consistent transformation of one entity (dead matter) into another.

The disproof of teleological ideas like spontaneous generation is actually support for spontaneity-based ideas like the Theory of Evolution and abiogenesis.


-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 3:23 AM traste has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 304 of 415 (514091)
07-03-2009 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by Peg
07-03-2009 10:12 AM


Re: Interactions
Hi, Peg.

Peg writes:

I guess i used this example because the dead thing contains all the chemicals required for life...but those chemicals do not interact with each other the way abiogenesis would suggest they do.

If life is a result of a chemical reaction, why should it ever end, why should those chemicals stop interacting and cause death??? and what was the force that got them interacting in the first place????

What kept them interacting throughout the creatures life?

You're thinking about this all the wrong way.

Nothing is keeping those chemicals reacting except the fact that all those chemicals are reacting in such a way as to promote one another’s actions. As long as the conditions are suitable for a reaction to take place, it will take place. And, our bodies contain vast networks of reactions that maintain suitable conditions for other reactions to take place. It’s all just a delicate balancing act.

Life is simply the condition of relative stability among those chemical reactions. Death results when the stability is lost and cannot be regained.

Did you ever watch I Love Lucy? Remember the famous episode where Lucy and Ethel had to work at a chocolate factory, wrapping chocolates while they passed by on a conveyor belt? Once one chocolate got by them, they were behind in their work, and, from then on, they had to struggle to regain control. Eventually, the chocolates began piling up, and the ladies lost control.

What happened there? Everything they needed to get the chocolates wrapped was there---Lucy, Ethel, the chocolates, the wrappers, and the conveyor belt. All the necessary ingredients were present, but the system failed anyway.

And, we see this kind of failure all the time in the real world. For example, my father’s company used to be highly competitive on the market, but became incapable of supporting the sales and shipping networks its competitors had, and was eventually bought out.

If the intelligence and creativity of human beings is not sufficient to maintain a system indefinitely, why do you feel that molecules would be more proficient?


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Peg, posted 07-03-2009 10:12 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Peg, posted 07-04-2009 8:19 AM Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 315 of 415 (514178)
07-04-2009 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by Peg
07-04-2009 8:19 AM


Rate-of-Living Hypothesis
Hi, Peg.

You may not know it, but what you are presenting is one of the oldest theories of aging. It's called the "rate of living theory," and it has not been taken seriously for quite some time now.

Peg writes:

so think about it...in general, mammals get about 1 billion or less heartbeats in a lifetime...the number of heartbeats given to man is more then twice as much as other mammals...it shows that we have far more potential then other mammals.

Bats live about three times as long as mice, but have similar metabolic rates. That puts bats above us. In fact, I think you'll find that humans aren't actually all that unusual on the metabolism-lifespan curve. Observations like this is why the rate-of-living hypothesis is no longer in favor with scientists.

But, you're right: this has little to do with the topic of this thread.

-----

Really, the bottom line is that life continues only as long as the network of chemical reactions that comprise it feed each other efficiently and stably. Death is simply the point when certain vital chemical reactions fail. But, in truth, many less vital reactions fail long before death actually occurs.

The accumulation of failing reactions is what causes life to end. If there was no failure, there would be no death.

Of course, many chemical reactions can continue after death has occurred (such as the oxidation of hemoglobin), so it's obvious that these reactions do not require life in order to happen. All they require is the right conditions. When a large number of reactions can provide the right conditions for each other to happen and perpetuate, we call it "life."


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Peg, posted 07-04-2009 8:19 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Taz, posted 07-04-2009 9:04 PM Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 318 of 415 (514216)
07-04-2009 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by Taz
07-04-2009 9:04 PM


Re: Rate-of-Living Hypothesis
Hi, Taz.

Cool.

But, Forum rule #5:

Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

And:

Re: Why we killed "reply quote"

:D


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Taz, posted 07-04-2009 9:04 PM Taz has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 324 of 415 (514269)
07-05-2009 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by Peg
07-05-2009 2:14 AM


Pasteur's Experiments
Hi, Peg.

Peg writes:

He certainly proved that life does not arise from non living matter, yet he was wrong because it 'actually' happens over millions of years???

Pasteur was not wrong, and no one has yet said that he was. The problem is that most people do not understand what it was that he was not wrong about.

What Pasteur did was leave rotting meat in a sealed flask for a matter of months. This is not a sufficiently long period of time to evaluate the fate of the meat a billion years from now.

By analogy, is a few months a sufficient time period to determine everything that will happen to a developing human baby throughout its lifetime?

Drawing conclusions about what will happen several million years (or even just several decades) from now based on what you see happening over a period of mere months is bad science.

I do not feel that Pasteur was guilty of bad science. He did not intend his experiments to have far-reaching implications about what will happen millions of years in the future: he only intended it to test a hypothesis whose effects would be seen within a few months.

-----

The idea of spontaneous generation (which Pasteur disproved) is not the same as the idea of abiogenesis (which Pasteur did not---nor ever intended to---disprove). Spontaneous generation was a hypothesis about reproduction: it stated that populations of modern animals were replenished by a cycle of spontaneous reassembly that repeated itself regularly in nature. It stated that rotting meat was one of the regular developmental phases in the life cycle of a fly.

It was not a hypothesis about whether chemicals could gather into increasingly complex networks of interactions which might one day be called "life."

Pasteur's experiments were powerful, not because of what didn't happen in the sealed flasks, but because of the comparison between the open and sealed flasks.

Maggots only appeared in the open flasks, to which flies had access. By comparing open flasks to sealed flasks, Pasteur showed that flies reproduce by laying eggs, not be spontaneously morphing from meat.

The whole time, the experiment was only about the method of reproduction utilized by flies, not about whether or not life arises from non-life.

Edited by Bluejay, : "Whos" is bad English


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Peg, posted 07-05-2009 2:14 AM Peg has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 325 of 415 (514270)
07-05-2009 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by themasterdebator
07-05-2009 12:43 PM


Re: Interactions
Hi, TheMasterDebator.

Welcome to EvC, by the way!

themasterdebator writes:

Scientists have not had to work hard to create life. They had to work hard to discover and recreate the conditions of the early earth, but once they did that life started on its own.

Abiogenesis has never been completely recreated in a laboratory setting.

If and when it does finally happen, your description will probably fit. But, until then, it would be prudent to use future tense instead of past tense.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by themasterdebator, posted 07-05-2009 12:43 PM themasterdebator has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 344 of 415 (514320)
07-06-2009 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 328 by traste
07-05-2009 9:56 PM


Re: Your confidinced troubled me
Hi, Traste.

traste writes:

And if you ask me whether abiogenesis is spontaneous genaration my answer is yes. In general what does abiogenesis holds? In general what does spontaneous genaration holds? Are they not holding that life is came from non - life? So as you think best what is the difference?

All you had to do was read four messages upthread, and you would have realized that this question was already answered (Message 324). But, instead, you decided to drag out the thread for another round.

Please keep up with the thread, Traste.

-----

Let me try again.

Spontaneous generation is about REPRODUCTION: it is the idea that nature reproduces organisms as if from a factory. It suggested a repeating process, which regularly churned out copies of the same organism. Basically, it's the belief that nature is a maggot-cloning machine. Pasteur showed that organisms produce their own offspring, thus falsifying spontaneous generation.

Abiogenesis is the idea that systems of chemical reactions can increase in complexity until they are complex enough to be considered "life." It does not suggest that organisms are the product of a natural cloning machine. Pasteur did not set up his experiment to touch on this.

Here are some things that Pasteur did not do in his experimental set up:

  1. He did not attempt to recreate the chemical conditions from the origin of life.
  2. He did not give his experiment a long enough time to produce life through the gradual chemical processes proposed by abiogenesis.
  3. He did not provide sufficient energetic input to power the chemical reactions proposed by abiogenesis.

And, there are probably plenty of others.

The bottom line is that one experiment with negative results does not rule out everything that shares some similarity with the idea falsified.

Edited by Bluejay, : "Agiogenesis" has too many G's for my taste

Edited by Bluejay, : "Som" is not an English word.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by traste, posted 07-05-2009 9:56 PM traste has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 353 of 415 (514388)
07-07-2009 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 351 by traste
07-07-2009 5:34 AM


Re: Are you a droped out in logic?
Hi, Traste.

traste writes:

There is no assumption in Pasteur's experiment it was proven experimentally my friend... The premise of Pasteur's experiment is ... Organic things did not begin from inorganic thing. So the logic is. Every oganic thing came only from organic thing.

Holy crap!

  1. A premise is a beginning assumption, not a conclusion. Premises are not evidence. You're making it pretty obvious that you haven't actually studied logic, Traste.

  2. Did Pasteur test "every organic thing"? Did he even come close? How can the observation that flies don't come from meat translate into the conclusion that nothing living ever came from anything not living?

    This is like saying, "tigers don't eat grass: therefore, nothing eats grass"; or "beetles don't build airplanes: therefore, nothing builds airplanes"; or "Chevrolet trucks get bad gas mileage: therefore, all American trucks get bad gas mileage."

  3. I hate to be a prick, but you can't prove an experiment experimentally. You can support a hypothesis experimentally. While this is only nit-picking your literary skills, your inability to comprehend and use scientific and logical terms tells me that you don't really know what you're talking about.

-----

May I humbly submit that this thread has run its course?

Edited by Bluejay, : dBCodes and extra sentence in point #3.

Edited by Bluejay, : My inability to utilize adverbs, instead of adjectives, to modify verbs tells me that I am not qualified to teach writing classes.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by traste, posted 07-07-2009 5:34 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by cavediver, posted 07-07-2009 5:47 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 360 by traste, posted 07-07-2009 11:14 PM Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 367 of 415 (514521)
07-08-2009 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by traste
07-07-2009 11:14 PM


Re: Are you a droped out in logic?
Hi, traste.

traste writes:

Bluejay writes:

Holy crap!

Im, not you are.

"Holy crap" is just an expression of surprise.

-----

traste writes:

I know that you still believe in an intelligent Designer, you are just using evolution to disprove the creation account of christianity.

What?

-----

traste writes:

A premise will become an evidence if an only it was proven and tested.

You are using the term “premise” incorrectly, Traste.

Premises are not proven nor tested. You only call something a premise if you are not going to test it. If you are going to test it, you call it a hypothesis.

You have been insulting people’s knowledge of logic when you do not even understand the most basic terminology used in logic.

-----

traste writes:

Bluejay writes:

This is like saying, "tigers don't eat grass: therefore, nothing eats grass"; or "beetles don't build airplanes: therefore, nothing builds airplanes"; or "Chevrolet trucks get bad gas mileage: therefore, all American trucks get bad gas mileage.”

This not my logic this is yours.

My logic? Here’s what you said just above that:

traste writes:

Dont you know that there is a method in science to take only a part of the whole and study them and from that we deduct our conclusion?

Here is your logic:

Statement X applies to fruit flies. Therefore, it applies to all life.

In this case, statement X is “come only from eggs.”

And, here is my parody of your logic:

Statement X applies to tigers. Therefore it applies to all life.

In this case, statement X is “do not eat grass.”

It is your logic. You are trying to derive a universal conclusion from Pasteur’s limited data set, just as I was trying to derive a universal conclusion from my limited data set of tigers.

When a scientist has a little bit of data, he predicts that his conclusions will apply to areas where he has not tested it. But, you cannot say that a prediction based on evidence from sample A is scientifically valid for sample B.

Evidence that many important steps of abiogenesis are possible gives us reason to suspect that “all life from pre-existing life” may not be universal---at least enough reason to entertain further investigation.

Adhering to Pasteur’s meat-spoilage experiments as the pre-eminent authority on the origin of life is pointlessly dogmatic and counterproductive.

-----

traste writes:

Fortunately I can speak and write three languages. How about you only one?? Shame on you.!!!

Actually, I speak and write two languages, one of which happens to be Mandarin Chinese. I’ll leave you to figure out what the other one is. I can also understand and read Spanish, but, whenever I try to speak it, it always comes out as Chinese.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by traste, posted 07-07-2009 11:14 PM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by traste, posted 07-08-2009 10:33 PM Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 378 of 415 (514630)
07-09-2009 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by traste
07-08-2009 10:33 PM


Hypothetico-deductive logic and the new hypothesis
Hi, Traste.

traste writes:

Bluejay writes:

traste writes:

I know that you still believe in an intelligent Designer, you are just using evolution to disprove the creation account of christianity.

What?

You are higly pretentious!! Are you ashame of your beliefs??

How is it pretentious to be confused by a self-contradictory statement?

You say that I believe in Intelligent Design, but am trying to disprove Christian creationism by appealing to evolution.
I don't understand what you mean!
What gave you the impression that I believe in an Intelligent Designer?

-----

traste writes:

And, here is my parody of your logic: Statement X is incorrect because it challenge my beliefs.

Which of my beliefs does statement X challenge?
You just told me above that I believe in an Intelligent Designer.
Is this the belief you are speaking of?
Does Pasteur's experiment challenge my alleged belief in an Intelligent Designer?
Or, are you admitting that you were wrong about me believing in an Intelligent Designer?

-----

traste writes:

Bluejay writes:

You are trying to derive a universal conclusion from Pasteur’s limited data set...

No! Im, trying to derive a specific conclusion and applied it universally. This method ia called,deduction.

No, this method is called induction, not deduction.

Deductive reasoning goes like this:

All life comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.
Flies are a kind of life.
Therefore, flies come from pre-existing flies.

Inductive reasoning goes like this:

Flies come from pre-existing flies.
Therefore, all other life forms come from pre-existing life forms.

This is now the third logical term you have misused in as many posts.

Science uses what is called a "hypothetico-deductive" system of reasoning. An idea derived from inductive logic is called a "hypothesis." A hypothesis is not considered authoritative, and cannot be used as evidence. It must go through deductive testing before it becomes authoritative.

The testing of the "omne vivum ex ovo" hypothesis includes Miller-Urey and other studies like it. In fact, this testing is still going on, and what that testing is showing is that a lot of things that we thought couldn't self-assemble actually can. This means that chemical systems can gain in complexity over time.

Thus, we no longer hold to the idea that Pasteur's statement is universal. Because that statement was derived from inductive reasoning, we are not contradicting any established, authoritative science in rejecting it.

This means that we are now working with a new inductive hypothesis, which is that, since some biomolecules can self-assemble, others also can.

I will be the first to admit that we may find some insurmountable barrier to abiogenesis, at which point we will have to consider the possibility that the Traste-Pasteur Hypothesis is correct. But, current data gives us reason to believe that such a barrier does not exist, thus, it does not make logical sense to doggedly adhere to the belief that the barrier does exist.

Give it time, and we'll know for certain.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by traste, posted 07-08-2009 10:33 PM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by traste, posted 07-09-2009 10:39 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022