Transition from chemistry to biology

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) • • •

Taz writes: Stop lying to misrepresent what science says about life or abiogenesis. Aren't you afraid of the hell fire you people preach to us all the time? Or are you really a satanist posing as a christian that likes to break that commandment?

there is no fire in the grave

and in all those billions of places and possibilities, only 1 spot produced life?

We don't know how many spots produced life. It's substantially possible (perhaps even probable) that life emerged many times on Earth alone, and the type of life we see around us was just the type that happened to out-compete the rest. As far as the rest of the Universe, we've barely begun to explore Mars, let alone Europa, Enceladus, Titan, etc. We can make absolutely zero substantiated comments about life outside of Earth.

Well, Perdition, not entirely true. we can reasonably say there is no life intelligent enough to find the EM spectrum in any of the planets we have tested, but simply life. No, we have no of commenting on that yet.

Well, Perdition, not entirely true. we can reasonably say there is no life intelligent enough to find the EM spectrum in any of the planets we have tested, but simply life.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Trees have found the EM spectrum, they use light.

If you mean radio, then all we know is that no planets that we have pointed a radio telescope at were sending radio, in such a tightly beamed way as to be found on our planet without spreading too much, at that exact moment. Since we, as a species, are moving away from RF bands, it's entirely possible that intelligent life uses radio for only a brief moment in the vast history of the universe such that us finding one at a similar level of technological progress as ours is very slim at best. But again, this is all conjecture, and with a sample of 1, we have nothing statistically valid to say about life on any other planet.

Edited by Perdition, : clarity

Razd wrote:

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

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Razd wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I don't know how to enable the html.

Razd wrote:

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

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

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. The essence of science is to find problem and solve,while the essence of philosophy is to find an itch and scratch. Since evolutionary research suits to find an itch and scratch,therefore it philosophy not science.

Razd wrote:

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

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.

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

My real point is quoting an authorithy is sensible I say nothing about cosmic constant. Yes an authorities 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. Take your basic logic lesson.

Razd wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Your co supporeters here have billions of character assasination,I only dance with them. Lynx2n0 is an exemplary example of them.
Opps!! Its already time I will finished my criticism tommorow.

First of all, please learn to format your post, it's so much more pleasing to the eye and easy to read (use the "peek" button to see how I formatted my post, or read RAZD's excellent posts on the subject).

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

Wrong. It was: "CURRENTLY living organic things did not begin from inorganic things".

I don't know how to enable the html.

It's not html. It's dBCode. But as i said, just type what RAZD has told you, or use the "peek" button to see how I, or orther people, do it.

Since evolutionary research suits to find an itch and scratch,therefore it philosophy not science.

And, pray tell, how did you get to that? What do you base this on?

My real point is quoting an authorithy is sensible I say nothing about cosmic constant.

Quoting an authority is only sensible when you can provide evidence for their point. Otherwise it's just an oppinion (however well educated) and doesn't count.

Yes an authorities can be wrong but it doesnt mean that quoting them is always alogical fallacy

If it is to say: "See, he thinks so too, I must be right!" Then yes, it is a logical fallacy.

it is sensible to appeal to someone in a particular field when we are not an expert of that thing.

Not without providing supporting evidence it's not. Further, Pasteur is NOT an expert on abiogenesis.

Take your basic logic lesson.

Indeed....

---

I hunt for the truth

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.

Hi traste

I don't know how to enable the html.

One does not need to be able to enable html. One merely has to type in the square bracket characters, "[" and "]", which are to be found next to the "P" key on your board. Between those characters you enter your instruction; i.e., "color=violet". Note: Do not include the quotation marks. One closes the instruction by adding a slash "/" following the first square bracket. In the "peek" mode my violet colored sentence above looks like this:

[color=violet]Note: Do not include the quotation marks.[/color]

Note: In the preceding sentence, as you can see in the "peek" mode, I've used Unicode to make the square brackets so that the computer will know I want it to print square brackets and not apply dBCode.

Open instruction with:[instruction=X]

Close instruction with:[/instruction]

While in the reply mode, note the "dBCodes On (help)" legend to the left of the reply space. Click on the light blue "help" button and there is a list of instructions to be applied.

Regarding quote boxes, "=x" applies if one wishes to including the source:

[qs=traste]you are sack fungus, lyz20n.[/qs] returns:

traste writes: you are sack fungus, lyz20n.

Note: This can be distinguished from a genuine quote by the comma proceeding the direct address.

---

traste writes: Your co supporeters here have billions of character assasination,I only dance with them. Lynx2n0 is an exemplary example of them.

Surely I thank you for the recognition. I do admit that I get an inordinate sense of joy from your discomfort; however, I would suffer a greater glee if we could get past our current, intellectual impasse. That is, of course, with me being the hero-of-the-hour and you seeing the light of reason.

Let me try a different tract.

I am talking to a friend of mine on a train. You are sitting behind us and over hear our conversation:

"Yesterday," I say to my friend. "was the best day in the history of the world. Never have I so enjoyed myself at a dog show."

"You're right there." Replies my friend. "That little, brown dog was the funniest thing I've seen in ages."

Angrily you spin around in your seat "How can say such thing? My death of little brown dog yesterday, was not show; and you find funny make you are sick men."

We are not defining the same event. Though some of the language of our event can fit into your event, the particulars are very different. We are actually both in agreement. We very much are sorry about your dear dog; and you and your little, brown dog would have very much enjoyed the dog show. We have no argument.

Spontaneous generation is in deed a form of abiogenesis; but, it is not the only form of abiogenesis. God making Adam from the dust of the Earth is a form of abiogenesis (making proper note of RAZD's objection to including the supernatural in what is best meant by abiogenesis). Most importantly, Pasteur did not mean to include every kind of abiogenesis in his statement about putting spontaneous generation to bed once and for all. Do you intend for Pasteur to put Genesis 2:7 to bed? It would, after all, be a nearer fit to what Pasteur meant.

Furthermore, this whole spontaneous generation/abiogenesis equivalency is a secondary argument. You need the two to be equivalent so that you might make the argument that there are facts presentable against the current theory of abiogenesis.

If, once It had been explained that my friend and I had spent the previous day at Westminster, you do not quickly begin to understand that she (the first to suggest that the likelihood of a girl accompanying me on a train makes my story hard to follow gets it in the nose) and I hold no malice toward your little dog then there is paltry hope that the larger argument, wherein thought veritably has to be imposed, has a resolution.

I wish you luck.

Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar.

Edited by lyx2no, : Typo. Why is it that these things are glaring after one submits?

Edited by lyx2no, : Fix an almost unintelligible sentence.

Edited by lyx2no, : Now i'm just being picky capitalizing the first letter after "Note:".

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
— Thomas Jefferson

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.

I think we saw the same argument with Alphaomegakid (apologies if I'm wrong) and a multitude before him. In my book, anyone who *persistently* claims that Pasteur or The Law of Biogenesis "proves" abiogenesis wrong does not have the required mental capability to engage in any type of scienitific discussion, nevermind one on the topic of abiogenesis.

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) • • •

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) • • •

Hi traste

See it does not work.

See it does not work.

I assure you, it did work on this end. The quote "Hi traste" is in a quote box. What do you see on your screen? What do you expect to see? Do you expect to see a quote box around the quotes on the reply screen? It doesn't, nor is it supposed to. In the reply box you get what you type. The quote box appears in the preview and post only. In the peek mode I can see that you have done it correctly.

Regardless, it did work.

A few tips.

• If you follow your quotes in the reply space with a double space before your response it is a lot easier to see errors in your formating. The extra spaces won't show on your post.
• Base your paragraphs on ease of reading (4-8 lines) or completion of a single idea; which ever is shorter.
• The repeated aphorisms separated by a short, gray line at the bottom of many posts are called signatures. You can select a signature for yourself in your profile page. Then others won't confuse them for a current argument. Don't you confuses them either.
• You come off as a jerk. I'm fine with that.
• I am a jerk. Get over it.

AbE: Just looked at your next post; excellent job. I'm taking the credit for it. I'm the hero-of-the-hour and you're not.

Edited by lyx2no, : My original was confused.

Edited by lyx2no, : AbE:

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
— Thomas Jefferson

Bluejay wrote:

Holy crap!

Im, not you are. I know that you still believe in an intelligent Designer,you are just using evolution to disprove the creation account of christianity.

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

Yeah, and from that we deduct to support our argument that is what Im doing. Hey gooly!! A premise will become an evidence if an only it was proven and tested.

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?

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?

let us turn the table. Did Darwin live for billion of years and observe those gradual change on organism?? Or you are just very bias in viewing things??

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.

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

Fortunately I can speak and write three languages. How about you only one?? Shame on you.!!! I will not waste my time here dealing with bunch of idiots if I dont know what Im, talking about. The only thing you like is to make me believe everything you say, sorry Im not as faithful as you.