Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   abiogenesis
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 61 of 177 (544036)
01-22-2010 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by marc9000
01-22-2010 10:04 PM


ID as science?
This is what I wish someone would rationally explain to me. Why is it always claimed that a scientific acceptance of ID somehow causes some naturalistic aspect of science to be removed? Where does the "give up everything else" claim come from?
ID does not follow the scientific method.
If something does not follow the scientific method, it can't claim to be science. It's that simple.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2010 10:04 PM marc9000 has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 62 of 177 (544038)
01-22-2010 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by marc9000
01-22-2010 10:26 PM


Your post
Sorry, there is nothing in your post worthy of a reply.
ID simply is not a science, and all the text you can produce won't make it one, for a simple reason -- ID does not follow the scientific method.
Edited by Coyote, : speelling

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2010 10:26 PM marc9000 has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 63 of 177 (544040)
01-23-2010 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by marc9000
01-22-2010 11:16 PM


The Enlightenment
Oh no, the Darwinist/ atheist stranglehold on science will have to be reigned in, and no one but an outraged general public will ever be able to do it. Until then, no challenges to Darwinsim will ever see the light of day. Ask Michael Behe. His work was not fairly judged, it was emotionally shouted down. Darwinism is a financial/social empire, many lifelong careers are dependent on it. It is far more socially entrenched today than religion was in 1859.
Back a couple of centuries we had this event, now called The Enlightenment.
Basically, it means that we no longer have to kowtow to the shamans, of whatever stripe, for fear of being burned at the stake or some other unpleasantry.
Further, it means the religious stranglehold on science, that lasted for centuries (otherwise known as The Dark Ages), is done with.
And no amount of moaning and groaning is going to put Humpty back together again.
Science has busted loose of religious control, and there's no going back short of an absolute theocracy. Is that what you want? (With your crowd in charge, of course?)
Otherwise, better get used to science going where the data lead whether fundamentalists say yea or nay.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2010 11:16 PM marc9000 has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 64 of 177 (544043)
01-23-2010 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by marc9000
01-22-2010 8:44 PM


Huxley
Hi, Marc.
You're doing a good job keeping up with a whole swarm of opponents. I'm woefully bad at it, and I always end up ignoring and offending some people.
A few tips: many people will prefer that you respond with individual posts, using the "reply" button at the bottom right corner of a specific post. It helps them keep track of the conversation better.
Also, you can use "qs=person's name" instead of "quote" in the codes, and it makes the blue quote boxes we use. And, you can nest quotes inside other quotes to make it easier to follow the conversation, as I'm about to do here (click the "peek" button at the bottom right corner of a message if you want to see the codes used in the message):
marc9000 writes:
Bluejay writes:
When it was first coined, I suppose it was probably thought to be a much simpler issue than we view it as being today.
Thomas Huxley (Darwin’s Bulldog) coined it...
This conflicts with your earlier statement:
marc9000, in the OP, writes:
The term abiogenesis has been around for hundreds of years...
At the time, I couldn't find any information about the term predating Huxley, but I’m not an expert on this topic, so I just assumed you knew something that I didn't. I don't care which of your two statements is true: I would just prefer that you stick with one story.
If we go with the Huxley origin of the term, it was coined as the opposite to "Biogenesis" (Pasteur's "omne vivum ex ovo"). Since evolutionary ideas were first popularized, the Biogenetic Law was always thought to be a problem for it, and Huxley’s Abiogenesis was a counter-argument to that.
Here’s the actual quote from Huxley, if you don’t believe me:
quote:
It will be necessary for me to refer to this hypothesis so frequently, that, to save circumlocution, I shall call it the hypothesis of Biogenesis; and I shall term the contrary doctrine—that living matter may be produced by not living matter—the hypothesis of Abiogenesis.
source (last sentence in the 10th paragraph)
I hope you take the time to read that entire essay (even though it’s quite long): it gives you a great view into the level of understanding and the speech habits of scientists in Darwin’s and Huxley’s time.
-----
marc9000 writes:
...and it’s quite a stretch to suppose he intended it to include Biblical creation, or that it has been used that way until only recently.
Again, stop conflating usage with definition. If I said, this spider is large, would you assume that I meant that statement to be upheld in a size comparison with a rhinoceros? In scientific circles, words can only be applied to scientific ideas. But, in public circles, including this debate, we have to find a way to incorporate non-scientific ideas into the framework that defines our worldview. Doing so apparently offends you.
I don’t object to the idea of using the term abiogenesis to only mean naturalistic hypotheses (and I have agreed to restrict my usage accordingly), but I do object to your accusation that evolutionists are intentionally equivocating on the meaning of the word in order to conspire against creation and Christianity.
I repeat: I am a Christian.
-----
marc9000 writes:
I don’t see biogenesis (life from life) as an issue here.
I believe I have now shown you that Biogenesis not only is an issue here, but is the issue here. Reread every scientific paper you’ve read on the subject with what I presented above in mind, and I think you’ll realize that scientists have only been dealing with the dichotomy of life-from-life vs life-from-nonlife, and that supernatural creation introduces an entirely new axis of variation, one that requires us to adjust our usage of terms to fully engage in debate.
-----
marc9000 writes:
Bluejay writes:
[dembski quote]
Life arose naturally; then it evolved over time.
Life was created by God; then it evolved over time.
This is what TalkOrigins meant when it said, Thus, even if evolution needs abiogenesis, it has it. I have since agreed not to use the word abiogenesis in this way, but the principle is still there: even life that was originally created by God can evolve in the Darwinian fashion.
No further contest at this time, except to say that "evolution" is a slippery word, and I believe talkorigins authors to be slippery people.
First off, I wasn’t quoting Dembski: why did you say I was?
Second, even if evolution is a slippery word, what difference could that possibly make in this case? The point here is that any arguments against abiogenesis are not arguments against evolution, no matter what evolution is taken to mean, so the meaning of evolution is totally irrelevant.
You’re just being anal about words for the sake of being anal about words.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2010 8:44 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by marc9000, posted 01-24-2010 4:23 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 65 of 177 (544045)
01-23-2010 12:24 AM


Hi again marc9000, just a brief question:
Are we talking about the topic of abiogenesis, or are you using this as a soapbox to unload various pent up issues?
I'm an ID proponent, so naturally I'm facing a barrage. I'm trying to thoroughly respond to issues and condescension that weren't originated by me. I'm pleasantly surprised at the quality of most posters here, but am not surprised that one or two obviously wish I would stop posting.
quote:
It seems your topic is more about whether abiogenesis is science than about the actual origins of life issue. Is that accurate?
Yes it is, but it's also about the motivation that declares abiogenesis to be science, while claiming evidence for design is not.
quote:
Message 1
It seems to me that in the scientific community’s haste to set criteria just higher than the concept of intelligent design can attain, they have also made it impossible for abiogenesis to be considered science.
Are you really talking about abiogenesis or the fact that ID is not treated as science because it doesn't meet the specifications of science?
Why don't we run down how each measures up to the specifications of science?
Message 11
quote:Science - Wikipedia
quote:Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.[1]
In its more restricted contemporary sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.[2][3] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Science as discussed in this article is sometimes called experimental science to differentiate it from applied science, which is the application of scientific research to specific human needsalthough the two are commonly interconnected.
Science is a continuing effort to discover and increase human knowledge and understanding through disciplined research. Using controlled methods, scientists collect observable evidence of natural or social phenomena, record measurable data relating to the observations, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions. Scientists are also expected to publish their information so other scientists can do similar experiments to double-check their conclusions. The results of this process enable better understanding of past events, and better ability to predict future events of the same kind as those that have been tested.
The study of abiogenesis fits this more restrictive usage of the term science. It is possible for any concept to fit this restrictive definition, as all that is required is that it be done by a systematic process of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, and the organization of the body of knowledge gained through such research.
In other words, to be considered science one needs to do science.
Can you show how ID fits that restrictive description of science as well as ("natural") abiogenesis does?
I'll work on that, it may take a week, or it may take a month.
quote:
We can start with the scientific method and you can describe how ID meets those criteria:
Scientific method - Wikipedia
quote:Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently-derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.
quote:
Let's focus on a topic rather than have a series of roundabouts eh?
I'll work on doing a better job at keeping things condensed, and it will involve ignoring roundabouts from one or two posters who seem to be able to go as far as taunt, use vulgar words, and go un-noticed and un-criticized by anyone but me.
quote:
You've been to a "few rodeos", however in this forum we like specific topics and we like to stick to them.
But I see this forum has one thing that I've seen so much of before, one poster that seems to gauge his success on how quickly he can bully someone out - make someone who disagrees with him stop posting.
quote:
It doesn't appear that any of your subsequent posts have added clarification to the original post for what specific point you would like to discuss.
I think it has - the comparison of scientific qualifications for abiogenesis vs ID.
quote:
The problem is focus rather than responding to every little reply.
And yes, the more you sling around and throw off replies to each and every response you get, the more the topic (whatever it is) will be buried by additional comments that drift further from any specific topic.
But the less I throw off replies, the more taunts, and more repeated comments I get.
quote:
Do you want a discussion or a shouting match?
A discussion. I'll be baaaaaack.

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Iblis, posted 01-23-2010 1:38 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2010 12:33 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 76 by Admin, posted 01-23-2010 5:03 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 86 by Buzsaw, posted 01-24-2010 8:25 PM marc9000 has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 66 of 177 (544050)
01-23-2010 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by marc9000
01-22-2010 10:26 PM


Hi, Marc.
marc9000 writes:
Coyote writes:
It is, in fact, the exact opposite of science. It starts with a conclusion (creationism) and seeks to cherry-pick any data that might be stretched or manipulated to support that conclusion.
As those who control it today start with atheism.
Atheism is proportionately more common among scientists than among the general populace, but there are probably still just as many theists in science as there are atheists.
Please, stop equating science and atheism!

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2010 10:26 PM marc9000 has not replied

Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 67 of 177 (544052)
01-23-2010 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by marc9000
01-23-2010 12:24 AM


science please
I'll work on that, it may take a week, or it may take a month.
It's going to take longer than that. You will need falsifiable hypotheses, predictions, experiments, and replicable results. Abiogenesis has scores of these things, because the people interested in it are doing actual work instead of just trying to pit marketing against materialism.
Judge John E Jones III in Dover writes:
On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred. (22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. (21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe’s argument that certain complex molecular structures are irreducibly complex.17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe)). After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science. Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents’, as well as Defendants’ argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum. Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by marc9000, posted 01-23-2010 12:24 AM marc9000 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 68 of 177 (544056)
01-23-2010 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by marc9000
01-22-2010 10:26 PM


You seem to be more interested in discussing your fantasy world than any particular scientific issue. Perhaps you could stop amusing us with your paranoia and talk about ... abiogenesis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2010 10:26 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Admin, posted 01-23-2010 5:01 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 69 of 177 (544067)
01-23-2010 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by marc9000
01-22-2010 8:44 PM


quote:
Its endorsement page shows that it's endorsed and recommended by Scientific American Magazine, The American Association for Advancement of Science, The Smithsonian Institution, The Geological society of America, the Leakey Foundation, and is used as a reference in countless biology textbooks. If it’s established in public education to this very thorough extent, it shouldn’t be winked and nodded at, for engaging in philosophy that inspires howls of outrage if something comparable comes from the intelligent design community.
And none of these rule out the possibility that there is a poor argument here and there. Which is all you've got. You've not shown anything to inspire "howls of outrage". The ID movement has done plenty of worse things.
quote:
They don’t have to, because they’re in the drivers seat. They are publicly established, and they also have authors like Richard Dawkins, Victor Stenger, and many others cranking out the atheist books that gain attention and interest from a general public that reads them for their social claims far more than for their scientific content.
So there are a few books by scientists promoting atheism. And there are books on the other side, too. Is Dawkin's promotion of atheism really that different from Francis Collins' promotion of Christianity ? Neither of them are the equivalent of the Wedge Strategy.
But this evades the main point. The ID movement puts doing science very much in second place behind the PR and the politics and the plans for social change. That's not the case with abiogenesis researchers, who are getting on with doing the work.
quote:
Each side can accuse the other of conspiracy theories. No one shouts about conspiracy theories louder than scientific opponents of ID.
No, that's just one of the ID movement's smears. There's nothing comparable to your invention of a plan to redefine "abiogenesis". (And, I should point out that it is at least as common to find creationists taking advantage of the different meanings of "abiogenesis" to claim that Pasteurs experiments on spontaneous generation prove abiogenesis impossible).
quote:
I agree, the gap isn’t filled, but it still has its gap, and that’s its problem
Then you disagree, since my position is that there isn't a gap to be filled. However you define life one of the most important parts - the origin of the first replicators - is outside of evolutionary theory. It has to be, since without replicators you can't have evolution.
quote:
If it had naturalistic life from non-life, primordial soup, step by step chemical changes over long periods of time, with no guidance, no purpose, you know —abiogenesis as it is actually defined and understood, then Darwinism would be a complete package. Then we could close down churches, and put science in charge of all moral decisions concerning embryonic stem cell research, abortion, and many other similar things.
I suppose if you view Darwinism as a conspiracy against Christianity then that argument might make sense. But it sure as hell as nothing to do with the science - or the scientific reasons for viewing abiogenesis as something outside of Darwinian evolution.
quote:
Here is why I don’t think it won solely on scientific merit — Origin of Species was released in 1859 without scientific peer review, without much approval, or even notice, from the scientific community at that time, at all. Yet it sold out on the very first day. That logically tells me that it wasn’t purchased by those with a scientific interest, it was purchased by those with an atheist interest.
Then I have to say that you don't know what you are talking about. Firstly you need to understand that scientific procedures have changed since the mid-Nineteenth century. The peer review system as we understand it was not in place. Secondly Darwin had extensive correspondence with a number of scientists while he was working on developing his theory. Thirdly - and most importantly - Darwin and Wallace presented a paper on evolution to the Linnaean society in 1858. The scientific work - and the presentation of that work to the scientific community took precedence over publication to the public.
Even worse is your jumping to the conclusion that people would buy a scientiifc work out of an interest in atheism. Why could it not be an interest in a controversial scientific work ? And how can you jump from public popularity to scientific acceptance ?
quote:
My claim that Darwinism conflicts with open inquiry isn’t because of its content, it’s because of its establishment. If ID were accepted as science, it wouldn’t replace Darwinism, it would compete with/supplement Darwinism. The two views together, in scientific study, would be the most complete form of biological open inquiry.
The ID movement isn't even trying to offer a genuine sciientific alternative to evolutionary theory. Demanding that a falsehood be accepted as a fact seems an odd way to promote open inquiry. Even if you rule by government fiat that ID is science (itself an unprecedented step) how do you propose to deal with the lack of good quality work supporting ID ? You may assume that simply ruling that ID is science will result in that solving itself, but what if it does not ? Remember that it is the lack of good scientific work that keeps ID from being accepted as science, not any fiat ruling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2010 8:44 PM marc9000 has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 70 of 177 (544069)
01-23-2010 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by marc9000
01-22-2010 10:04 PM


quote:
I meant we reached an impasse on it because it looked like the two positions had a comparable number of posters in this thread on each side, and it didn’t appear that anyones mind was going to be changed.
Actually it seems that you have changed your mind and now include special creation as a form of abiogenesis. As I will demonstrate.
quote:
quote:
Once again, with feeling,
quote:
________________________________________
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
Feeling (emotion) often goes along with insecurity. Talkorigins doesn't even attempt to put fourth that whopper.
quote:
talkorigins; ....However, many have thought that the theory of evolution logically requires a beginning of life, which is true.
Pasteur, fermentation, contagion, and proving a negative
Hence, it really does have something to do with it.
Let us note that it says "a beginning", not "a naturalistic beginning". And just to make it clear that it does not mean only a naturalistic beginning, it also says (in the main text, not a footnote)
A recurring theme in antievolution literature is that if science cannot account for the origin of life, evolution is false, and that "spontaneous generation" was disproven, so therefore evolution is false. This syllogism fails, because evolution (that is, common descent and transmutation of species) occurs whether or not life arose by chance, law or design...
In other words, you can only claim this essay as support for the idea that evolution requires abiogenesis if you define abiogenesis as the origin of life - including creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2010 10:04 PM marc9000 has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 71 of 177 (544074)
01-23-2010 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by marc9000
01-22-2010 8:44 PM


Not everything can be studied scientifically. Human behavior, love,
That would be psychology: a science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2010 8:44 PM marc9000 has not replied

greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 72 of 177 (544084)
01-23-2010 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by marc9000
01-22-2010 10:04 PM


standard creationist tactics 3 through 17 on display...
Hi marc9000,
If you wish me to actually know you've taken a look at something I posted, please use the reply button, otherwise I'll chance upon it eventually, perhaps, but it may take time.
As to the meaning of abiogenesis - I'll know whether I agree with you if you can decide whether the meaning is new (~150 years) or old (~2000) and if you can produce evidence that it's meaning is changing, as you claim, AND whether such a change in popular usage is an issue with texts written under it's original use.
I personally think that if somebody were described as being "happy and gay" a hundred years ago, it probably didn't mean they were homosexual. Similarly, if abiogenesis meant simply "life from non-life" when it was used in the past and by those who use it now, then claiming that it shuts out "special creation" in all cases when it clearly doesn't is a falsehood.
But sure, go ahead, pound that fist
quote:
Once again, with feeling,
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
Feeling (emotion) often goes along with insecurity. Talkorigins doesn't even attempt to put fourth that whopper.
Emotion doesn't come in to it, this is just a standard canned creationist objection to a problem that doesn't exist.
abiogenesis and evolution are not dependant on one another. they need have nothing to do with each other whatsoever.
evolution is true whether god made us or the universe came from the big bang.
do you understand this statement? A yes/no is all that is required. If no, read it again until you understand. If yes, don't bring it up again.
evolution requires that life began to exist, correct, but evolution does not require any specific form of abiogenesis. Here is your quote-mine in full - please note to expanded context!
quote:
Evolutionary theory was not proposed to account for the origins of living beings, only the process of change once life exists. However, many have thought that the theory of evolution logically requires a beginning of life, which is true. Of those, many have thought that a natural account of the origin of life is necessary, and some have proposed models which have borne up or not as research proceeds.
Did you catch that?
Clearly, the talkorigins usage of "abiogenesis" is thus:
* abiogenesis means "life from non-life"
* evolution, whilst requiring that life exist, is not dependant on the nature of that abiogenesis
* some, however, feel that abiogenesis should be possible through natural means rather than supernatural
* those people are busy examining the hows and whys of natural abiogenesis
* this still does not affect the status of evolution
quote:
the Theory of Evolution is a perfectly complete and correct scientific theory of the change we see in animal populations over time whether god made the world or not
I said it last time. I didn't expect you to bring up the same canard YET AGAIN in the very next message you posted here.
That’s because I’ve seen it stated many times, and never seen any more detail to go along with it to back it up. If you’d say Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, just like ID has nothing to do with religion", it could be more believable. Or if you had given examples of other subjects that start with step two and see no need for a first step.
Ok, I'll start with (very simple) definitions of the words "evolution" and "abiogenesis"
quote:
Evolution (from Evolution - definition of evolution by The Free Dictionary)
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
quote:
Abiogenesis (from Abiogenesis - definition of abiogenesis by The Free Dictionary )
The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.
these are not hand-picked to support my points, not vettted, or compared, they're just the first on the list.
As I hope you can see, abiogenesis says only "life from non-life" and evolution says "the change in populations over time".
Whilst it is obviously true that you cannot have evolution of life which isn't there, I would hope it is trivially obvious to even you that change in the populations of living creatures is not dependant on the method or source of abiogenesis.
Do you believe me yet? I mean sure, go ahead, try to find a credible site that says "evolution is dependant on naturalistic abiogenesis to be true" - you won't. Even talkorigins (so far proven to be reliable and correct and unbiased, whatever your apparent feelings for it) doesn't say this.
evolution requires abiogenesis - correct
abiogenesis MUST ONLY mean natural abiogenesis - incorrect
Your bald assertions notwithstanding, the evidence that you yourself have attempted to show discredits you.
Something else that starts with step two? how about gravity?
We don't know what causes gravity - but if you think you can fly because you don't believe in it you're in for a rude awakening. or a very quick stop. One hopes it isn't fatal
How about the big bang? We don't know what caused the big bang, what went on "before" it, but the evidence appears to support it.
that's two. I'm sure there are more, but whether there are or not STILL doesn't change things.
quote:
ID has provided nothing, nothing, of the sort of quality demanded by serious scientific researchers. It is hidebound to one book in anything it's proponents attempt - you may think it difficult to overturn current opinion on certain facts and theories when it comes to science, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to overturn opinion on anything to do with ID. FLATLY IMPOSSIBLE because they all demand that any ID work be in accordance with the bible, and anything not in accordance is deemed automatically to be wrong.
This is a clear indicator of the double standard that we have — the shouting down that is going on. It’s forceful enough throughout the scientific community that it seldom gets the discussion that it deserves.
double standard? so, uh, where ARE the mountains of papers on ID? Where ARE the peer reviewed works?
why is it a double standard to call adherence to a known outcome BEFORE the experimentation is done, non-scientific?
ID get the discussion it deserves? Those who think ID should be put on an untouchable pedastal (the ones who wrote the WEDGE document) think that their shouting loudly makes up for the total lack of actual work that hasn't been produced. When there is something to discuss about, you can be sure it'll be discussed.
You know what they call "alternative medicine" that actually works? medicine.
If ID were scientific, we'd not be having this conversation. If it's not, stop trying to get it taught in a science classroom.
The subject of ID has nothing to do with creation or the Bible. It is a study for evidence of design. If one or more religious people involved with it tie it into the religion in any way, that is only their personal opinion and nothing more.
Yet strangely, the designer is always the judeo-christian god. yet strangely, the ONLY people who believe in ID are (fundamentalist) christians. Yet strangely, the fundies write about ID in their wedge documents and proclaim their intention to "destroy materialistic science".
Odd, that.
When Dawkins writes a book called The God Delusion, I’m told that’s his personal opinion and nothing more. When Victor Stenger writes a book called How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist, I’m told that’s his personal opinion and nothing more.
correct! they have every right to write books about any subject they please, same as your gish's and coynes and what-have-you's.
you'll notice, however, that those books are NOT science textbooks.
You did notice that, right? right?
If Phillip Johnson, or the late Henry Morris say/said anything that ties ID to their personal beliefs, it’s no more representative of ID than is Dawkins or Stengers opinions on evolution.
so...where's the solid work on ID that should go into the textbooks? Oh, sorry, you don't have any.
glad to know that you don't think there's an atheist bias in the scientific community because there happen to be atheists that write books on atheistic subjects, the same way you don't think that there's a religious bias in ID because there are theists that write religious books.
double standards much?
Your give up everything else claim is false. It’s only part of the emotional shouting down process.
It is? So you don't really mean to tie paleontology, geology, cosmology, biology and evolution together, so that if, say, you can point out that there isn't a naturalistic theory of abiogenesis yet, that evolution (and therefore everything else) must be abandoned?
Because that's certainly how it appears to me!
The study of ID can be done alongside other things, compared to other things, compete with other philosophies that dominate todays scientific community. An addition doesn’t necessarily have to be a replacement.
ID has nothing to add - yet. And still you want it in the classrooms as if it did. By all means investigate ID, but don't pretend that you have anything of substance to teach yet. It is not "stifling criticism" if you get your bald-faced assertions and arguments from ignorance shot down for being meaningless.
If it's speculated on in science textbooks, it really is a big deal, if the ACLU isn't suing.
I'm sorry, but speculation on a naturalistic origin of life is not a matter for the american civil liberties union. If experiments were conducted and their occurences documented and backed up, then you may teach about them!
If it were saying "it MUST be natural, we don't know how though!", then you'd have a case. Go hunt that snark first, kay? Remember, the establishment cause is about religion, not science.
It's quite sad when your own sources say
quote:
The concept of abiogenesis is not evolution
, but let's go on to your now named website. Unbiasedly it proclaims on the very top
quote:
The Myth of Abiogenesis
An Impossible Evolutionist Claim
Anyway, I read through it, and it's amazing how upset they get about experiments made back in what, 1957? Anyway, I don't find their objections all that reasonable - it's all argumentation from ignorance, such as "Fine, these clays can adhere organic molecules such as amino acids, and can direct their polymerisation into proteins, the building blocks of life BUT". It seems, once again, that because the theory is incomplete, abiogenesis must be thrown out, and therefore so much evolution (despite your pleas to the contrary).
I don't see why you're so upset about modifying an incomplete hypothesis to deal with issues that arise during investigation! It's as if you expect scientific work to be dogma, unchanging and static! Surely you can't think that scientists think they have the answer from a book that's already been written...
and as for nwcreation.net, well yes - excuse me if I think their religious wish to redefine abiogenesis in their favour is not valid. They are mistaken, plain and simple.
It seems that evolution textbook disclaimer stickers in a southern state causes a much different legal reaction than do textbook speculation/instruction of abiogenesis. (the naturalistic kind)
quote:
If you don't understand why it's not a problem then ask again.
I’ll have to ask again, because I asked in my previous post, and you didn’t address it. Promisory notes are no problem for studies of naturalistic abiogensis, and are unacceptable for ID. Why?
Because, and I thought it would be obvious, ID has been proven time and time again to be religious in nature, and there is this "establishment clause" that forbids teaching of religion by the state.
naturalistic abiogenesis, on the other hand, is not religious dogma, it is chemistry.
Do you, or do you not, understand this?
I'll have to deal with the rest of your post later.
Cheers,
Greyseal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2010 10:04 PM marc9000 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 73 of 177 (544091)
01-23-2010 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by marc9000
01-23-2010 12:24 AM


please use reply button
Thanks for the reply marc9000.
Hi again marc9000, just a brief question:
Are we talking about the topic of abiogenesis, or are you using this as a soapbox to unload various pent up issues?
I'm an ID proponent, so naturally I'm facing a barrage. ...
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). The software in this forum lets you know when you have a reply when this button is used.
You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.
I'm an ID proponent, so naturally I'm facing a barrage. ...
Being an ID proponent has little to do with it. I'm a Deist, and that means being an "old school" design proponent. Making erroneous statements about science in general and abiogenesis in particular will open you up to a barrage of replies, while one well considered focused post can answer many questions.
I'm trying to thoroughly respond to issues and condescension that weren't originated by me.
But the less I throw off replies, the more taunts, and more repeated comments I get.
You can waste your reply time on anything you want to. I have never found tit-for-tat responding to "condescension" etc to be effective, especially when one can be called on exhibiting the same behavior as a result.
Yes it is, but it's also about the motivation that declares abiogenesis to be science, while claiming evidence for design is not.
Evidence alone is not science, hypothesis alone is not science. Do you agree with the wikipedia definition of science posted in Message 11?
quote:
Science - Wikipedia
quote:
Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.[1]
In its more restricted contemporary sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.[2][3] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Science as discussed in this article is sometimes called experimental science to differentiate it from applied science, which is the application of scientific research to specific human needsalthough the two are commonly interconnected.
Science is a continuing effort to discover and increase human knowledge and understanding through disciplined research. Using controlled methods, scientists collect observable evidence of natural or social phenomena, record measurable data relating to the observations, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions. Scientists are also expected to publish their information so other scientists can do similar experiments to double-check their conclusions. The results of this process enable better understanding of past events, and better ability to predict future events of the same kind as those that have been tested.

Do you want to start with the broader sense and see how they apply to ID and abiogenesis?
Science (general): any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome.
Is that a good starting point?
For instance, the scientific approach to abiogenesis would hypothesize that if this occurred through natural chemical reaction, that then we should be able to form self-replicating molecules, and if we can't form self-replicating molecules that then abiogenesis could be falsified.
Abiogenesis fits the broader definition of science: do you have a similar testable prediction based on ID?
I'll work on that, it may take a week, or it may take a month.
I'll be baaaaaack.
No sweat, take your time.
Should we consider Astrology as a science? It can be a systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a predictions, yes?
I think it has - the comparison of scientific qualifications for abiogenesis vs ID.
Funny, I missed that. Could you point to the message/s where you gave that information?
Note: typing [msg=-11] results in Message 11, so you can provide a link directly to the message.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
In other news:
Message 35:
quote:
RAZD writes; And in that sense it has simply meant life from non-life, as it would pre-date the scientific usage.
Predate scientific usage? From Aristotle onward, it has always been about science.
Aristotle was not a scientist, he was a philosopher, and we don't need to conflate science with philosophy (particularly if we are going to use the definition above).
Message 54: Thomas Huxley (Darwin’s Bulldog) coined it, and it’s quite a stretch to suppose he intended it to include Biblical creation, or that it has been used that way until only recently. Supernatural creation has always been referred to as creation, and a naturalistic origin of life without the supernatural needed a term as Darwinism was growing in popularity by 1870, and Huxley provided it. The distinction between the two terms (creation=supernatural origin of life, vs abiogenesis=natural, unguided origin of life) made perfect sense.
So it did not start with Aristotle? It appears you have contradicted yourself on where and when the term originated and what it means. Be that as it may, let's not equivocate on meanings, and use chemical abiogenesis to mean the formation of life from chemicals.
I don’t see biogenesis (life from life) as an issue here.
Good, for then we can run down a number of scenarios to see how abiogenesis (life from chemicals) is linked (or not) to evolution (life from life):
  1. God/s come to the primordial earth and create a single living cell from clay and dust. From that single life form, all life as we know it has evolved and diversified.
  2. Alien/s come to the primordial earth, and innoculate it with a single living cell they have designed. From that single life form, all life as we know it has evolved and diversified.
  3. Alien/s discard their trash on the primordial earth, and one of their bacterial organisms survives in this new environment. From that single life form, all life as we know it has evolved and diversified.
  4. Meteors fall on the primordial earth, bringing pre-biological chemicals, and from these chemicals protocellular lipids and replicating molecules form, and at one point come together into a single living cell. From that single life form, all life as we know it has evolved and diversified.
  5. God/s designed the universe so that meteors would fall on the primordial earth, bringing pre-biological chemicals, and from these chemicals protocellular lipids and replicating molecules form, and at one point come together into a single living cell. From that single life form, all life as we know it has evolved and diversified.
Can you tell me which ones of these origin scenarios cannot involve evolution as the explanation for how all life as we know it has evolved and diversified from the original source? If you cannot differentiate them, then evolution does not depend on abiogenesis, all it depends on is having life as the starting point, and how that life began is irrelevant to understanding how all life as we know it has evolved and diversified.
I don’t want any one single special interest group’s personal opinions to be a foundation for education. I don’t want arrogant tenured college professors personal opinions to be foundations for education.
And I don't want non-science taught as science, nor do I want the personal opinions of arrogant fundamentalists that are not affiliated in any way with science to dictate the foundations of science. Science is not done by popular vote.
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 65 by marc9000, posted 01-23-2010 12:24 AM marc9000 has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 177 (544097)
01-23-2010 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Briterican
01-17-2010 3:17 PM


Re: Non-explanations (ID, creationism) don't assist understanding
Please, no replies to this off-topic message. I've hidden the contents. I know this post was a response to off-topic comments by others, but it doesn't even pretend to address the topic. --Admin
Edited by Admin, : Off-topic content hidden.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Briterican, posted 01-17-2010 3:17 PM Briterican has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 75 of 177 (544099)
01-23-2010 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Dr Adequate
01-23-2010 3:11 AM


Hi Dr Adequate,
I perused this thread for the first time today and noticed that Marc9000 had begun complaining about the behavior of some anonymous others, so I said to myself, "I wonder if Dr Adequate is participating in this thread."
And sure enough, you are! And I find these gems:
Dr Adequate in Message 43 writes:
You do make a lot of stuff up, don't you?
Dr Adequate in Message 68 writes:
You seem to be more interested in discussing your fantasy world than any particular scientific issue. Perhaps you could stop amusing us with your paranoia and talk about ... abiogenesis?
I'm removing your posting permissions for the Origin of Life forum.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-23-2010 3:11 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024