Summations Only

The question wasn't asking what percentage of scientists have accepted the idea that life was started by aliens. The question was how the theory of evolution would need to be changed if the first replicator, from which all life then evolved, was planted here by aliens. You still have not answered this question.I will rephrase it in terms that you may better understand. If God created a simple RNA replicator (i.e. spoke it into existence) from which all life that we see now evolved, how would this change the theory of evolution?"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. "--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Where did you show us a definition of evolution where it stated that abiogenesis was required for the theory to be true?

I don't think I'm calling Buz stupid, I'm just trying to get him to explain HOW the definition he gave supports his argument. And just so he can't complain about a lack of substance (although he shouldn't - asking for explanations of unclear points is necessary to productive discussion) I'm providing my argument to the contrary. All he has to do is match me.Unfortunately he doesn't seem to understand how the definition supports his claim either...

Right, but I've run up into this problem before, and it's that you can be given premises and an argument, but if you don't want to follow them to their obvious conclusion, nobody can make you.The way that a definition supports an argument is that you provide the definition, and if it contains something that supports your argument, that's how it supports your argument. If you're asking for the means by which definitions mind-control you and give you no choice but to be reasonable and accept that a conclusion was supported by the premises and arguments deployed to support it, you're asking for the impossible because that's not how arguments work.If something has to exist before something else can happen, then it's perfectly reasonable to say that the first is a prerequisite for the second. When Buz says that the existence of life is a prerequisite for the evolutionary history of life, I don't see that he's doing anything but repeating what we've told him for years. So what on Earth are you people on about? If Buzsaw comes out and opposes cancer, are the three of you going to argue that cancer is awesome, too?It's incumbent on you to accept reasonable arguments as reasonable, not on anybody else, because nobody else can make you do that.

It's a standard creationist tactic. They know science hasn't yet worked out how life started (abiogenesis is the favoued scientific hypothesis) whilst we have overwhelming evidence for what happened after it started (evolution).So they deliberately conflate abiogenesis with evolution so that they can say that evolution is therefore somehow unproven.We can trace the evolutionary path from a Model T Ford to a F1 racecar even without knowing where the Ford came from......

quote:

---

The way that a definition supports an argument is that you provide the definition, and if it contains something that supports your argument, that's how it supports your argument.

---

Well. I'm managing to explain how the definition contradicts Buz's assertion so it should be possible to explain how it supports it.Crash, it isn't ALWAYS obvious how definitions relate to assertions. Sometimes it needs explaining. And I've done that. Why can't Buz ?Do YOU think that the definition of biopoesis that Buz offered supported his assertion ? Are you saying that it is too obvious to explain ? Because if not, what's your point ?

quote:

---

If something has to exist before something else can happen, then it's perfectly reasonable to say that the first is a prerequisite for the second.

---

Buz is talking about an event rather than a thing existing, but never mind that. More importantly, that definition is an allusion to evolution happening BEFORE the first life. Which is not possible if life has to originate before evolution begins.

quote:

---

When Buz says that the existence of life is a prerequisite for the evolutionary history of life, I don't see that he's doing anything but repeating what we've told him for years.

---

I certainly haven't said anything as silly as the claim that natural abiogenesis has to happen before evolution, which seems to be Buz's point. And even if I had, that wouldn't mean that Buz had a reasonable argument. What we KNOW of the history of life is more consistent with evolution than with divine creation, but that is a far different thing.

quote:

---

It's incumbent on you to accept reasonable arguments as reasonable, not on anybody else, because nobody else can make you do that.

---

If you think that Buz has a reasonable argument I'd like to hear it. But on the face of it the definition of biopoesis doesn't support his claim in the slightest. So either there's something that isn't obvious and needs explaining or Buzsaw is obviously wrong. There's no reasonable argument TO accept.Edited by PaulK, : Clarified what Buz is claiming.

Crashfrog is trying to tell you my position. I'm playing the devil's advocate. No, I'm not conflating biogenesis with evolution. How many times do I need to keep on keeping on reminding you trollish people that it is a prerequisite to evolution. The prerequisite (biogenesis) and what it prerequisites (evolution) are not one and the same. ABE: Make that term, (abiogenisis), i.e the beginning of life from inorganic matter, now that I have learned the difference. Again, it's not Buz who's doing the trolling It's the resident site trolls and you, Percy, Paul et al who demand repetitive answers Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

If instead of biogenesis life began by another method (the magician making dust figures and blowing life into them or the magician speaking life into existence) would it have any impact on the Theory of Evolution?

You can't be serious!Not even Buz would argue something that convoluted and silly!(Would he ??????)

But that is not in the least what Buz has been saying, nor what he has been insisting.Buz insists that "primordial soup" is a prerequisite for evolution, whereas all of us (not Buz) have repeatedly told him and explained to him that rather it is life that is a prerequisite for evolution, regardless of how that life originated.The problem that we are having is that we have asked Buz to please explain his position that evolution depends on one and only one particular idea for how life started. I believe that I was the first to politely ask him that in Message 223: When Buz immediately completely dodged that simple and pertinent question with a copy-pasta definition of "primordial soup", others joined in repeating my question and trying to get Buz to answer it. All the while, Buz has persistently tried as many dishonest tricks as he could to avoid that very simple and very pertinent question.Now in his latest "reply", Message 307, Buz repeats his claim, only now it's broadened slightly by replacing "primordial soup" with abiogenesis. Though now he's all twisted up by throwing around words irrespective of their meanings. Although his argument is that abiogenesis (life arising from non-life) is the prerequisite of evolution, he is substituting the opposite word, biogenesis (life arising from life), even though Rahvin already explained that to him in Message 298. Does Buz ever have any idea what he's saying?Bottom line is that the prerequisite for evolution is life. Buz disagrees persistently and insistently. We asked him to support his position and he has yet to do so.

I quite agree with you except for one thing. Buz didn't claim that life was a prerequisite for evolution. He claimed that the primordial soup was a prerequisite for evolution and he made this claim to support the assertion that foolish atheists believe that life arose from "cosmic slime".

quote:

---

Crashfrog is trying to tell you my position.

---

Well he's not doing a very good job. He thinks you mean: But THAT is the position that your opponents have been taking (e.g. Message 195). If Crash is right then why haven't you admitted it ? Are you really misstating your actual position and arguing with people who agree with you ? Or is Crash wrong ?

quote:

---

No, I'm not conflating biogenesis with evolution.

---

And let me point out that I have acknowledged that: Message 257

quote:

---

How many times do I need to keep on keeping on reminding you trollish people that it is a prerequisite to evolution.

---

Repeating an assertion that seems clearly false is not going to convince anyone. What you need to do is actually support it.I'm still waiting for you to explain why you think the definition of biopoeisis you quoted supports your assertion. I've explained why it contradicts your view. Why can't you manage something similar ? Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Oh how your tune has changed. Let's take a little trip down memory lane, shall we?In post 142 you stated:"I would say that the primordial soup was a prerequisite to the ToE. No premodial soup; no evolution."Notice how you used premoridal [sic] soup as the prerequisite instead of biogenesis. You were obviously saying that without abiogenesis you could not have evolution. Are you still claiming this, or have you changed your tune?You stated this again in message 197:"For advocates of the primordial soup, both that and abiogenesis are prerequisite to evolution. No?"Again in message 215:"pre=before requisite derived from required, i.e. both pre required, i.e. came before, i.e. preceded, i.e. no soup, no abiogenesis, ( LIFE) no evolution for those who ascribe to primordial soup."So I will ask again. If God created a simple RNA replicator and all life evolved from there, how would this change the modern theory of evolution? Could evolution still occur even though abiogenesis did not occur? Have you changed your mind on this issue?

How would that not be "biogenesis"?If aliens seeded the Earth with life, where did they get it? From their own planet, where biogenesis must have happened. Unless you assert that life is a phenomenon of infinite duration into the past - which is a little weird, since the universe is not of infinite past duration - then it seems pretty obvious that biogenesis, of some kind, is necessary for the existence of life and therefore the existence of the evolution of life.

Yeah, but he's being wry (or thinks he is) so he's using "primordial soup" not to refer to any specific biochemical model of the origin of life, but to refer to all scientific models of the origin of life.And, look, you can hardly propose a Godless evolution happening as a result of a Godful creation. A naturalistic evolution of life certainly implies a naturalistic origin of life, that's why scientists are trying to develop one.