Abiogenesis

[Mr. Neil]

I don't know. It's awfully close. But I would assume that the more fun of the two would be (as Pepe Le Pew would say) the wooing!

[crazy-tiger]

I don't know.  It's awfully close.  But I would assume that the more fun of the two would be (as Pepe Le Pew would say) the wooing!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most certainly...

 

 

Oh, excuse me... I've been called for.

[invictus1967]

Darwin based his theory on a universe without a God. Therefore, without abiogenesis, Darwin’s theory in completely invalid. If you separate the two, you invalidate Darwin.

 

The entire theory of abiogenesis is riddled with wholes. Science has in no way shown that it is even remotely possible. As far as the available data we have is concerned, life existed from the beginning because the oldest data known to science shows life was already in existence. To even say that it was even possible to have happened, you have to push its beginning back to a time where there is no data to restrict it.

 

How scientific is that? You have to begin by eliminating all known data!

 

It is the biggest “missing link” in a long list of “missing linkS”.

[Mr. Neil]

Darwin based his theory on a universe without a God.

A vapid assertion. Prove it.

 

 

The entire theory of abiogenesis is riddled with wholes.

I wholeheartedly agree!

[Saviourmachine]

Therefore, without abiogenesis, Darwin’s theory in completely invalid.

You should try to be more respectful to this field invictus. I was christian and evolutionist for a while. Evolution doesn't exclude god. Also, abiogenesis is another field than biological evolution because it's possible to believe that aliens brought earliest life on earth for example. "Belief" in the first doesn't include "belief" in the latter.

 

However, "belief" isn't the right word. Biological evolution is built upon falsifiable hypotheses. That's what you should do to. You do have the hypothesis of a worldwide flood and Noah (with his suns) and three women on the arc. From this situation it should be clear that the variation of male DNA would be much smaller than the variation in female DNA (there were attempts to messure the age of a mitochondrial Eve). Lots of other hypothesis can be written down. The effects of a deluge on local strontium isotope concentrations e.g. Dynocysts can be disfigured by metheor impacts or by deluge water pressure. The difference between these kind of disformations can be studied.

 

That's the way how science works. I wish you much luck with sustaining or falsifying your case by these methods. Truth will overcome!

 

PS: Compare it with measuring the speed of light (evolution) and knowing where light comes from (abiogenesis). The speed of light can be measured, and hypothesis can be formulated without knowing that that lightbeam comes from star 14 23222 667 in the Burrell Schmidt plates.

[Saviourmachine]

The matter is a problem of the details, not of the overall process.  We're quite sure that the ancestral forms must have been self-catalyzing polymers, likely a construct that we call a "hypercycle."

If you have something to share about that, I'd appreciate it.

 

By the way, I'm reading "The fifth miracle" of Paul Davies at the moment. If I find something interesting I'll write it down.

 

Because I'm studying 'Knowledge Engineering' I'm less inclined to sceptisism about consciousness arising from neural networks*, life arising from duplicating molecules, etc. What I find far more intriguing is the nature of "real" pain, or "real" colours. They are so real, so seemingly from another character. Their origin doesn't interest me that much, but they are so different! I don't have problems with qualia as physical entities, but how come that they can so subjectively be felt? Every time I want to describe a qualia I need other qualia to make myself clear.

 

* I'm reading Roger Penrose, maybe he'll change my mind.

[doomguarder]

Inviticus,

 

Microevolution such as natural selection, adaptation to the environment and mutation are all observable to some degree. Such as super viruses that have adapted to the medications, and the variation within a species to adapt to the local environment. Hard to argue about what is observable. IN addition, since microevolution is observable, no need for god in the mix, it is happening all by itself.

 

To argue against evolution you only have one avenue to exploits what is yet unknown and unobservable in real time, macroevolution. But there is mounting evidence from the fossil record for macroevolution and as more pieces of the puzzle are found, even this becomes more difficult to argue. Until 100% of the transitionary fossils are found, you still have wiggle room for your god in the mix. You will have this to argue over for a long time, because we will never find all of the fossils required to prove this theory to you.

 

But, if you lump abiogensis into evolution, you have a big space to insert god because no one can claim to have observed this happen. No one was there to watch life start and document it for posterity. No one KNOWS what happened, as saviourmachine said some think it was aliens who brought the 1st life to earth. This does not fit in the

1. Aboigensis

2. God

Choices scheme.

3. Aliens

4. Meteorite

5. Those dudes who live in the hollow earth

Just to add a few choices.

 

You have said that atheists fall behind the “I don’t know and I am not scared to admit I don’t know.” This is true but it is honest as well. You fall behind, “ I don’t know so it must be a god.” With that idea the world would never look for an answer to these questions beyond religion.

[MrSpooky]

The entire theory of abiogenesis is riddled with wholes. Science has in no way shown that it is even remotely possible. As far as the available data we have is concerned, life existed from the beginning because the oldest data known to science shows life was already in existence. To even say that it was even possible to have happened, you have to push its beginning back to a time where there is no data to restrict it.

 

While it is true that abiogenesis is a field still in its beginning stages right now, we DO have a context in which the hypothesis is not only fully believable but highly structured.

 

First, note that given a set of self-replicating structures, a method of conveying information that will affect the phenotype, and a selection mechanism, the self-replicating structure WILL advance to be better suited for survival.

 

To see how effective natural selection is, check this...

 

http://www.cs.laurentian.ca/badams/evoluti...onApplet11.html

 

1. Self-replication: Many, many simple pre-biotic chemicals self-replicate. Clays self-replicate. Crystals self-replicate. Carbon chemistry is full of structures that can polymerize and self-replicate.

 

2. Information conveyance: Chemicals will convey "information" of a crude sort based on their differing chemical compositions. Nowadays information is carried by differences in base pairs in DNA polymers. However, some scientists believe that substances such as crystals and clays, when they contain impurities, alter the "phenotype" of the crystal.

 

3. Natural Selection: An interaction with the environment and a phenotype will result in natural selection. Chemicals have a phenotype (which results in different behaviors and functionalities given a different environments). There are also many limiting pressures that the environment places on self-replicating chemicals... how much chemical "food" there is, oxidative forces, etc.

 

We know simple chemicals that result from simple processes can fulfill all three criteria for "evolution." The problem then is now HOW it happens in detail. The matter is hardly inexplicable.

 

 

 

Honestly, this is the problem with the God of Gaps fallacy. You take an unknown and cram God into the space it leaves. But why don't Christians ever point and laugh at the fact that we don't know the mass of the Higgs-Boson particle yet? Or the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? Or chuckle at our current inability to travel to other planets?

 

There is a huge HUGE body of things man doesn't know about the world yet. However, science has shown itself to be very powerful at arriving at answers. Christianity... hasn't. But it's not just the track record alone that makes science much more reliable, it's the methodology. Science thrives on facts, figures, and workable models. Christianity works from ignorance and logical fallacies in this regard.

 

 

The popular stereotype of the researcher is that of a skeptic and a pessimist. Nothing could be further from the truth! Scientists must be optimists at heart, in order to block out the incessant chorus of those who say "It cannot be done."

 

Academician Prokhor Zakharov

University Commencement

[MrSpooky]

To argue against evolution you only have one avenue to exploits what is yet unknown and unobservable in real time, macroevolution.

 

And don't forget polyploid and ring species!

[invictus1967]

The biggest argument against evolution is the lack of evidence to support it. To argue for evolution, you must first concede numerous “missing links”. One of which is the very first link.

 

When we say “God did it” that doesn’t mean we stop the pursuit of knowledge. We try to figure out how God did it. Man should not require ignorance for motivation.

 

Regarding- "Belief" in the first doesn't include "belief" in the latter.

You can not accept Darwin’s theory without a belief in abiogenesis.

 

Here are a few quotes from Darwin himself.

(Neil these also apply to your -“A vapid assertion. Prove it.”)

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

 

“When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Cambrian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled.”

 

“…but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei [the voice of the people is the voice of God], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science.”

 

“I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.”

 

“I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created that a cat should play with mice.”

 

Concerning why he originally kept is theory secret- “It is like confessing to a murder.”

[MrSpooky]

I've figured it out! The poster who goes under the name Mr. Spooky is really God masquerading as a guy at Berkeley. (Not some old graybeard god wanting to be told "no, that robe doesn't make you look fat," either, but a hot one of the Apollo or Hermes type.)

 

LOL, aren't you sweet. If you posted more, I'd probably learn a thing or two about philosophy from YOU.

 

Of course, I'm a procrastinitazing little bastard so I have plenty of time to post. =3

[Mr. Neil]

The biggest argument against evolution is the lack of evidence to support it.

*sigh*

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Are you going to read it this time?

 

 

Here are a few quotes from Darwin himself.

(Neil these also apply to your -“A vapid assertion. Prove it.”)

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

 

“When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Cambrian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled.”

 

“…but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei [the voice of the people is the voice of God], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science.”

 

“I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.”

 

“I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created that a cat should play with mice.”

 

Concerning why he originally kept is theory secret- “It is like confessing to a murder.”

Where is he saying that evolution is a theory dependant on the non-existence of God, Invictus?

 

Most of these, he's explicitly denying special creation (i.e., God created these things fully formed). He's talking about contradicting dogmatic belief in creation stories. That doesn't imply atheism. He's not saying that evolution is dependant upon there being absolutely no God.

 

Not here. Not there. Not anywhere. Your assertion is vacuous, and you won't find a quote in which Darwin claims that evolution is dependant upon the non-existence of a deity.

 

 

Regarding- "Belief" in the first doesn't include "belief" in the latter.

You can not accept Darwin’s theory without a belief in abiogenesis.

Again, a vapid assertion, as many theists actually do that quite happily. What is it about evolution that contradicts the existence of a god, Invictus? Justify your false dichotomy.

[crazy-tiger]

Will you take off your Jesus Glasses© and pay attention?

 

Once more, since you managed to miss it the last time...

 

EVOLUTION WORKS WHETHER GOD OR ABIOGENESIS WAS THE CAUSE OF LIFE!

[invictus1967]

Neil,

 

“…the voice of God], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science.”

 

“done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations”

 

“I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created…”

 

Are you honestly telling me that you can read those quotes from Darwin and not deduce his perspective?

 

In another thread you instructed me to open my eyes. Maybe you should do the same.

[Mr. Neil]

Invictus,

 

“…the voice of God], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science.”

 

Edit: Oh wait! That's the Vox populi quote. He's not talking about the voice of God at all. He's talking about the appeal to the majority.

 

 

“done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations”

 

Notice he's saying "dogma" and "separate creation". He's contradicting Genesis. Not theism.

 

 

“I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created…”

 

Edit: Oh I see. I refuted that, so this time you're going to use the same quote, only without the important context of what he's saying. Let me refresh your memory...

 

“I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created that a cat should play with mice.”

 

He's talking about special creation (i.e., God created everything as-is). Quote mining is a very dubious tactic, Invictus.

[crazy-tiger]

Invictus,

 

“…the voice of God], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science.”

 

Please include the entire quote, in context please.

“done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations”

 

Notice he's saying "dogma" and "separate creation".  He's contradicting Genesis. Not theism.

“I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created…”

 

Please include the entire quote, in context please.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What are you thinking??

You really expect him to use the entire quote??

 

Neil... I thought you'd gotten over those kind of delusions months ago...

[Vigile]

Invictus,

 

“…the voice of God], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science.”

 

Please include the entire quote, in context please.

“done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations”

 

Notice he's saying "dogma" and "separate creation".  He's contradicting Genesis. Not theism.

“I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created…”

 

Please include the entire quote, in context please.

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't throwing in Darwin's motivation a bit of a red herring? Evolution has been well accepted independent of Darwin and what his motivation was or wasn't distracts from the point of the debate.

 

This is not directed at you Mr Neil. Your response just seemed a good place to inject this.

[Mr. Neil]

You're right, Vigile, but Invictus doesn't want to listen. In fact, you might have noticed that I've directed him to evidence of evolution twice, and both times it's been ignored.

 

Oh, by the way, CT. I corrected my post about his quotes. He's just repeating himself, only he's removed the portions of the sentences that I refuted the first time. Isn't that clever?!

 

[Thurisaz]

Abiogenesis is nothing more than an attempt by evolutionists to dodge a tough question that seemingly deals a fatal blow to their theory- “Where did the life come from that began the evolutionary process?”

 

Invictus is nothing more than a braindead fundie zombie with but one hobby, this being to watch this movie again and again:

 

 

'nuff said.

[crazy-tiger]

The biggest argument against evolution is the lack of evidence to support it. To argue for evolution, you must first concede numerous “missing links”. One of which is the very first link.

Wrong. There are millions of Christians who believe God created life THEN evolution came into play.

 

Understand this, it doesn't matter one bit HOW life was formed. As far as evolution goes, it has no bearing on the theory.

When we say “God did it” that doesn’t mean we stop the pursuit of knowledge. We try to figure out how God did it. Man should not require ignorance for motivation.

So the whole "God did it and we can never understand his methods" idea managed to pass you by?

Regarding- "Belief" in the first doesn't include "belief" in the latter.

You can not accept Darwin’s theory without a belief in abiogenesis.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Look, you ignorant fool... stop using that strawman and try listening to reality for once.

 

You are just showing how much you are ignoring the facts in your attempt to attack evolution. When will you finally get it through your thick skull that evolution does not rely on abiogenesis?

[invictus1967]

I did you the entire quote earlier, I was trying to keep it short and to the point. For whatever reason, you people insist on going in circles and dragging things out to the Nth degree.

 

I never would have dreamed that Darwin's view of God would have ever been a point to explain to you people.

 

I have overestimated what you know. I am truly sorry for that. It will not happen again.

 

As for abiogenesis, if we all agree it is full of wholes. Do you people have a point in keeping it "alive" in this thread.

[crazy-tiger]

You're right, Vigile, but Invictus doesn't want to listen.  In fact, you might have noticed that I've directed him to evidence of evolution twice, and both times it's been ignored.

 

Oh, by the way, CT.  I corrected my post about his quotes.  He's just repeating himself, only he's removed the portions of the sentences that I refuted the first time.  Isn't that clever?!

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I find it ironic that he's running with the belief that people were designed to be as they are. That means that I was designed to show people like Invictus1967 just how bloody moronic they are being.

 

If I keep going, does that mean God will be pleased with me and let me into heaven?

[Thurisaz]

You are validating my point. I said you want to separate the two and that is what you are trying to doing. You want creation without a creator.

 

We "want" to hear something that hasn't been debunked a thousand times, fundie boy. Not that you would be the one to be able to grant us that favor... because your PRATTs are all you have.

 

Without a creator, explain to me exactly how you can have evolution without abiogenesis?

 

Without the desperate need to have a perfect 100 % proven answer to every possible question, why should we fucking care?

Of course, that concept of, dare I say it, honesty is damn hard to grasp for a full-(brain-)blown fundie who is used to lie whenever it suits him... but the sad (for you) fact remains: Science honestly admits "We don't know for sure. We have some promising ideas but we aren't sure by far... yet."

 

Aaaah, but go ahead, keep on lying and insulting. Every time you do that, you provide more proof for the depravity and insanity of your dangerous cult.

[Mr. Neil]

I did you the entire quote earlier, I was trying to keep it short and to the point. For whatever reason, you people insist on going in circles and dragging things out to the Nth degree.

But the second time, you did fragment them in order to make it appear as though Darwin was talking about theism as opposed to special creation and vox populi. This is plainly evident, especially when one examines how you edited the vox populi quote.

 

 

I never would have dreamed that Darwin's view of God would have ever been a point to explain to you people.

 

I have overestimated what you know. I am truly sorry for that. It will not happen again.

I've refuted every claim you've made.

 

 

As for abiogenesis, if we all agree it is full of wholes. Do you people have a point in keeping it "alive" in this thread.

You don't seem to understand my little joke. You said that it's full of wholes, and I agreed.

 

Are you aware that you made (and repeated) a simple homonym error?

[Thurisaz]

If you remove a creator, how can you have evolution without abiogenesis?

 

Newsflash:

This isn't a brainwashed, mind-control-police patrolled christian death cult site. Here, if you don't like the answer to a question, regurgitating that question won't do you any good. Of course it's hard for your three active brain cells to grasp that fact, but moderators and admins will not intervene on your side because you don't like what we reply to you.

 

The christian death cult - the most potent neurotoxine for killing brain cells, as demonstrated by invictus (whose mere name stinks of hybris).