Why Abiogenesis separated from Evolution is a false Dichotomy.

Yes. It doesn't matter. For 5 pages we have all been saying it doesn't matter. A unicorn on the 5th moon of jupiter threw a giant snowball full of RNA at the earth. It doesn't freakin matter.

Having said that, whatever theory of abiogenesis is adopted as the widely accepted version (I like mine), its all about the bonding of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen, the four most abundant elements in the known universe. Where, when, and in what form is what we are trying to figure it out.

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by uva3021
Ummm... Yes. Lol obviously. Which proves OP wrong on so many levels

edit on 27-1-2011 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)

opps almost forgot - so if somebody from let's say psychiatric ward (no joke) came up with a theory and call's it abiogen- it will work also with organic evolution theory correct?

It will, because evolutionary theory DESCRIBES WHAT IS HAPPENING TO LIFE NOW. It describes what is currently being observed.

You could say that life began after a banana from another dimension came and took a crap on a time-traveling train going 4000mph approximately 4 billion years ago after Captain Picard beamed it into Q's anus, who got so mad that he sent it back in time just as a bald self-aware baseball glove shoved a conscious banana up his butt into our dimension... and from the contact between the banana crap and the train's surface, the first form of life arose.

Evolution doesn't describe anything that happened before that first form of life arose. Why would it, the process of evolution began precisely when life did. Evolution has *nothing* to do with where life came from, it only has to do with what life *does*.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Not from my perspective, Abiogenesis is a "false opposition" set up by the evolutionist mindset against intelligent design based on semantics of the English language, we have had this discussion many times, and we simply disagree.

What does perspective have to do with it? There is nothing false about it.

Definition from Wikipedia:

A dichotomy is any splitting of a whole into exactly two non-overlapping parts, meaning it is a procedure in which a whole is divided into two parts, or in half. It is a partition of a whole (or a set) into two parts (subsets) that are:

* jointly exhaustive: everything must belong to one part or the other, and
* mutually exclusive: nothing can belong simultaneously to both parts.

The two parts thus formed are complements. In logic, the partitions are opposites if there exists a proposition such that it holds over one and not the other.

In the community of philosophers and scholars, many believe that "unless a distinction can be made rigorous and precise it isn't really a distinction."

Abiogenesis: how non-life became life.
Evolution: how life changes over time.

That dichotomy satisfies the criteria set forth in the definition:

* jointly exhaustive: everything must belong to one part or the other...

Abiogenesis discussion ends when life begins.
Evolution discussion begins when life begins.
Pre-life or life. Everything belongs to one part or the other.

* mutually exclusive: nothing can belong simultaneously to both parts.

Abiogenesis discussion ends when life begins.
Evolution discussion begins when life begins.

Pre-life or life. nothing is simultaneously pre-life and life.

True Dichotomy.

Your "perspective" has nothing to with it. You are welcome to your opinion, but not your own facts.

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by uva3021
Ummm... Yes. Lol obviously. Which proves OP wrong on so many levels

edit on 27-1-2011 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)

opps almost forgot - so if somebody from let's say psychiatric ward (no joke) came up with a theory and call's it abiogen- it will work also with organic evolution theory correct?

ciao,
edmc2

just making sure...cuz it's hard to reason with someone in the psychiatric ward (again please - this is not meant as an insult - just making sure)

later...

It doesn't matter who comes up with a valid theory as long as he backs it up with solid evidence and if he follows scientific method.

And I'm happy you finally got that it doesn't matter which type of abiogenesis is correct for the theory of evolution to be valid...finally!

reply to post by edmc^2

opps almost forgot - so if somebody from let's say psychiatric ward (no joke) came up with a theory and call's it abiogen- it will work also with organic evolution theory correct?

Correct, so long as it does not contradict the theory of evolution.

You are making a clown of yourself. Please stop now. It's embarrassing.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by edmc^2

 

I watched that video, and I am reminded of one question over and over and over again from that first cell (Abiogenesis) to the (evolution) upright walking human.

Evolution didn't stop with the upright walking human. Hell, we aren't even the pinnacle of upright walking creatures. We clearly need more knee cartilage.

HOW ?

Is not the topic of this thread. If you want just another generic evolution attack thread title this thread "(Something negative) EVOLUTION!" You said that evolution cannot be separated from abiogenesis.

As for how? I'm pretty sure I provided some explanation of that to you.

It just doesn't ring true or make sense, at the very least it reveals way too many unanswered questions.

Your personal incredulity is not an argument against evolution. Please, name an unanswered question.

Accepting the concept of that video is equal to the concept of intelligent design.

That video was made in the 80s to popularize science. It's not a scientific text. And no, it isn't equal to intelligent design because there's actually a body of evidence to support the ideas found in that video.

One is faith by what we are told about regarding accuracy of science,

No, it isn't faith. It's something you can test. You can pour over the scientific literature to test it.

the other is faith in another way, the intelligent design way.

Yes, in not accepting a single shred of evidence that clearly shows that your point is invalid.

Notice the video makes no distinction between the events, in watching that video it is conceptually obvious that they are all one.

Yes, because we should totally make our arguments based on a 20+ year old television program that was intended to popularize science rather than scientific literature and evidence.

It is not even an issue, and that is the real point of this thread, even evolutionists that are intellectually honest have tied the events together.

They would be related. No matter how life arose it is related to evolution because evolution regards life. The issue here is that you're saying that evolution is tied to a single concept of how life arose.

As I've asked before: How would evolution be rendered invalid in the case of life being created supernaturally?

Please answer the question, as I'm running out of ways to ask it.

To illustrate, it's like a laptop and it's keyboard and screen. One needs the other to be used effectively.

False analogy much?

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by solomons path

 

Consequently, abiogenesis didn't not have to lead to evolution.

Proponents of evolutionary theory making these types of statements is why this thread exists.

It's a true statement. Abiogenesis wouldn't have to lead to evolution and evolution would have and will continue to happen whether or not life formed through abiogenesis.

However the totality of the entire concept of life developing on this earth without any intervention, really can't avoid it.

Um...what does this have to do with anything? Evolution doesn't require abiogenesis, abiogenesis doesn't inherently lead to evolution. It's been made clear that the two are entirely separate. Can you refute those statements?

Some posts in this thread indicate that some people are in a type of intellectual denial over this issue.

And yet you cannot demonstrate how abiogenesis and evolution are inherently linked. So this is all realy stupid.

I also want to mention I received an applause for this thread, whereas I have received them before, I have never received one in this sub-forum, even though I have made many threads.

Whoop-dee-doo-doo, a mod is ignorant of science, the logical fallacy of false dichotomy, and grammar.

It is obviously is an issue of validity to be discussed.

Logical fallacy, argument from authority. Just because a mod gave you an applause doesn't mean your point has any value. Mods are fallible beings.

This thread doesn't even have a title that makes any sense, let alone a logical point. You've yet to prove your premise or to disprove evolution and abiogenesis being separate theories.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
The idea that life evolved from simpler forms into more complex forms rests entirely on the idea that "life" came from non-life.

No, it rests on the ideas that simpler life forms existed at one point. If those simpler life forms came about because a deity poofed them into existence, evolution would have still happened.

So they are both views of the same camp.

Nope, you're wrong.

Ok, the OP didn't demonstrate how abiogenesis and evolution are inextricably linked.

The OP didn't answer a question about how a supernatural cause for the origin of life would disprove evolution.

The OP cannot seem to make any argument beyond logical fallacies and false analogies.

Why the hell are we still in this thread when it should have been shut down for being futile? 7 pages and Jay hasn't even bothered addressing the title of his own thread.

Jay, I challenge you (again) to show me how evolution and abiogenesis are linked.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by uva3021
Ummm... Yes. Lol obviously. Which proves OP wrong on so many levels

edit on 27-1-2011 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)

opps almost forgot - so if somebody from let's say psychiatric ward (no joke) came up with a theory and call's it abiogen- it will work also with organic evolution theory correct?

ciao,
edmc2

just making sure...cuz it's hard to reason with someone in the psychiatric ward (again please - this is not meant as an insult - just making sure)

later...

It doesn't matter who comes up with a valid theory as long as he backs it up with solid evidence and if he follows scientific method.

And I'm happy you finally got that it doesn't matter which type of abiogenesis is correct for the theory of evolution to be valid...finally!

Whut???? Huh???

It doesn't matter who comes up with a valid theory as long as he backs it up with solid evidence and if he follows scientific method.

So it does matter then,

That is, your statement below

The theory of evolution doesn't require a specific type of abiogenesis to be valid…it has ZERO impact on the theory of evolution

is not true/incorrect.

Meaning, you need a VALID SPECIFIC TYPE of abiogensis theory in order to support/prop-up organic evolution theory.

You guys need to make up your mind - because your contradicting each other.
So again, does it require a VALID SCIENTIFIC abiogenesis theory or NOT. Which?

Your fellow evolutionists already said NOT. In the beginning you said NOT but this time Yes, then some said yes, then some no.


Here’s from:

Astyanax
Correct, so long as it does not contradict the theory of evolution.

Rnaa (not sure)
Abiogenesis discussion ends when life begins.
Evolution discussion begins when life begins.

RestingInPieces
It will, because evolutionary theory DESCRIBES WHAT IS HAPPENING TO LIFE NOW. It describes what is currently being observed.

uva3021
Yes. It doesn't matter. For 5 pages we have all been saying it doesn't matter. A unicorn on the 5th moon of jupiter threw a giant snowball full of RNA at the earth. It doesn't freakin matter.

Tell you what - I think Dr. Sagan is much more straightforward that you -so called “evolutionist”. At least he’s not confuse. Unless you guys don’t recognized him as an authority.

So as indicated by your responses I think I’m safe to say life “poof” from existence then evolve.

shezzz... talking about embarassing moments...

ciao,
edmc2

I know what a ludicrous concept. Man those evolutionist are nutso. Wait a tic, life poofing into existence, complexity out of nothing? That sounds like Creationism

If we were to say "Evolutionary theory is ENTIRELY contingent on a theory of abiogenesis" would you finally come to the understanding that Evolutionary theory is IN NO WAY contingent on a theory of abiogenesis?

No one can really be this stubborn. Has to be a joke

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

SNIP

We know quite a bit, so please don't use your personal ignorance as a contradiction of that. Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we don't know anything.

Contemptuous. A personification of both ignorance & supreme self-effacing arrogance, and you weren't even that difficult to expose.

reply to post by edmc^2

Meaning, you need a VALID SPECIFIC TYPE of abiogensis theory in order to support/prop-up organic evolution theory.

Obviously, if someone came up with a perfectly reasonable abiogenesis hypothesis that resulted in silicon based life instead of carbon based life, it would be rejected because it doesn't explain the fact of carbon based life. On the other hand, if silicon based life had taken over the planet, it would still be affected by evolution but clearly the results wouldn't be the same.

Evolutionary theory leaves room for a supernatural abiogenesis because it doesn't address how life got started, only what happened to it once it did get started. Evolution is totally indifferent to how life got started, so it just doesn't matter to the Theory of Evolution whether God created life or it was farted out by a pink unicorn, or by simple chemphysics acting on lipids near a deep sea vent.

On the other hand, Biology is a scientific endeavor, and theories within Biology must be scientific theories. There is no room in biology for a supernatural abiogenesis.

You guys need to make up your mind - because your contradicting each other.
So again, does it require a VALID SCIENTIFIC abiogenesis theory or NOT. Which?

No, we aren't contradicting each other, we are trying different approaches to help you understand. We are saying that Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (the official name of the theory) has nothing to say or hear about how life started and that Abiogenesis Theory, if and when it develops a consensus, will have nothing to say or hear about Evolution (except the obvious limit described above, it needs to describe the beginnings of organic life).

That is not to say that Biology is silent on either, of course. Evolution is part of the study of Biology, Abiogenesis is part of the study of Biology, and there are many other parts. All the parts fit together to describe life on Earth, in this way they are linked and must be consistent and coherent.

I'll repeat what you should be taking away from this post: Abiogenesis doesn't care what happens to organic life once it gets started, it just describes how organic life got started. Evolutionary theory doesn't care how life got started, it is only addressing what happens when it does. Non-life doesn't evolve (in the biological science manner of speaking). The Science of Biology cares very much about both, and cares that they are consistent with observed facts.

Originally posted by chocise

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

SNIP

We know quite a bit, so please don't use your personal ignorance as a contradiction of that. Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we don't know anything.

Contemptuous. A personification of both ignorance & supreme self-effacing arrogance, and you weren't even that difficult to expose.

edit on 28-1-2011 by chocise because: formating

No, he is right. We know quite a bit. You would be saying the same thing in middle ages about the shape of the Earth, but the only thing it would demonstrate is your own ignorance of the matter.

reply to post by chocise


Sooo you took 2 lines out of over 50 and I'm ignorant.

...I'm sorry, but do you understand the need to actually prove your statements? You've not provided a rational basis for me being ignorant or self-effacingly arrogant. You've merely stated that I'm ignorant and arrogant repeatedly. I pointed out your ignorance based upon my own demonstration that your points were either false or lacking in merit.

I must apologize again, because I must point out that you've basically participated in flagrant and unapologetic name calling in our exchange and nothing more.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


No need to apologize. You are what you are. I have no desire to point out the obvious flaws in your constructs or help you see above them: you've consistently demonstrated in two threads now just how shallow they are, and how entrenched and limited the thought behind them is.

reply to post by chocise
Metaphysical conceits and bathing in the amniotic fluid of idealistic nonsense serves nothing but to indicate an incapacity to engage in analytical thought. His thoughts are not limited, but coherent and rational, based on the knowledge we have at our disposal. No amount of eternity, other worldly, non-material entities or other such masterbatory drivel contributes in any way to rational, scientific thought.

Some people can't absorb facts and evidence. Giving rational explanations to some minds is like giving gluten to a celiac. Either result in the production of large amounts of diarrhea from one orifice or another.
This is why the bible teaches in parables.

So it's time for a little parable to illustrate the situation being discussed.


THE HAPPY COUPLE AND THE STEAM-ROLLER.

Bob and Betty were standing in the middle of the road with their eyes shut and their hands over their ears.
Various pedestrians on the sidewalks were trying to persuade the couple to get off the road because there was a steam-roller coming.
Bob and Betty wanted to know where the steam-roller was made.
Puzzled onlookers came up with several possibilities and again suggested they get off the road.
Bob and Betty laughed at them, wanting to know how they knew a steam-roller was coming when they didn't know from whence it originated.
The frustrated onlookers explained they could hear it, and see it, and theorise the approximate distance from it and the approximate speed at which it was travelling.
Highly amused now, Bob and Betty wanted to know what they based all these silly guesses on when they still had no proof of where the steam-roller came from.
Horrified, the onlookers watched as the giggling couple refused to move, and were slowly transformed into carpet as the steam-roller made its way along the road.

THE END


Epilogue:

The onlookers sadly attended the funeral.
As they watched the dirt being shovelled over the document cylinders the couple were buried in, the couple's little children started pointing and laughing at them, calling them the people who believed in steam-rollers.

reply to post by uva3021


I knew it would be lost on you. QED.