|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
 Posted - 02/19/2006 : 02:20:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
The other thing that the theory of evolution does not address is the origin of life. Abiogenesis is the field of study looking into this topic.
I find this division uncomfortable.
It¨s almost like ID but with "Abiogenesis did it!" instead of "God the Designer did it!"
Abiogenesis and what happened before the point when what we define as life evolved from non-life is certainly connected to evolutionary biology.
Equating this to "God did it" is nothing short of silly. Depending on the context, evolution can be used to explain several things. But it was never designed to explain how life first arose. You might as well require it to explain the decay rate of atomic nuclei.
While the two topics (abiogenesis and evolution) are related, they can be separated temporally by vast amounts. The most common use of evolutionary explanations is why all life forms share certain characteristics - they share common ancestry. In this case abiogenesis is separated from evolution by millions if not billions of years. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
 |
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 05:28:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
Equating this to "God did it" is nothing short of silly.
Of course equating abiogenesis with "God did it" is silly.
(Even though a god/designer creating life would be abiogenesis in a general sense of the word.)
I have two problems with saying something like "evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis."
1. I'm pretty sure that it is false and it is a crappy unsupported claim anyway.
Though there is always a possibility that what we define as life appeared through some other method than descent with modification (, it might have been poofed into existence by someone or something natural or unnatural), it is probable that the first living things descended from other evolving things that we classify as nonliving as they, like viruses, lacked some of the traits that we assign to life.
It is also quite probable that this development/evolution did not change much just because the final trait of life appeared. You could then see biological evolution as a late subset of the chemical evolution that preceded it.
Abiogenesis is by definition how life came from non-life and biological evolution is then by definition how life change with time. So A is by definition separated from E. The problem is that the definition of life is not universal.
If what is life(biological evolution) and what is nonlife(abiogenesis) is a matter of definition, claiming that abiogenesis is not connected to (biological) evolution is then as "silly" as claiming that the evolution of dogs has nothing to do with the evolution of wolves or that the evolution of French is unrelated to the evolution of Latin.
2. It is a bad argument against anyone that believe in any form of creationism.
Creationists discussing evolution are speaking about how life did (or in their mind, did not) appear on earth. They are not really interested in how science divides the issue.
If you say something like this they will probably just think that you are dodging one of the (in their minds)"numerous" problems of evolution.quote:
While the two topics (abiogenesis and evolution) are related, they can be separated temporally by vast amounts. The most common use of evolutionary explanations is why all life forms share certain characteristics - they share common ancestry. In this case abiogenesis is separated from evolution by millions if not billions of years.
Are you saying that after abiogenesis, this new life did not evolve at all for millions of years??? |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 10:40:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
2. It is a bad argument against anyone that believe in any form of creationism.
Creationists discussing evolution are speaking about how life did (or in their mind, did not) appear on earth. They are not really interested in how science divides the issue.
If you say something like this they will probably just think that you are dodging one of the (in their minds)"numerous" problems of evolution.
But it is a problem with evolution. Their understanding of evolution anyway, which is faulty. And that has to be explained to them. Any argument against biological evolution that includes abiogenesis is by definition a straw-man. Creationists needs to be educated about their misconception.
It's not wrong to admit to creationists that abiogenesis is tentative at best, and barely more than hypothesis at this point. Which should also be helpful in convincing them that evolution does not exclude the possibility of a creator, however unlikely that seems to me. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 02/20/2006 10:43:46 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 10:57:57 [Permalink]
|
Starman said:
quote:
I have two problems with saying something like "evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis."
Who said that? Certainly no one in this thread said anything even remotely like that.
Several things to note here:
1. The ToE is, quite frequently, applied (correctly so) to things that fall outside the current accepted definition of life. H5N1 Influenza virus, for example. Viruses are not on the "alive" list in most biology texts. So, clearly, non-living things can evolve.
2. Abiogenesis and ToE are very interrelated. I believe I mention previously that it would not suprise me at all to see the mechanisms of evolution playing a major role in a well evidenced Theory of Abiogenesis.
3. Because of the current knowledge gap at the juncture of non-life to life, you can't include abiogenesis in the current structure of ToE.
You may be totally right, Starman. Abiogenesis and ToE may become one unified theory, well supported by evidence. I agree with you.
quote:
2. It is a bad argument against anyone that believe in any form of creationism.
Creationists discussing evolution are speaking about how life did (or in their mind, did not) appear on earth. They are not really interested in how science divides the issue.
If you say something like this they will probably just think that you are dodging one of the (in their minds)"numerous" problems of evolution.
It is an honest argument. It is not my fault that creationists don't even understand what they are arguing against.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 11:18:48 [Permalink]
|
Dr M said:
quote:
It's not wrong to admit to creationists that abiogenesis is tentative at best, and barely more than hypothesis at this point. Which should also be helpful in convincing them that evolution does not exclude the possibility of a creator, however unlikely that seems to me.
Even if we had a well evidenced Theory of Abiogenesis to include in the ToE, and the evidence was entirely of spontaneous chemical interation, it still wouldn't preclude the existance of any gods.
The conflict between ToE and fundie religious types is that they think they were specially created.
ToE has volumes of evidence, already, that directly contradict (and rule out) any literal (or even semi-literal) interpretaion of any religious account of creation.
That is the real "problem" the fundie crowd has with ToE. They hate the evidence that directly contradicts the instant and special creation of humans by some diety.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 12:09:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The conflict between ToE and fundie religious types is that they think they were specially created.
I don't understand why they don't think that evolution could have been used by their god to specially make humans. Why do they try to put their god in a box and say "we must have been created this way and this way only".
They fear that if any part of their sacred text is in error, then the whole text can be called into question.
Their faith in their god's message is extraordinarily weak. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 15:55:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Are you saying that after abiogenesis, this new life did not evolve at all for millions of years???
By NO means. Evolution WILL happen providing that there is inheritance, varitaion (or the possibility of generating such-ie some form of mutation) and differential survival. Abiogenesis would have to enable/create these de novo. Evolution as a mechanism would then act on what abiogenesis created. Evolution and abiogeneis are connected in that evolution needs abiogenesis to get started, and abiogenesis needs evolution to create something that we would define as life.
But remember that evolution as an theory is, well.... not ONE theory. Depending on what you are trying to explain, there are several theories of evoultion. One says that the similarities of all known life-forms is because of common ancestry (this is the one creationists love to attack). Timewise, this theory starts with the emergence of a life-form having a cell-bound membrane, uses "the central dogma reactions" (DNA replication and protein synthesis via RNA) etc. In this case, time zero could be sometime maybe a billion years ago. Of course evolution occurred before this date, it was just not relevant to the problem being addressed. Ie, this theory of evolution as nothing to do with abiogenesis. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 18:24:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco:
They fear that if any part of their sacred text is in error, then the whole text can be called into question.
That's the danger of claiming one's text is divinely inspired and infallible. It's amazing how many people don't see the inherent problem in that claim, especially when the text contradicts itself. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 18:40:58 [Permalink]
|
So, Ricky, you gonna answer my question?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 21:17:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
The conflict between ToE and fundie religious types is that they think they were specially created.
I don't understand why they don't think that evolution could have been used by their god to specially make humans. Why do they try to put their god in a box and say "we must have been created this way and this way only".
They fear that if any part of their sacred text is in error, then the whole text can be called into question.
Their faith in their god's message is extraordinarily weak.
I think the answer lies in their pathology of only seeing black-and-white with no intermediates. They are blind to the grey areas. Just look at how Bill is arguing. It's always either or. When confronted by an argument that is in the middle, he instantly equates it to be black, or the worst case scenario: the straw-man. I guess that is why the fundies have an affinity to straw-men. It's a product of their constricted way of thinking:
If the Bible cannot be ALL true, it must be false. If you don't believe in God, you have no morality. If you are sinning just a bitsy little, you'll go to hell unless you ask God for forgivness. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 00:47:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Starman said:quote:
I have two problems with saying something like "evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis."
Who said that? Certainly no one in this thread said anything even remotely like that.
The claim was that "they were not connected".
Not the same, but not far from it.quote:
quote:
2. It is a bad argument against anyone that believe in any form of creationism....
It is an honest argument. It is not my fault that creationists don't even understand what they are arguing against.
Yes, it is honest and the main problem is the ignorance of the creationist, but that does not necessary make something a good argument.
Of course it depend on the context, the claim of the creationist and how the distinction between abiogenesis and biological evolution is pointed out by the evolutionist (abiogenesist?  ).
If it looks like you refuse to discuss the origin of life as it is not included in the TOE, it is in my view all to similar to the ID:ers refusal to discuss the "Who", "How" and "Why" of their Design fantasies.
I'm not saying that anyone here does this or that you can't bring up the distinction, but it is why I feel that it is a risky argument. |
| Edited by - Starman on 02/21/2006 04:23:58 |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 01:04:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
But it is a problem with evolution. Their understanding of evolution anyway, which is faulty. And that has to be explained to them. Any argument against biological evolution that includes abiogenesis is by definition a straw-man. Creationists needs to be educated about their misconception.
Small point,
I would not call it a straw-man just because they don't know what is evolution and what is not.quote:
It's not wrong to admit to creationists that abiogenesis is tentative at best, and barely more than hypothesis at this point. Which should also be helpful in convincing them that evolution does not exclude the possibility of a creator, however unlikely that seems to me.
Agree.
Honesty is best. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 01:15:23 [Permalink]
|
Why can't we simply say to the Creationists:
"Look, science doesn't yet have good enough evidence to be able to have a viable theory of life's origins. That's actually one of the strengths of science, in that it doesn't make unsupportable claims. Evolution, however, is a strongly established theory, and not one scintilla of scientific evidence has ever come from Creationists or Intelligent Designers to refute it."
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 11:47:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Why can't we simply say to the Creationists:
"Look, science doesn't yet have good enough evidence to be able to have a viable theory of life's origins. That's actually one of the strengths of science, in that it doesn't make unsupportable claims. Evolution, however, is a strongly established theory, and not one scintilla of scientific evidence has ever come from Creationists or Intelligent Designers to refute it."
Umm... that has been said. A million times.
They are a theocratic political movement, they could give a rats testicle about making unsupportable assertions. They rely, entirely, on fallacious logic, primarily emotional appeals, to make their case. It is an effective strategy, even if it is something that we skeptics despise (and refrain from using).
You want to test it out? Go tell [/b]Bill Scott[/b] what you just said and see what the response is.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 11:52:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You want to test it out? Go tell Bill Scott what you just said and see what the response is.
If you say "we don't know yet" (which is what that boils down to), to people like Bill that doesn't work, because science is supposed to have ALL the answers, just like he believes his religious text of choice (assuming Fundamentalist Christian) has ALL the answers. There are no gray areas, and saying "I don't know" will not sit well with people of this type. That have to have concrete answers on everything or ... well I guess they go more insane or something, I don't know. :P |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 02/21/2006 11:52:54 |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
