One fact that refutes Evolution

[Alpha Beta]

Life never originates from nonlife naturally.
Evolution is dead before it even begins.
Go figure.

[paul.i...@gmail.com]

Alpha Beta scored an omega by saying...

> Life never originates from nonlife naturally.
> Evolution is dead before it even begins.
> Go figure.

And if evolution said anything about whether life originates from
nonlife, you might have a point. It doesn't. You don't.

[jillery]

So life originated unnaturally, an immoral act to perform on underage
life. Naughty, naughty.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Oxyaena]

On 11/9/2018 6:37 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:
> Life never originates from nonlife naturally.

No shit, Sherlock, but abiogenesis isn't spontaneous generation. Life is
simply an emergent property of increasingly complex organic molecules
and their interactions with the environment. Let me get one thing out of
the way before I begin my tangent, the origin of life was never a matter
of life coming from inanimate matter, quite the opposite in fact, life
came from *animate* rather than inanimate matter, nor was it a matter of
organic vs inorganic, the origin of life has always been a matter of
organic chemistry.

"Organic" in this context means any chemical comprised at the very least
of hydrogen and carbon, in this way even simple hydrocarbons such as
methane are organic molecules. There was also no "single" event where
life "popped out of a soup" as Kleinman likes to misrepresent
abiogenesis as, the origin of life was instead a complex, multi-step
process involving many different factors. We have many different
competing hypotheses as to how life came about, but it's highly likely
that each hypothesis is true at least to some degree, since as I
explained before life is simply an emergent property of the interaction
of increasingly complex organic molecules with the surrounding
environment, and the origin of life was also, as mentioned before, a
multi-step process involving many different factors at different times
and places over a several million year period.

> Evolution is dead before it even begins.

Wrong, you haven't even demonstrated that you even know what you're
talking about. You have nothing to bring to the table, and you don't
even know what the difference between "abiogenesis" and "evolution" is.
Evolution is descent with inherited modification, in order for evolution
to actually operate you need a genome, and even protobionts lack genomes.


> Go figure.
>

AB proves yet again he has no clue what the hell he's talking about. Go
figure.
--
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 03:37:38 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alpha Beta
<dark...@gmail.com>:

>Life never originates from nonlife naturally.
>Evolution is dead before it even begins.
>Go figure.

You again? When will you learn that evolution would work
equally well if Biblical Creation were correct? Evolution
has nothing to do with genesis, abio or otherwise.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/9/18 3:37 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:
> Life never originates from nonlife naturally.

Non-living organisms can, under some circumstances, be resurrected to
live again. Does that not count as life originating from non-life?

> Evolution is dead before it even begins.
> Go figure.

I would say, "Welcome back, AB," but there is not enough thought in your
posts so far to say that the poster was enough of a person that a
welcome would be appropriate.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Omnia disce. Videbis postea nihil esse superfluum."
- Hugh of St. Victor

[RonO]

The saddest thing about this creationist stupidity is that anyone with a
lick of sense would believe it. How incompetent would anyone have to be
in order for this type of claim to be reasonable?

Ron Okimoto

[Kalkidas]

On 11/9/2018 9:23 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 11/9/2018 6:37 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> Life never originates from nonlife naturally.
>
> No shit, Sherlock, but abiogenesis isn't spontaneous generation.
> Life is
> simply an emergent property of increasingly complex organic molecules
> and their interactions with the environment.

You realize that is just the opinion of some people, right?

Let me get one thing out of
> the way before I begin my tangent, the origin of life was never a matter
> of life coming from inanimate matter, quite the opposite in fact, life
> came from *animate* rather than inanimate matter, nor was it a matter of
> organic vs inorganic, the origin of life has always been a matter of
> organic chemistry.

You realize that "animate" is a synonym for "living", right?

[Kalkidas]

On 11/9/2018 2:08 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 11/9/18 3:37 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> Life never originates from nonlife naturally.
>
> Non-living organisms can, under some circumstances, be resurrected to
> live again.  Does that not count as life originating from non-life?

That would not be called "origination", would it? Any more than saying
that a repaired automobile "originates from a broken automobile.

[Kalkidas]

Natural selection acting on variations is not evolution? Strange. That's
how most of the ideas of abiogenesis are framed.

[jillery]

You're playing word games again. Biological evolution and natural
selection require *heritable* variations. Abiogenesis hypotheses are
framed around getting to that point using abiotic, non-heritable
mechanisms.

[jillery]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 18:27:32 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

>On 11/9/2018 9:23 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 11/9/2018 6:37 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:
>>> Life never originates from nonlife naturally.
>>
>> No shit, Sherlock, but abiogenesis isn't spontaneous generation.
>> Life is
>> simply an emergent property of increasingly complex organic molecules
>> and their interactions with the environment.
>
>You realize that is just the opinion of some people, right?

Only in a similar sense that Evolution is just a theory.

>>Let me get one thing out of
>> the way before I begin my tangent, the origin of life was never a matter
>> of life coming from inanimate matter, quite the opposite in fact, life
>> came from *animate* rather than inanimate matter, nor was it a matter of
>> organic vs inorganic, the origin of life has always been a matter of
>> organic chemistry.
>
>You realize that "animate" is a synonym for "living", right?

Only in certain contexts. My impression is the context Oxyaena
describes above is historical, when it was assumed that animate matter
could only be created by living things. We have known better for 200
years.

You realize that "organic" is *not* a synonym for "living", right?

>> "Organic" in this context means any chemical comprised at the very least
>> of hydrogen and carbon, in this way even simple hydrocarbons such as
>> methane are organic molecules. There was also no "single" event where
>> life "popped out of a soup" as Kleinman likes to misrepresent
>> abiogenesis as, the origin of life was instead a complex, multi-step
>> process involving many different factors. We have many different
>> competing hypotheses as to how life came about, but it's highly likely
>> that each hypothesis is true at least to some degree, since as I
>> explained before life is simply an emergent property of the interaction
>> of increasingly complex organic molecules with the surrounding
>> environment, and the origin of life was also, as mentioned before, a
>> multi-step process involving many different factors at different times
>> and places over a several million year period.
>>
>>
>>> Evolution is dead before it even begins.
>>
>> Wrong, you haven't even demonstrated that you even know what you're
>> talking about. You have nothing to bring to the table, and you don't
>> even know what the difference between "abiogenesis" and "evolution" is.
>> Evolution is descent with inherited modification, in order for evolution
>> to actually operate you need a genome, and even protobionts lack genomes.
>>
>>
>>> Go figure.
>>>
>>
>> AB proves yet again he has no clue what the hell he's talking about. Go
>> figure.

[paul.i...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, 10 November 2018 01:35:03 UTC, Kalkidas kicked and cried...

> On 11/9/2018 4:45 AM, paul.i...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Alpha Beta scored an omega by saying...
> >
> >> Life never originates from nonlife naturally.
> >> Evolution is dead before it even begins.
> >> Go figure.
> >
> > And if evolution said anything about whether life originates from
> > nonlife, you might have a point. It doesn't. You don't.
>
> Natural selection acting on variations is not evolution? Strange.

That's evolution, but it says nothing about whether those
variations are life or nonlife, never mind life originating
from nonlife.

> That's how most of the ideas of abiogenesis are framed.

Yes. You can use evolution to frame ideas of biogenesis, but
that doesn't mean they're the same thing.

You can use a picture-frame to frame a picture, but that doesn't
mean the frame is the picture, does it?

[paul.i...@gmail.com]

I wrote...

> Yes. You can use evolution to frame ideas of biogenesis,
> but that doesn't mean they're the same thing.

Stupid typo. I meant abiogenesis, of course. Sorry.

[Oxyaena]

On 11/9/2018 8:27 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 11/9/2018 9:23 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 11/9/2018 6:37 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:
>>> Life never originates from nonlife naturally.
>>
>> No shit, Sherlock, but abiogenesis isn't spontaneous generation. Life
>> is simply an emergent property of increasingly complex organic
>> molecules and their interactions with the environment.
>
> You realize that is just the opinion of some people, right?

It is the scientific consensus, which is determined by the available
evidence.

>
> Let me get one thing out of
>> the way before I begin my tangent, the origin of life was never a
>> matter of life coming from inanimate matter, quite the opposite in
>> fact, life came from *animate* rather than inanimate matter, nor was
>> it a matter of organic vs inorganic, the origin of life has always
>> been a matter of organic chemistry.
>
> You realize that "animate" is a synonym for "living", right?

The context I was using was historical. "Organic" however *isn't* a
synonym for "living".

>
>>
>> "Organic" in this context means any chemical comprised at the very
>> least of hydrogen and carbon, in this way even simple hydrocarbons
>> such as methane are organic molecules. There was also no "single"
>> event where life "popped out of a soup" as Kleinman likes to
>> misrepresent abiogenesis as, the origin of life was instead a complex,
>> multi-step process involving many different factors. We have many
>> different competing hypotheses as to how life came about, but it's
>> highly likely that each hypothesis is true at least to some degree,
>> since as I explained before life is simply an emergent property of the
>> interaction of increasingly complex organic molecules with the
>> surrounding environment, and the origin of life was also, as mentioned
>> before, a multi-step process involving many different factors at
>> different times and places over a several million year period.
>>
>>
>>> Evolution is dead before it even begins.
>>
>> Wrong, you haven't even demonstrated that you even know what you're
>> talking about. You have nothing to bring to the table, and you don't
>> even know what the difference between "abiogenesis" and "evolution"
>> is. Evolution is descent with inherited modification, in order for
>> evolution to actually operate you need a genome, and even protobionts
>> lack genomes.
>>
>>
>>> Go figure.
>>>
>>
>> AB proves yet again he has no clue what the hell he's talking about.
>> Go figure.
>

[Oxyaena]

I chalk it up to undereducation. Most people don't know jack about
evolution, and if they did they most likely wouldn't fall for this bullshit.

[Kalkidas]

On 11/10/2018 9:31 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 11/9/2018 8:27 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 11/9/2018 9:23 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
>>> On 11/9/2018 6:37 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:
>>>> Life never originates from nonlife naturally.
>>>
>>> No shit, Sherlock, but abiogenesis isn't spontaneous generation. Life
>>> is simply an emergent property of increasingly complex organic
>>> molecules and their interactions with the environment.
>>
>> You realize that is just the opinion of some people, right?
>
> It is the scientific consensus, which is determined by the available
> evidence.

But without a "smoking gun" -- i.e. a direct observation of a living
organism being constructed entirely from something non-living -- the
"consensus" doesn't seem very scientific to me.

>>
>> Let me get one thing out of
>>> the way before I begin my tangent, the origin of life was never a
>>> matter of life coming from inanimate matter, quite the opposite in
>>> fact, life came from *animate* rather than inanimate matter, nor was
>>> it a matter of organic vs inorganic, the origin of life has always
>>> been a matter of organic chemistry.
>>
>> You realize that "animate" is a synonym for "living", right?
>
> The context I was using was historical. "Organic" however *isn't* a
> synonym for "living".

"Organic" is a somewhat misleading term when associated with life. There
are "organic" substances that do not appear in organisms, aren't there?
Like many synthetic drugs, etc. And organisms do contain inorganic
compounds. The argument is pedantic of course.

But I think that life comes from life. The existence of reproduction of
living organisms from living organisms is the proof of that position.
Whereas there is no similar proof -- no "smoking gun" -- that life can
come from non-life. No one has ever seen an organism come from
non-living chemicals.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 18:31:05 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

>On 11/9/2018 4:45 AM, paul.i...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Alpha Beta scored an omega by saying...
>>
>>> Life never originates from nonlife naturally.
>>> Evolution is dead before it even begins.
>>> Go figure.

>> And if evolution said anything about whether life originates from
>> nonlife, you might have a point. It doesn't. You don't.

>Natural selection acting on variations is not evolution?

Yes, it is. Learn to read for comprehension, and learn the
terminology. Evolution is what happens *after* life exists
(with some minor quibbles about non-living imperfect
replicators preceding life).

> Strange. That's
>how most of the ideas of abiogenesis are framed.

Nope.

[Oxyaena]

On 11/10/2018 1:03 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 11/10/2018 9:31 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 11/9/2018 8:27 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On 11/9/2018 9:23 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>> On 11/9/2018 6:37 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:
>>>>> Life never originates from nonlife naturally.
>>>>
>>>> No shit, Sherlock, but abiogenesis isn't spontaneous generation.
>>>> Life is simply an emergent property of increasingly complex organic
>>>> molecules and their interactions with the environment.
>>>
>>> You realize that is just the opinion of some people, right?
>>
>> It is the scientific consensus, which is determined by the available
>> evidence.
>
> But without a "smoking gun" -- i.e. a direct observation of a living
> organism being constructed entirely from something non-living -- the
> "consensus" doesn't seem very scientific to me.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4174-plasma-blobs-hint-at-new-form-of-life/

>
>>>
>>> Let me get one thing out of
>>>> the way before I begin my tangent, the origin of life was never a
>>>> matter of life coming from inanimate matter, quite the opposite in
>>>> fact, life came from *animate* rather than inanimate matter, nor was
>>>> it a matter of organic vs inorganic, the origin of life has always
>>>> been a matter of organic chemistry.
>>>
>>> You realize that "animate" is a synonym for "living", right?
>>
>> The context I was using was historical. "Organic" however *isn't* a
>> synonym for "living".
>
> "Organic" is a somewhat misleading term when associated with life. There
> are "organic" substances that do not appear in organisms, aren't there?
> Like many synthetic drugs, etc. And organisms do contain inorganic
> compounds. The argument is pedantic of course.
>
> But I think that life comes from life.

That's not in dispute.

> The existence of reproduction of
> living organisms from living organisms is the proof of that position.
> Whereas there is no similar proof -- no "smoking gun" -- that life can
> come from non-life. No one has ever seen an organism come from
> non-living chemicals.

Yes, there is. Look here:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4174-plasma-blobs-hint-at-new-form-of-life/

>
>>>> "Organic" in this context means any chemical comprised at the very
>>>> least of hydrogen and carbon, in this way even simple hydrocarbons
>>>> such as methane are organic molecules. There was also no "single"
>>>> event where life "popped out of a soup" as Kleinman likes to
>>>> misrepresent abiogenesis as, the origin of life was instead a
>>>> complex, multi-step process involving many different factors. We
>>>> have many different competing hypotheses as to how life came about,
>>>> but it's highly likely that each hypothesis is true at least to some
>>>> degree, since as I explained before life is simply an emergent
>>>> property of the interaction of increasingly complex organic
>>>> molecules with the surrounding environment, and the origin of life
>>>> was also, as mentioned before, a multi-step process involving many
>>>> different factors at different times and places over a several
>>>> million year period.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Evolution is dead before it even begins.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, you haven't even demonstrated that you even know what you're
>>>> talking about. You have nothing to bring to the table, and you don't
>>>> even know what the difference between "abiogenesis" and "evolution"
>>>> is. Evolution is descent with inherited modification, in order for
>>>> evolution to actually operate you need a genome, and even
>>>> protobionts lack genomes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Go figure.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> AB proves yet again he has no clue what the hell he's talking about.
>>>> Go figure.
>>>
>>
>>
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 18:27:32 -0700, the following appeared in

talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

>On 11/9/2018 9:23 AM, Oxyaena wrote:

>> On 11/9/2018 6:37 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:

>>> Life never originates from nonlife naturally.

>> No shit, Sherlock, but abiogenesis isn't spontaneous generation.
>> Life is
>> simply an emergent property of increasingly complex organic molecules
>> and their interactions with the environment.

>You realize that is just the opinion of some people, right?

Of course it is, just as the accepted orbital mechanics of
the solar system are the opinion of "some people", in
contrast to epicycles describing the orbits of everything
around the Earth, or the opinions of the Flat Earth Society.
It's the default conclusion, based on:

1) Complex organic molecules exist, and sometimes replicate
with errors.
2) Any errors which result in better or easier replication
result in increasing representation in the "population";
lather, rinse, repeat.
3) No creator has ever been observed, and none seems to be
required for life to start as Oxyaena described.

>Let me get one thing out of
>> the way before I begin my tangent, the origin of life was never a matter
>> of life coming from inanimate matter, quite the opposite in fact, life
>> came from *animate* rather than inanimate matter, nor was it a matter of
>> organic vs inorganic, the origin of life has always been a matter of
>> organic chemistry.

>You realize that "animate" is a synonym for "living", right?

It's obvious that in the above he's using "animate" as a
synonym for "organic". AB's use of "life from nonlife" is a
reference to Pasteur's disproof of "spontaneous generation"
- the appearance of complex life from inorganic matter. Both
you and AB should stop playing word games.

>> "Organic" in this context means any chemical comprised at the very least
>> of hydrogen and carbon, in this way even simple hydrocarbons such as
>> methane are organic molecules. There was also no "single" event where
>> life "popped out of a soup" as Kleinman likes to misrepresent
>> abiogenesis as, the origin of life was instead a complex, multi-step
>> process involving many different factors. We have many different
>> competing hypotheses as to how life came about, but it's highly likely
>> that each hypothesis is true at least to some degree, since as I
>> explained before life is simply an emergent property of the interaction
>> of increasingly complex organic molecules with the surrounding
>> environment, and the origin of life was also, as mentioned before, a
>> multi-step process involving many different factors at different times
>> and places over a several million year period.
>>
>>
>>> Evolution is dead before it even begins.
>>
>> Wrong, you haven't even demonstrated that you even know what you're
>> talking about. You have nothing to bring to the table, and you don't
>> even know what the difference between "abiogenesis" and "evolution" is.
>> Evolution is descent with inherited modification, in order for evolution
>> to actually operate you need a genome, and even protobionts lack genomes.
>>
>>
>>> Go figure.
>>>
>>
>> AB proves yet again he has no clue what the hell he's talking about. Go
>> figure.

[Kalkidas]

The key phrase in that article is "Without inherited material they
cannot be described as alive..."

So, no, it is still the case that no one has seen an organism come from
non-living chemicals.


>>

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/10/18 10:03 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 11/10/2018 9:31 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 11/9/2018 8:27 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On 11/9/2018 9:23 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>> On 11/9/2018 6:37 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:
>>>>> Life never originates from nonlife naturally.
>>>>
>>>> No shit, Sherlock, but abiogenesis isn't spontaneous generation.
>>>> Life is simply an emergent property of increasingly complex organic
>>>> molecules and their interactions with the environment.
>>>
>>> You realize that is just the opinion of some people, right?
>>
>> It is the scientific consensus, which is determined by the available
>> evidence.
>
> But without a "smoking gun" -- i.e. a direct observation of a living
> organism being constructed entirely from something non-living -- the
> "consensus" doesn't seem very scientific to me.

That comment shows that you have no understanding of what "scientific"
means. It's nice to have smoking guns, but they are not necessary.
Oftentimes, strong conclusions are built from lots of smaller bits of
information: a bullet hole in the victim, gunpowder residue on the
suspect's hand, a purchase receipt from a gun show, and a statement by a
witness. Then one tests the hypothesis by looking for corroborating or
conflicting evidence: Are other witness statements in agreement? Does
the suspect have an alibi? What does the blood spatter show?

Besides, the smoking gun for something living from nonliving exists:
Venter's synthesis of a living cell from non-living components.

>>>
>>> Let me get one thing out of
>>>> the way before I begin my tangent, the origin of life was never a
>>>> matter of life coming from inanimate matter, quite the opposite in
>>>> fact, life came from *animate* rather than inanimate matter, nor was
>>>> it a matter of organic vs inorganic, the origin of life has always
>>>> been a matter of organic chemistry.
>>>
>>> You realize that "animate" is a synonym for "living", right?
>>
>> The context I was using was historical. "Organic" however *isn't* a
>> synonym for "living".
>
> "Organic" is a somewhat misleading term when associated with life. There
> are "organic" substances that do not appear in organisms, aren't there?
> Like many synthetic drugs, etc. And organisms do contain inorganic
> compounds. The argument is pedantic of course.
>
> But I think that life comes from life. The existence of reproduction of
> living organisms from living organisms is the proof of that position.
> Whereas there is no similar proof -- no "smoking gun" -- that life can
> come from non-life. No one has ever seen an organism come from
> non-living chemicals.

Very bad reasoning. Life coming from life does not rule out its coming
from somewhere else, too.

Evidence shows, over and over, that complexity builds on itself to
create even more complex systems. That alone is strong reason to
suspect that organic compounds will spontaneously produce life.

And you have no smoking gun that that cannot happen.

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/9/18 5:29 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 11/9/2018 2:08 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 11/9/18 3:37 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:
>>> Life never originates from nonlife naturally.
>>
>> Non-living organisms can, under some circumstances, be resurrected to
>> live again.  Does that not count as life originating from non-life?
>
> That would not be called "origination", would it? Any more than saying
> that a repaired automobile "originates from a broken automobile.

In your example, the automobile's operation, but not its body,
originates from the broken automobile. Likewise, in the case of
resurrected chironomids, life, but not body, originates from non-life.

[jillery]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2018 11:03:57 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

>On 11/10/2018 9:31 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 11/9/2018 8:27 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On 11/9/2018 9:23 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>> On 11/9/2018 6:37 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:
>>>>> Life never originates from nonlife naturally.
>>>>
>>>> No shit, Sherlock, but abiogenesis isn't spontaneous generation. Life
>>>> is simply an emergent property of increasingly complex organic
>>>> molecules and their interactions with the environment.
>>>
>>> You realize that is just the opinion of some people, right?
>>
>> It is the scientific consensus, which is determined by the available
>> evidence.
>
>But without a "smoking gun" -- i.e. a direct observation of a living
>organism being constructed entirely from something non-living -- the
>"consensus" doesn't seem very scientific to me.

"Smoking gun" does not imply direct observation of events, but instead
refers to evidence of unwitnessed events. IOW nobody saw the gun
being fired, but smoke from it is accepted as evidence beyond
reasonable doubt that it *was* fired. Get it?

In the case of abiogenesis, there was a time when there was no life on
Earth, and now there is. This necessarily means there was a point in
the past when life originated on Earth. However life appeared on
Earth, biological evolution on Earth didn't happen until life on Earth
happened. Get it?

>>> Let me get one thing out of
>>>> the way before I begin my tangent, the origin of life was never a
>>>> matter of life coming from inanimate matter, quite the opposite in
>>>> fact, life came from *animate* rather than inanimate matter, nor was
>>>> it a matter of organic vs inorganic, the origin of life has always
>>>> been a matter of organic chemistry.
>>>
>>> You realize that "animate" is a synonym for "living", right?
>>
>> The context I was using was historical. "Organic" however *isn't* a
>> synonym for "living".
>
>"Organic" is a somewhat misleading term when associated with life. There
>are "organic" substances that do not appear in organisms, aren't there?
>Like many synthetic drugs, etc. And organisms do contain inorganic
>compounds. The argument is pedantic of course.

"Organic" in the context of chemistry simply means molecules composed
of carbon atoms, excluding grandfathered molecules like carbonates,
cyanides, and CO2. Once again, the historical connection refers to a
time when it was assumed only life could create organic compounds. We
have known that assumption to be incorrect for about 200 years. Try
to keep up.

>But I think that life comes from life.

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own
facts. You need to be voted President to get that privilege.

>The existence of reproduction of
>living organisms from living organisms is the proof of that position.

Incorrect. To be accurate, that only proves what happens now. It
implies no exclusion about what happened in the past.

>Whereas there is no similar proof -- no "smoking gun" -- that life can
>come from non-life. No one has ever seen an organism come from
>non-living chemicals.

It's almost certain that you accept lots of things that "no one has
ever seen". Not sure why you obsess about abiogenesis in particular.

>>>> "Organic" in this context means any chemical comprised at the very
>>>> least of hydrogen and carbon, in this way even simple hydrocarbons
>>>> such as methane are organic molecules. There was also no "single"
>>>> event where life "popped out of a soup" as Kleinman likes to
>>>> misrepresent abiogenesis as, the origin of life was instead a
>>>> complex, multi-step process involving many different factors. We have
>>>> many different competing hypotheses as to how life came about, but
>>>> it's highly likely that each hypothesis is true at least to some
>>>> degree, since as I explained before life is simply an emergent
>>>> property of the interaction of increasingly complex organic molecules
>>>> with the surrounding environment, and the origin of life was also, as
>>>> mentioned before, a multi-step process involving many different
>>>> factors at different times and places over a several million year
>>>> period.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Evolution is dead before it even begins.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, you haven't even demonstrated that you even know what you're
>>>> talking about. You have nothing to bring to the table, and you don't
>>>> even know what the difference between "abiogenesis" and "evolution"
>>>> is. Evolution is descent with inherited modification, in order for
>>>> evolution to actually operate you need a genome, and even protobionts
>>>> lack genomes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Go figure.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> AB proves yet again he has no clue what the hell he's talking about.
>>>> Go figure.

[JWS]

t.o is like a garden: a little shit on top
and a cornucopia of knowledge flows forth.

[erik simpson]

Well said! No shortage of fertilizer.

[Kalkidas]

Venter simply made a copy of an already existing genome and inserted it
into a cell. He didn't make the organism. It was not abiogenesis in any
significant sense. Already-existing life was involved at every step.

>>>>
>>>> Let me get one thing out of
>>>>> the way before I begin my tangent, the origin of life was never a
>>>>> matter of life coming from inanimate matter, quite the opposite in
>>>>> fact, life came from *animate* rather than inanimate matter, nor
>>>>> was it a matter of organic vs inorganic, the origin of life has
>>>>> always been a matter of organic chemistry.
>>>>
>>>> You realize that "animate" is a synonym for "living", right?
>>>
>>> The context I was using was historical. "Organic" however *isn't* a
>>> synonym for "living".
>>
>> "Organic" is a somewhat misleading term when associated with life.
>> There are "organic" substances that do not appear in organisms, aren't
>> there? Like many synthetic drugs, etc. And organisms do contain
>> inorganic compounds. The argument is pedantic of course.
>>
>> But I think that life comes from life. The existence of reproduction
>> of living organisms from living organisms is the proof of that
>> position. Whereas there is no similar proof -- no "smoking gun" --
>> that life can come from non-life. No one has ever seen an organism
>> come from non-living chemicals.
>
> Very bad reasoning.  Life coming from life does not rule out its coming
> from somewhere else, too.
>
> Evidence shows, over and over, that complexity builds on itself to
> create even more complex systems.  That alone is strong reason to
> suspect that organic compounds will spontaneously produce life.
>
> And you have no smoking gun that that cannot happen.

I never said it cannot happen or that life coming from life rules out
anything. I simply said that life coming from life is a proven fact. And
it is, in the strongest possible sense of "proof", namely direct
observation. There is no such proof for abiogenesis. That's all I said.

[Bill Rogers]

On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 7:35:04 AM UTC-5, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 11/10/2018 3:11 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:

<snip>

> > Besides, the smoking gun for something living from nonliving exists:
> > Venter's synthesis of a living cell from non-living components.
>
> Venter simply made a copy of an already existing genome and inserted it
> into a cell. He didn't make the organism. It was not abiogenesis in any
> significant sense. Already-existing life was involved at every step.
>

<snip>

You are correct about that.

[Oxyaena]

But it is a "smoking gun", they may not be *alive* but they're pretty
damn close to it. They self-replicate, they communicate, and if memory
serves me correctly they even metabolize.

Sounds pretty damn life-like to me.

>
>
>>>
>>>>>> "Organic" in this context means any chemical comprised at the very
>>>>>> least of hydrogen and carbon, in this way even simple hydrocarbons
>>>>>> such as methane are organic molecules. There was also no "single"
>>>>>> event where life "popped out of a soup" as Kleinman likes to
>>>>>> misrepresent abiogenesis as, the origin of life was instead a
>>>>>> complex, multi-step process involving many different factors. We
>>>>>> have many different competing hypotheses as to how life came
>>>>>> about, but it's highly likely that each hypothesis is true at
>>>>>> least to some degree, since as I explained before life is simply
>>>>>> an emergent property of the interaction of increasingly complex
>>>>>> organic molecules with the surrounding environment, and the origin
>>>>>> of life was also, as mentioned before, a multi-step process
>>>>>> involving many different factors at different times and places
>>>>>> over a several million year period.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Evolution is dead before it even begins.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong, you haven't even demonstrated that you even know what
>>>>>> you're talking about. You have nothing to bring to the table, and
>>>>>> you don't even know what the difference between "abiogenesis" and
>>>>>> "evolution" is. Evolution is descent with inherited modification,
>>>>>> in order for evolution to actually operate you need a genome, and
>>>>>> even protobionts lack genomes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Go figure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AB proves yet again he has no clue what the hell he's talking
>>>>>> about. Go figure.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

[jillery]

It's arguable that direct observation is the strongest possible proof,
but you still insist on jumping to conclusions beyond what those
direct observations support. That you observe life comes from life
today, does not mean that life came from life always. Plus the life
you observe today has a legacy of billions of years to build up its
complexity and adapt to today's conditions. Nobody suggests even
modern single-celled prokaryotes could arise directly from abiotic
processes.

Finally, what you need to answer is: What kind of proof would you
accept for abiogenesis? If you have no answer, that is ipso facto
proof you deny even the possibility, whether or not you actually said
it.

[Burkhard]

Kalkidas wrote:
> On 11/10/2018 9:31 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 11/9/2018 8:27 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On 11/9/2018 9:23 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>> On 11/9/2018 6:37 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:
>>>>> Life never originates from nonlife naturally.
>>>>
>>>> No shit, Sherlock, but abiogenesis isn't spontaneous generation.
>>>> Life is simply an emergent property of increasingly complex organic
>>>> molecules and their interactions with the environment.
>>>
>>> You realize that is just the opinion of some people, right?
>>
>> It is the scientific consensus, which is determined by the available
>> evidence.
>
> But without a "smoking gun" -- i.e. a direct observation of a living
> organism being constructed entirely from something non-living -- the
> "consensus" doesn't seem very scientific to me.

Quite on the contrary, if it were directly observable, we would not need
science for it. After all, people had figured out where babies come from
before science.

Science allows us to move beyond the limited set of things we can
observe, to build theories that cover things (as yet) unobserved and in
some cases observable.

That's what makes it so fascinating, and also so useful. Mere lists of
observations by contrast are neither.

[Burkhard]

I'd like to see some cites for that. The moment you have descent with
variations, I'd say you have life - that is the endpoint of what you
want to explain, not the explanation of where it came from.

[Kalkidas]

On 11/11/2018 9:13 AM, Burkhard wrote:
> Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 11/10/2018 9:31 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
>>> On 11/9/2018 8:27 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>> On 11/9/2018 9:23 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>>> On 11/9/2018 6:37 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:
>>>>>> Life never originates from nonlife naturally.
>>>>>
>>>>> No shit, Sherlock, but abiogenesis isn't spontaneous generation.
>>>>> Life is simply an emergent property of increasingly complex organic
>>>>> molecules and their interactions with the environment.
>>>>
>>>> You realize that is just the opinion of some people, right?
>>>
>>> It is the scientific consensus, which is determined by the available
>>> evidence.
>>
>> But without a "smoking gun" -- i.e. a direct observation of a living
>> organism being constructed entirely from something non-living -- the
>> "consensus" doesn't seem very scientific to me.
>
>
> Quite on the contrary, if it were directly observable, we would not need
> science for it. After all, people had figured out where babies come from
> before science.

The contrapositive of that is, if we need science, then it's not
directly observable. I cannot agree with that. Direct observation is
certainly part of science. Unless you believe that looking through
telescopes and microscopes does not constitute direct observation.

[Kalkidas]

Well, "pretty damn life-like" is an opinion, not a scientific statement.
That was my original comment anyway.

[Burkhard]

Kalkidas wrote:
> On 11/11/2018 9:13 AM, Burkhard wrote:
>> Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On 11/10/2018 9:31 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>> On 11/9/2018 8:27 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>>> On 11/9/2018 9:23 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/9/2018 6:37 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:
>>>>>>> Life never originates from nonlife naturally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No shit, Sherlock, but abiogenesis isn't spontaneous generation.
>>>>>> Life is simply an emergent property of increasingly complex organic
>>>>>> molecules and their interactions with the environment.
>>>>>
>>>>> You realize that is just the opinion of some people, right?
>>>>
>>>> It is the scientific consensus, which is determined by the available
>>>> evidence.
>>>
>>> But without a "smoking gun" -- i.e. a direct observation of a living
>>> organism being constructed entirely from something non-living -- the
>>> "consensus" doesn't seem very scientific to me.
>>
>>
>> Quite on the contrary, if it were directly observable, we would not
>> need science for it. After all, people had figured out where babies
>> come from before science.
>
> The contrapositive of that is, if we need science, then it's not
> directly observable. I cannot agree with that. Direct observation is
> certainly part of science. Unless you believe that looking through
> telescopes and microscopes does not constitute direct observation.

You smuggled a "part of" into this. Of course observation plays an
important role in science - bit only as part. If there is not also an
unobservable part, science is hardly tasked.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2018 11:41:13 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 18:31:05 -0700, the following appeared in
>talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:
>
>>On 11/9/2018 4:45 AM, paul.i...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Alpha Beta scored an omega by saying...
>>>
>>>> Life never originates from nonlife naturally.
>>>> Evolution is dead before it even begins.
>>>> Go figure.
>
>>> And if evolution said anything about whether life originates from
>>> nonlife, you might have a point. It doesn't. You don't.
>
>>Natural selection acting on variations is not evolution?
>
>Yes, it is. Learn to read for comprehension, and learn the
>terminology. Evolution is what happens *after* life exists
>(with some minor quibbles about non-living imperfect
>replicators preceding life).
>
>> Strange. That's
>>how most of the ideas of abiogenesis are framed.
>
>Nope.

Almost forgot...

If you can provide any cites which support your assertion,
please post them. If you don't, we can assume your assertion
was without merit.

[Ernest Major]

That's an expansive definition of life, which would even include
"organisms" in a-life systems, though not one that I'd reject out of
hand. By that definition abiogenesis has been observed (viruses have
been constructed ab initio - and there's also Spiegelman's Monster).

--
alias Ernest Major

[Kalkidas]

I'm sure you didn't mean that direct observation is unscientific, but
literally that's what you said. So I just dissected it. No big deal.

[jillery]

Of course, Burkhard neither said nor implied any such thing. To the
contrary, he said observation is an important part of science. Another
important part, one which distinguishes science from stamp-collecting,
is explaining those observations. You're trying to smuggle in the
Creationists' definition of science.

[Edna Freon]

Observation is part of the scientific method but is not, in
itself, science. Evidence is part of the scientific method
but it likewise insufficient to be science. All the data
collected through the various methods of science has to be
processed, analyzed, collated and organized into categories
that can be understood.

The understanding comes from comparing what is believed to
be understood to what is supposed to be known. The end of
all this is what we agree must be true to preserve the
current consensus. What we call true after all this, is true
to us but not necessarily true in any physical sense.

There is what is true without our contributions (the
physical universe) and that which we superimpose on the
universe. We may be incapable of even telling the
difference.

Bill

[Burkhard]

Well, to be fair, only in my clarification. The first post was
admittedly worded a bit loosely so that it allowed, but not required,
the reading that I excluded observation from science (I don't agree with
Kalkidas that the contrapositive of my post means observation is not
part of science - he is however right that it implies that we only
"need" science when there are also non-observed things. But that is not
quite the same thing - we also only need water after 3 days or so, that
does not mean we can't drink it sooner.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 03:37:38 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alpha Beta
> <dark...@gmail.com>:

>
>> Life never originates from nonlife naturally.

>> Evolution is dead before it even begins.

>> Go figure.
>
> You again? When will you learn that evolution would work
> equally well if Biblical Creation were correct?

That’s a bit overstated. Literal interpretation of the Genesis accounts
tends toward Special Creation where God produced all species *de novo* and
what is construed as microevolution can be rationalized away as
unbreachable variation on a Platonic theme or ectypical imperfection. A
milder theistic evolutionism that doesn’t squint too hard at the details
might hold that evolution is God’s post-creation means of tinkering. But
God has miracles at his disposal. How did we get such radical variation
after the literalist Flood bottleneck? Goldschmidt himself wasn’t that
radical. Ensoulment too would have been an important miraculous event for
us. Such enlightened Catholic views are not evolution working equally well
at all. We stalwart materialistic Darwinists do not cotton to such
skyhooks.

> Evolution
> has nothing to do with genesis, abio or otherwise.

AB may have a minor point in that evolution must have allelic clay to mold.
No life...no alleles...no evolution. The problems of abiogenesis and
evolution work in tandem...a one-two punch.

William Jennings Bryan put the problem of life surprisingly well
considering the source. AB should take notes on loquacious rhetorical
flourish:

“The materialists deny the existence of God and seek to explain man's
presence upon the earth without a creative act. They go back from man to
the animals, and from one form of life to another until they come to the
first germ of life; there they divide into two schools, some believing that
the first germ of life came from another planet, others holding that it was
the result of spontaneous generation. One school answers the arguments
advanced by the other and, as they cannot agree with each other, I am not
compelled to agree with either.

If it were necessary to accept one of these theories I would prefer the
first; for, if we can chase the germ of life off of this planet and out
into space, we can guess the rest of the way and no one can contradict us.
But, if we accept the doctrine of spontaneous generation we will have to
spend our time explaining why spontaneous generation ceased to act after
the first germ of life was created. It is not necessary to pay much
attention to any theory that boldly eliminates God; it does not deceive
many. The mind revolts at the idea of spontaneous generation; in all the
researches of the ages no scientist has found a single instance of life
that was not begotten by life. The materialist has nothing but imagination
to build upon; he cannot hope for company or encouragement.”

Excerpt From
In His Image by
William Jennings Bryan

[*Hemidactylus*]

<paul.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alpha Beta scored an omega by saying...
>

>> Life never originates from nonlife naturally.
>> Evolution is dead before it even begins.
>> Go figure.
>

> And if evolution said anything about whether life originates from
> nonlife, you might have a point. It doesn't. You don't.
>

Is AB conflating the two (abiogenesis and evolution) or merely trying to
say something similar to the following:

“Darwin begins by assuming life upon the earth; the Bible reveals the
source of life and chronicles its creation.”

Excerpt From
In His Image

William Jennings Bryan

Say what you want about WJB, but at least he was clear in distinguishing
origin of life from the evolutionary process.

[jillery]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 00:19:31 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

Since Kalkidas objected after your clarification, it is reasonable to
assume his criticism refers to it and not to your first post. I won't
dispute your criticism of your own comment, that you (inadvertently?)
implied science is needed only for unobserved things, but that should
be stacked up against Kalkidas' explicit assertion that direct
observations are the only grist for the scientific mill.

And I remind Kalkidas et al that all observations are theory-laden
inferences, even those he inaccurately labels "direct observations".
His understanding of science is unambiguously medieval.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 18:40:38 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 03:37:38 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alpha Beta
>> <dark...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Life never originates from nonlife naturally.
>>> Evolution is dead before it even begins.
>>> Go figure.
>>
>> You again? When will you learn that evolution would work
>> equally well if Biblical Creation were correct?
>
>That’s a bit overstated.

A bit (I should have simply specified "creation" rather than
"Biblical" creation, which would I believe remove your
objections), and I accept your statements below for that
reason. My point was that the *origin* of life is irrelevant
to its subsequent development, a point which has been made
multiple times here.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 16:52:10 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Edna Freon <fre...@gmail.com>:

So far pretty much correct (if incomplete; science is about
explanations [theories], not simply cataloguing), AFAIK.

> The end of
>all this is what we agree must be true to preserve the
>current consensus.

Aw, and you were doing so *well*. What a shame that you went
off the rails with that last sentence. The highest ambition
for *any* research scientist is to *overturn* current
consensus with new testable hypotheses, as both Einstein and
Planck did so well. *Every* major scientific advance has
overturned, or at least significantly modified, then-current

consensus.

> What we call true after all this, is true
>to us but not necessarily true in any physical sense.

All we can detect is all we can detect. Arguing that
invisible undetected angels *may* be directly responsible
for orbital mechanics, when current knowledge explains the
subject with no need for them, is equivalent to
navel-gazing, and is no part of science.

>There is what is true without our contributions (the
>physical universe) and that which we superimpose on the
>universe. We may be incapable of even telling the
>difference.

So we should just "make stuff up" out of thin air because we
aren't (and quite possibly *can't* be) omniscient? Sorry,
but science doesn't work that way.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 11:20:39 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

[Crickets...]

As usual when Bill is refuted.