Scientific and logical objections to evolution...

[Swa]

What principle? The second law does not apply.

There seems to be a brain wall here. Do you understand that a principle can apply to more than one subject?

Decay is complex. A corroded piece of metal is far more complex than a pure alloy. (It will however have more entropy)

I don't know where you get that it's more complex. Corroded metal starts to fall apart. Order and complexity is lost.

It's levels of usable energy are diminishing, but that is hardly a measure of how 'complex' a sun is

It's levels of usable energy are decreasing as its mass is decreasing. Matter is being converted to energy.

If there's no definitive measure then any link to the second law of thermodynamics is thumbsucking on your part.

There's no unit of measurement. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Why not, what mechanism inhibits them?

Why does there have to be a mechanism to prevent something?

DUH! it's called the sun.
Heat light, gravity.

Louis Pasteur already disproved that life can come from non-biological sources back in the 19th century. So your sun is useless in creating life if it isn't already present.

I don't know quite a lot of things. What is it that you want me to admit I don't know? My belief in what exactly? I haven't used science in any way or form so I have no idea wtf you are on about here.

The concept of universal common descent. It's undeterminable so why insist that evolution must have done it.

None were provided.

Nope. None. Zero. Zilch. I'll admit you have been trying. It is just that you fail so spectacularly...

Plenty were provided. Just because you choose to dismiss this fact doesn't mean they weren't.

What is the unproven assumption you speak of?? What I want is what the OP asked for. Scientific and or valid logical arguments or objections to evolution and the ToE. Evolution is something we observe. There can be no "objections" to it unless you chose as techne says to argue for change as an illusion or some form of solipsism. And the ToE simply explains the change we see. You haven't refuted this, you haven't provided us with an alternative. You have been striking down windmills, thinking they are dragons. Well done. *golfclap*

There doesn't have to be an alternative. Something that's unproven doesn't have to be refuted so stop shifting the burden of proof.

 

[HapticSimian]

Louis Pasteur already disproved that life can come from non-biological sources back in the 19th century. So your sun is useless in creating life if it isn't already present.

and...

 

[cyghost]

The concept of universal common descent. It's undeterminable so why insist that evolution must have done it.

Dear god... it is evidenced. I don't care if you deny it or ignore it. That is not my problem. It is yours.

Plenty were provided. Just because you choose to dismiss this fact doesn't mean they weren't.

None were provided. Claiming some were provided is not the same as showing some has been provided.

There doesn't have to be an alternative.

Yes there has.

Something that's unproven doesn't have to be refuted

We *observe* evolution. Mountains and mountains and mountains of evidence underline the ToE. So much so that just about every single biological scientist accepts it. Those who don't, do not provide a shred of evidence why we should disregard the evidence and provide none of their own. This is amusing but your fail is quite epic and should be embarrassing if you had any inkling of a chance to get pass Morton's demon. I fear he has too tight a hold on you.

so stop shifting the burden of proof.

The burden is yours. My burden has been met by the giants who walked before me, I but humbly follow in their foot steps.

 

[porchrat]

Oh I see we have moved on from evolution to abiogenesis. You really must specify these things Swa instead of pretending they are all the same.

The Louis Pasteur comment was pure comedy gold.

At least Swa is good for a few laughs. Almost makes me consider taking him off ignore.

 

[TJ99]

I was just going to comment about how this thread just isn't funny, actually. And yet it's still going. The lizard people, unicorns and ancient aliens type lunacy is way more entertaining than this.

Except for the Louis Pasteur bit, that pulled it back a little.

 

[Techne]

Errr, Swa is referring to Loius Pasteur's Law of biogenesis

The Law of Biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, states that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material.[5][6] Pasteur's (and others') empirical results were summarized in the phrase Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life", also known as the "law of biogenesis". Pasteur stated: "La génération spontanée est une chimère" ("Spontaneous generation is a dream").

Not sure what is so funny but ok...

 

[porchrat]

I was just going to comment about how this thread just isn't funny, actually. And yet it's still going. The lizard people, unicorns and ancient aliens type lunacy is way more entertaining than this.

Except for the Louis Pasteur bit, that pulled it back a little.

Got to agree. Beyond the Louis Pasteur thing it has lately been really weak when compared to the hilarity of the astral unicorns. Especially when I consider that the thread is a far quicker read for me since I've had Swa on ignore so I only see the choice bits that others are quoting. If I had to read through the piles of drivel being posted I don't think I would bother.

The thermodynamics thing is frankly just sad. This rise in pseudoscience spewed by ignorant morons all over the Internet is becoming quite a problem. I mean look at how big homeopathy is and I really think it has the Internet to thank for it.

Force the teaching of science at schools. We need to try to improve people's bullschit filters. It is too late for us but at least save future generations from having to listen to horseschit about thermodynamics.

 

[HapticSimian]

Errr, Swa is referring to Loius Pasteur's Law of biogenesis



Not sure what is so funny but ok...

Perhaps the fact that it is both just another misapplication, and a typically moronic creationist canard? What Pasteur disproved is that things don't just get magicked into existence - be they bacteria or beetles. There's no honest interpretation of his work that leads to the conclusion that simple life could not have arisen from complex non-living materials.

Things just popping up? That's creation, not abiogenesis... or evolution for that matter.

 

[TJ99]

You mean the law that says modern, complex lifeforms (such as cats or dogs or humans or ferns) cannot come from non-living things fully formed, and says absolutely nothing about the origin of life itself?

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB000.html

The way it's mis-applied here is pretty funny.

 

[Techne]

Perhaps the fact that it is both just another misapplication, and a typically moronic creationist canard?

From what I understand, swa is making the point that live gives rise to life. This is from Pasteur's germ theory that "germs give rise to germs" and that they do not spontaneously assemble from non-life.

What Pasteur disproved is that things don't just get magicked into existence - be they bacteria or beetles. There's no honest interpretation of his work that leads to the conclusion that simple life could not have arisen from complex non-living materials.

"magicked into existence"? Don't really know what you mean by this. If it means "not spontaneously assembling from non-life" then I suppose you are right.

Things just popping up? That's creation, not abiogenesis... or evolution for that matter.

Well, I just popped up. One moment I didn't exist, the next moment I did... so...

This is true for anything beginning to exist, including the origin of life. One moment there wasn't life, the next moment life popped into existence, no matter how long ago it was. There was a moment were there wasn't life and a moment when it popped into existence, via abiogenesis or otherwise. popped popped popped. Mmm, I a want some Rice crispies now .

You mean the law that says modern, complex lifeforms (such as cats or dogs or humans or ferns) cannot come from non-living things fully formed, and says absolutely nothing about the origin of life itself?

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB000.html

The way it's mis-applied here is pretty funny.

No, I mean the law described by Pasteur. I'll sommer quote the wiki article for you:
"The Law of Biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, states that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material."

 

[HapticSimian]

From what I understand, swa is making the point that live gives rise to life. This is from Pasteur's germ theory that "germs give rise to germs" and that they do not spontaneously assemble from non-life.

...and says nothing about organic compounds giving rise to life at some point early in Earth's history, which is the round hole swa's attempting to whack this square peg into. And you know it. Stop being disingenuous and argumentative just because you want to again leap to the defence of a creationist dim-bulb who got his ass handed to him.

"magicked into existence"? Don't really know what you mean by this. If it means "not spontaneously assembling from non-life" then I suppose you are right.

See above...

Well, I just popped up. One moment I didn't exist, the next moment I did... so...

This is true for anything beginning to exist, including the origin of life. One moment there wasn't life, the next moment life popped into existence, no matter how long ago it was. There was a moment were there wasn't life and a moment when it popped into existence, via abiogenesis or otherwise. popped popped popped. Mmm, I a want some Rice crispies now .

Don't particularly like Rice Crispies meself, but I am partial to a bowl of Strawberry Pops every now and again. Who says it's a kids' cereal?

But you didn't, did you? You're merely the current point in a line stretching back 3 and some-odd billion years. That's one helluva slow pop.

 

[TJ99]

No, I mean the law described by Pasteur. I'll sommer quote the wiki article for you:
"The Law of Biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, states that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material."

Read the actual paper before you're so quick to defend your dishonest friend. (It's linked in the wiki page). It deals with current life, not the origins of all life.

 

[porchrat]

LOL the thread is starting to get funnier now

rza level creationist schit popping up left right and centre.

 

[Techne]

...and says nothing about organic compounds giving rise to life at some point early in Earth's history, which is the round hole swa's attempting to whack this square peg into. And you know it.

The Law is relevant to life spontaneously assembling from non-life. Pasteur never said it was relevant OR irrelevant to the origin of life.

Stop being disingenuous and argumentative just because you want to again leap to the defence of a creationist dim-bulb who got his ass handed to him.

I don't know why you have to be all condescending and insulting. Doesn't add anything. Don't know how you get away with though.
Anyway, I don't see anyone's "ass being handed" to them. I see people trying to make fun of others in order to score cheap rhetorical points. Careful, people get banned for this childishness.

But you didn't, did you? You're merely the current point in a line stretching back 3 and some-odd billion years. That's one helluva slow pop.

I guess we see things differently. I certainly began to exist and that, to me anyway, implies that I popped into existence. Same goes for any other thing that begins to exist.

Read the actual paper before you're so quick to defend your dishonest friend. (It's linked in the wiki page). It deals with current life, not the origins of all life.

I don't know why you are so quick to label others as "dishonest". Anyway, it is pretty clear what Pasteur said. You should read the paper in full.

 

[HapticSimian]

The Law is relevant to life spontaneously assembling from non-life. Pasteur never said it was relevant OR irrelevant to the origin of life.

No, it isn't. It's about spontaneous generation of life, not emergence of life from pre-existing organic material. There's a difference. You don't open your bathroom door in the morning to find an armadillo in the shower. It's still not relevant to the initial emergence of life. Just another misappropriation in creationism's quest to obfuscate.

I don't know why you have to be all condescending and insulting. Doesn't add anything. Don't know how you get away with though.
Anyway, I don't see anyone's "ass being handed" to them. I see people trying to make fun of others in order to score cheap rhetorical points. Careful, people get banned for this childishness.

You'd know, wouldn't you. I've gone through page after page of patient discourse, and he's still rabbiting the same debunked tripe he was when we started. There are limits to civility.

I guess we see things differently. I certainly began to exist and that, to me anyway, implies that I popped into existence. Same goes for any other thing that begins to exist.

...except that we know of nothing that just begins to exist. We know that simple particles shift and rearrange, but to assert that this equates to anything beginning to exist is illusory.

 

[CoolBug]

LOL the thread is starting to get funnier now

rza level creationist schit popping up left right and centre.

Gotta love how they spread the technical bs and outright lies about scientific things with each other at congregations but see this bs as gospel and keep repeating it no matter what anyone else says regardless of their education or that an overwhelming majority of educational institutions across all disciplines disagrees with them, oh wait.. I see a pattern

Why argue with them at all?

I believe that arguing with them is a vestigial behaviour.

Good Luck and God Speed, which is really fast.

 

[Techne]

No, it isn't. It's about spontaneous generation of life, not emergence of life from pre-existing organic material. There's a difference. You don't open your bathroom door in the morning to find an armadillo in the shower. It's still not relevant to the initial emergence of life. Just another misappropriation in creationism's quest to obfuscate.

Nowhere does Pasteur say it is irrelevant to the origin of life nor does he imply it.

You'd know, wouldn't you. I've gone through page after page of patient discourse, and he's still rabbiting the same debunked tripe he was when we started. There are limits to civility.

Oh, so that justifies your uncivil behaviour then? Right...

...except that we know of nothing that just begins to exist. We know that simple particles shift and rearrange, but to assert that this equates to anything beginning to exist is illusory.

Sure, we know simple particles shift and rearrange. We know particles begin to exist as well. Nothing illusory there.

I certainly began to exist, I don't know why you think you didn't begin to exist? Even most of the compounds and particles in your body continually cease to exist and others begin to exist. Nothing really controversial there. It is not like there are eternally existing indestructible particles that just move around in a void to explain all the change. There isn't anything in contemporary physics to suggest that it is true. Anyway, it is after all a metaphysical view of reality. Nothing new either. The Greek atomists had similar ideas.

You are of course welcome to try and defend it using logic and metaphysics. I am afraid empirical science won't be able to help you though.

 

[HapticSimian]

Nowhere does Pasteur say it is irrelevant to the origin of life nor does he imply it.

What Pasteur did or didn't say is largely irrelevant without giving cognisance to the context in which they were made. A quote from 17th century physician J. B. Van Helmont to illustrate:

If you press a piece of underwear soiled with sweat together with some wheat in an open mouth jar, after about 21 days the odor changes and the ferment, coming out of the underwear and penetrating through the husks of wheat into mice. But what is more remarkable is that mice of both sexes emerge, and these mice successfully reproduce with mice born naturally from parents...But what is even more remarkable is that the mice which come out of the wheat are not small mice, not even miniature adults or aborted mice, but adult mice emerge!

THAT is the life from non-life scenario we're dealing with, not any hypotheses of prehistoric abiogenesis.

Oh, so that justifies your uncivil behaviour then? Right...

Yes. Yes it does. When civility is answered with obtuse incredulity and wilful ignorance some mocking is absolutely in order.

Sure, we know simple particles shift and rearrange. We know particles begin to exist as well. Nothing illusory there.

I certainly began to exist, I don't know why you think you didn't begin to exist? Even most of the compounds and particles in your body continually cease to exist and others begin to exist. Nothing really controversial there. It is not like there are eternally existing indestructible particles that just move around in a void to explain all the change. There isn't anything in contemporary physics to suggest that it is true. Anyway, it is after all a metaphysical view of reality. Nothing new either. The Greek atomists had similar ideas.

You are of course welcome to try and defend it using logic and metaphysics. I am afraid empirical science won't be able to help you though.

What I meant, but admittedly articulated poorly, is that complex things don't just *poof* into existence. To state it differently: the elements that make up any living thing are very much non-living, which renders the entire notion that life does not and cannot arise from non-life moot.

 

[Techne]

What Pasteur did or didn't say is largely irrelevant without giving cognisance to the context in which they were made. A quote from 17th century physician J. B. Van Helmont to illustrate:

THAT is the life from non-life scenario we're dealing with, not any hypotheses of prehistoric abiogenesis.

Other examples are also provided. Nobody can claim it is IRRELEVANT to the origin of life as it is obvious Pasteur never claimed it.

Yes. Yes it does. When civility is answered with obtuse incredulity and wilful ignorance some mocking is absolutely in order.

I disagree, I see no reason for such behaviour. To each his own I guess. It is striking though that people are allowed to mock others while others get reprimanded for it.

What I meant, but admittedly articulated poorly, is that complex things don't just *poof* into existence.

One moment I didn't exist, the next moment I began to exist. It certainly seems like I "poofed" into existence.

There are plenty of things that just begin to exist (contrary to your earlier claim), irrespective of complexity, and there is nothing illusory about it. To me anyway, don't know why anyone would disagree though.

To state it differently: the elements that make up any living thing are very much non-living, which renders the entire notion that life does not and cannot arise from non-life moot.

You are equivocating the concept of "arise". The law of biogenesis states that living things give rise to living things. It does not imply that living things cannot have non-living things as parts or that life arises from non-life. Living things assimilate non-living things in a manner that makes non-living things part of their existence. Nothing controversial there and it does not negate Pasteur's observation.

 

[HapticSimian]

/snip

*sigh*

One question: Is the law of biogenesis at all relevant to a discussion on evolution?