In a message dated 9/27/2000 4:45:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
susanb@telepath.com writes:
>
> >This is despite it actually being a *law* of biology (i.e. a rule to which
> >there has never been observed to be any exceptions), that life only arises
> >from life:
> >
> > "In its affirmative form, the law of Biogenesis states that all
> > living
> > organisms are the progeny of living organisms that went before
> > them. The familiar Latin tag is omne vivum ex vivo-All that is
> alive
> > came from something living; in other words, every organism has an
> > unbroken genealogical pedigree extending back to the first living
> > things. In its negative form, the law can be taken to deny the
> > occurrence (or even the possibility) of spontaneous generation.
> ...
> > The Law of Biogenesis is arguably the most fundamental in biology
> > ..." (Medawar P. & Medawar J., "Aristotle to Zoos: A
> > Philosophical Dictionary of Biology", in Bird W.R., "The Origin of
> > Species Revisited", 1991, Vol. I, pp.311-312).
> >
> >Thus Biology may be the only branch of science in conflict with its most
> >well-established principle!
>
> Over the years debating creationists it continues to astonish me that there
> are modern people who can't tell the difference between spontaneous
> generation and abiogenesis.
I have seen quite a few examples of equivocation. Point in case "intelligent
design". But you are of course correct to point out that "spontaneous
generation" and abiogenesis are two different things. Such arguments might
impress the casual reader whose mind has already been made up but it would
hardly impress a scientific mind.
Spontaneous generation--worms from mud, maggots
> from meat--gives rise to extremely sophisticated and complex organisms.
> Abiogenesis is about strings of amino acids (or whatever) becoming
> self-replicating, something that historical people could not have observed.
>
But something we are getting closer and closer to understanding the potential
pathways. You would be surprised (or perhaps not) how often equivocation or
conflation is used on the internet to argue against evolution.
"From the time of the ancient Romans, through the Middle Ages, and until the
late nineteenth century, it was generally accepted that some
life forms arose spontaneously from non-living matter. Such "spontaneous
generation" appeared to occur primarily in decaying matter. For
example, a seventeenth century recipe for the spontaneous production of
mice required placing sweaty underwear and husks of wheat in
an open-mouthed jar, then waiting for about 21 days, during which time it
was alleged that the sweat from the underwear would penetrate
the husks of wheat, changing them into mice. Although such a concept may
seem laughable today, it is consistent with the other widely
held cultural and religious beliefs of the time. "
http://www.accessexcellence.com/AB/BC/Spontaneous_Generation.html
"Abiogenesis is very different from spontaneous generation. Abiogenesis is
the study of the origin of living systems from non-living matter through
prebiotic synthesis; it is a slow, stepwise set of natural processes.
Spontaneous generation is the assembly of fully formed complex organisms out
of inanimate material in short periods of time; it is an abrupt, all-at-once
process. Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are not comparable."
http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/q_spontaneous.html
>
>
> >Also, as I pointed out, the above was a "prediction" [that abiogenesis
> >would not be discovered] (made in 1984 - the
> >original date of the book) which to date has held true.
>
> as long as there are dark spots in our knowledge, you have hope. If I were
> you, though, it would bother me that my entire argument rested on a hope of
> continued ignorance.
>
>
Indeed, science has advanced quite a bit on understanding potential pathways.
Luckily science has not abandoned hope.
> On the other hand I thought Behe, et. al. were trying to convince us that
> the designer designed on the molecular level, that he/she/it tweaks the
> mutations, and does not behave as the selector of otherwise random
> mutations which is what animal breeders do. Humans do not shape cattle on
> the molecular level as the designer is supposed to do.
>
It would be hard to pin down what Behe exactly believes. But he did make some
statements that might help us understand his faith:
"Behe's mechanism
"During the Q & A, Simon Conway Morris was the moderator. When my hand
went up he called on me. [I took this as evidence supporting the
hypothesis that he liked my question during his talk :-) --grm] I
asked Behe that he has spent a lot of time talking about what wouldn't
work and asked him to tell us what would work--if not evolution, what,
then? Miracles? Behe stumbled around a bit and finally said that God
inputs information into living system all along the way."
More
Toole got up and read from Behe's book:
"Suppose that nearly four billion years ago the designer made the first
cell already containing all of the irreducibly complex biochemical systems
discussed here and many others. (One can postulate that the designs for
systems that were to be used later, such as blood clotting were present
but not 'turned on.' In present-day organisms plenty of genes re turned off
for a while, sometimes for generations, to be turned on at a later time.)
Additionally, suppose the designer placed into the cell some other systems
for which we cannot adduce enough evidence to conclude design. The cell
containing the designed systems then was left on autopilot to reproduce,
mutate, eat and be eaten, bump against rocks, and suffer all the vagaries of
life on earth. " Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box, (New York: The Free
Press, 1996), p. 227
He then asked if the blood clotting mechanisms of other animals had that
genetic mechanism but it hadn't been turned on. Behe said that this was
not his present scenario. And Behe wouldn't commit to test Toole's
suggestion.
Ptashne got up and asked Behe what he would want scientists to do
differently? Behe said that he would like to have someone like Ptashne to
determine how something like phage lambda (a complex system) might have
evolved.
http://home.flash.net/~mortongr/wacoday2.htm"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 27 2000 - 22:47:41 EDT