Reflectorites
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 18:40:52 -0500, Susan Brassfield Cogan wrote:
>SJ>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 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"...).
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 09:28:08 -0500, Chris Cogan wrote:
[...]
>CC>Of course, this would apply to all designers, as well, including, if He
>existed, God.
The Christian God is self-existent. Thus He can be the ever-living source
of all other life.
CC>Unless God really *is* dead. ;-)
The Christian God is a necessary being. That is, if He does exist, He cannot
not exist:
"A necessary existence is one that cannot not exist. The
nonexistence of a necessary Being is impossible. If there is a
necessary Being, then it must exist necessarily." (Geisler N.L.,
"Christian Apologetics", 1976, p239)
SB>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. 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.
Maybe Susan should communicate her discovery of the "difference
between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis" to the editors of the
following:
Encyclopaedia Britannica:
"spontaneous generation, or ABIOGENESIS, a theory attempting
to explain the origin of life from nonliving matter. Pieces of cheese
and bread wrapped in rags and left in a dark corner, for example,
were thought to produce mice according to this theory because,
after several weeks, there were mice in the rags. Many believed in
spontaneous generation because it explained such occurrences as
the appearance of maggots on decaying meat." ("spontaneous
generation," Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1984, Vol. ix, p.435)
Webster's dictionary:
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=abiogenesis
... abiogenesis ... : the supposed spontaneous origination of living
organisms directly from lifeless matter... (c) 2000 by Merriam-
Webster ...
Collins Dictionary of Biology:
"spontaneous generation or abiogenesis, n. a discredited belief that
living organisms could arise from nonliving things that was finally
shown to be untrue by PASTEUR in his famous swan-neck flask
experiments. (Hale W.G. & Margham J.P., "Collins Reference
Dictionary of Biology," 1988, p.494)
Penguin Dictionary of Science:
"abiogenesis The hypothetical process by which living organisms
are created from non-living matter: spontaneous generation."
(Uvarov E.B. & Isaacs A., "The Penguin Dictionary of Science,"
1986, p.1)
Chambers Science and Technology Dictionary:
"abiogenesis (Bot.,Zool.). Spontaneous generation. The
development of living organisms from non-living matter; either the
spontaneous generation of yeasts, bacteria etc. believed in before
Pasteur, or the gradual process postulated for the early Precambrian
in modern theories of the origin of life. " (Walker P.M.B., ed.,
"Chambers Science and Technology Dictionary," [1940],
Chambers: Cambridge UK, 1988, p.1)
>SJ>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.
SB>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.
As I pointed out this was not an argument from "dark spots in our
knowledge" or "ignorance", i.e. from what we don't know, but rather from
what we *do* know:
"Notice, however, that the sharp edge of this critique is not what
we *do not* know, but what we *do* know. Many facts have
come to light in the past three decades of experimental inquiry into
life's beginning. With each passing year the criticism has gotten
stronger. The advance of science itself is what is challenging the
nation that life arose on earth by spontaneous (in a thermodynamic
sense) chemical reactions." (Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen
R.L., "The Mystery of Life's Origin," 1992, p.185. Emphasis in
original.)
>SJ>There is no `having it both ways here'. Chris is confused by his own
>>misleading *metaphor* - "selection". ID theorists maintain that
>>*unintelligent* natural processes (including so-called natural `selection'),
>>are insufficient to explain the origin of life.
>>
>>The use of *real* selection by *intelligent* human designers is what ID
>>would expect should be successful (unless design requires a superhuman
>>level of intelligence). In fact some time ago, I posted a multi-point ID
>>research program which included just this point.
SB>humans are not outside the natural environment of the cattle (or dogs or
>whatever). We become part of what's doing the selection in stead of some
>kind of predator. In fact we *are* just another predator to the cattle.
First, this is debatable. As a substance dualist I would argue that while
humans are part of "the natural environment" they also, by their mind and
language also *transcend* "the natural environment"
Second, in any case what is Susan's point here? ID is claiming evidence of
design *before* there were "humans". My proposal to test if a human level
of intelligence could create life from non-living chemicals would just be a
*simulation* of the original creation of life by an intelligent designer.
SB>On the other hand I thought Behe, et. al. were trying to convince us that
>the designer designed on the molecular level,
Behe is not necessarily trying to "convince" anyone. He has proposed a
scientific hypothesis and invited testing of it.
SB>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 seems Susan hasn't yet heard of cloned and transgenic "cattle":
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000503/sc/australia_cloning_2.html
Yahoo! ... May 3 [2000] Cloned Calf Excites Australian Cattle
Industry... SYDNEY (Reuters) - The creation of a cloned calf in
Australia has sown the seed of an economic revolution in the meat,
dairy and cattle trades of the world's biggest exporter of beef and
live animals. Australian scientists said on Wednesday that the
breakthrough cloning of four-week old calf Suzi from developed
cells, a first in the country, would greatly lower breeding costs and
increase efficiency in Australia's 25 million-head cattle industry. ...
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000428/sc/science_cloning_3.html
Yahoo! ... April 28 [2000] Cloning Produces Unnaturally
Young Cattle - Report ... WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Scientists
who cloned six cows said on Thursday they may have figured out
how to reverse the aging process in cells using their cloning
technology. ...
http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/01/24/japan.cloning.ap/index.html
CNN ... Japanese scientists breed clone of a clone A calf cloned
from another clone lays in a stable at Kagoshima Prefectural Cattle
Breeding Development Institute January 24, 2000 ... TOKYO (AP)
-- Japanese scientists have bred the clone of a cloned bull, the first
time a large cloned animal has itself been cloned, researchers said ...
http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9909/02/science.cloning.reut/index.html
CNN Texas scientists clone steer from skin September 2, 1999 ...
LA GRANGE, Texas (Reuters) -- Texas scientists have
successfully cloned a steer from a scrap of skin taken from another
steer, a Texas rancher said ...
http://www.sciam.com/explorations/090297clone/beardsley.html
Scientific American [March, 1997] ... The Potential of Cloned
Livestock MEET 'GENE.' This six-month old bull is just the latest
in what is fast becoming a barnyard full of cloned animals. Its
developer, ABS Global is pursuing animal cloning as a means of
producing superior livestock. In addition, cloned animals carrying
specific introduced genes may bring to fruition the idea of
"pharming" -- using domesticated animals to produce drugs and
other medically important substances. Genetically-modified sheep,
goats and cattle are already being used experimentally as
'bioreactors' to produce human proteins in their milk, but cloning
should simplify the process of introducing foreign genes into large
numbers of animals. ...
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Is selection really so strong? If the philosophers are satisfied that the idea
of selection is not tautologous, that it really is a useful scientific theory, our
next task is to measure it in the wild and find out how powerful a force it
is. This has posed some difficulties. Not only is natural selection extremely
difficult to pin down and measure, but many of the observations of
variation among plants and animals in different environments also appear to
contradict the expectations of selection. Why is there so much variability in
creatures in the first place? Why doesn't that variability respond to
environmental stresses in any predictable way? The vast amount of genetic
variation that is now known to exist in most species does not confer any
obvious benefits. In addition, the variation doesn't occur as one would
expect-species found in stable environments seem to show as much
variability as species in changing, unstable environments contrary to what
Darwinian principles would lead one to expect." (Leith B., "The Descent of
Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism," Collins: London, 1982,
p.22)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 09 2000 - 19:36:02 EDT