March 30, 2005
Paul on Oozers
Paul - "The term "oozer" is a term I coined for people who believe life started from inorganic ooze and evolved into every flavor of life we have today. It's descriptive."
In fact, evolutionary theory makes NO CLAIM AT ALL about how life began. It's about the process.
Abiogenesis is about the origin of life. Evolution is about what happened after life arose on Earth. Life origins studies proceed under a number of hypotheses and remain very tentative during this early period of investigation. *
"Abby ... what?" It got me, too. "Abiogenesis" mean "life from no life," or "there was no life, and then there was." (I suspect that those definitions are almost as bad as Paul's. Corrections welcomed.) The paragraph above said, "Hey, we're working on it." There are a "number of hypotheses and remain very tentative." That is science-speak for "we don't know."
One group does know: the Creationists. God did it. Right now, as I'm typing this, I assure you that I don't know how life started. I certainly can't prove that God didn't do it. And people are studying other possibilities. I repeat, the only sizeable group that claims to "know" how life started are Creationists.
"The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology. Abiogenesis is a fact. Regardless of how you imagine it happened (note that creation is a theory of abiogenesis), it is a fact that there once was no life on earth and that now there is. Thus, even if evolution needs abiogenesis, it has it."*
So, Paul claims that "oozers" KNOW how life arose spontaneously from primordal ooze. Not at all. What evolutionist or scientist claims "Life originated by method X?" (Lightning in the ooze or anything else.) Please cite one.
There is an omission, question, or problem here that someone could use to challenge evolutionary theory: "Ha! Your theory does NOT explain how life started." That's right. Evolutionary scientists do not know how life started, and do not claim to know. A more intelligent critic than Paul might use that as a challenge. "You don't know, you don't know, you don't know. You're dodging the issue. ... yaddah, yaddah, yaddah."
Think about it. Paul wants to challenge evolution and scientists. But he leaves a persuasive weapon on the ground, and flails away with one that only reveals his ignorance and that is the exact opposite of what scientists DO claim. He proudly displays it as his trademark taunt.
UPDATE: Paul's full quoted sentence included at his request. "
Posted by Commissar at March 30, 2005 09:48 PM
Did ya ever stop to think for just one second that maybe - just maybe - some people could believe in abiogenesis and not evolution while others might believe in evolution but not abiogenesis????
It is possible to believe one and not the other. As such they are treated separately... to everyone in the world but you.
NAW- Guess that would be too complicated for your pea sized brain.
I *thought* andy was the stupidest one in your crowd but I must admit, you are giving him a run for his money.
WAIT you don't know what the word "abiogenesis" means and you want to discuss this? Good night Mildred.
Extracted from: Paul at March 30, 2005 10:24 PMI see cracks emerging amoung republican ranks. Excellent. Our efforts have not been in vain. Soon you all become ostracised heretics. Vive la dissent.
Extracted from: emigre at March 30, 2005 11:21 PMPosted this over at Woozebang:
Paul...
Your sentence in full read The term "oozer" is a term I coined for people who believe life started from inorganic ooze and evolved into every flavor of life we have today.
There's not much difference between the two, except that the original is perhaps even more wrong-headed and insulting. It certainly hasn't been "Dowdified" or had its meaning changed.
On the subject of Abiogenesis, it seemed clear to me that the Commissar was talking about his reaction when he first encounted the word. It's quite clear that he knows what evolution is and what abiogenesis is, and you are just making zealots out of molehills.
What you are up against, Paul, is people who understand the subject. The reason you are making no headway with them is that you do not.
Much of what you think you know is simply false, and you are wilfully protecting your ignorance by shouting down anyone who tries to present facts contrary to your beliefs. That's not something I've found to be very productive. I dunno, maybe your experience is different.
Extracted from: Pixy Misa at March 30, 2005 11:21 PMThanks, Pixy. I have no need to misquote Paul. He wanted the whole sentence, I'm glad to put it in.
He is a rich source of material. His rants are far more damaging to him than anything I could come up with.
I love how Paul so desperately wants to be right when he has absolutely no idea what he's even arguing about.
Must be why he turned off the comments to the new thread. Real mature Paul, glad to see you can handle being spanked so well.
I'll save you a space in line for the vaccine anyway....
Extracted from: Tman at March 30, 2005 11:39 PMComplex problems usually have a multipart answer.
The smarter ones know there are a lot more things we don't know than things we do know.
It's a really big universe out there.
Extracted from: bill at March 30, 2005 11:54 PMDirected to Paul, as Mr. "Mommy- Make- Them- Stop-It- Close- The- Comments!" couldn't be bothered to allow dissent at Wizbang.
Did ya ever stop to think for just one second that maybe - just maybe - some people could believe in abiogenesis and not evolution while others might believe in evolution but not abiogenesis????
(stops to think)
Hey, you might be right, Paul. Unfortunately, you MADE UP a definition of evolution that lumped the two together and then claimed anyone believing your MADE UP definition of evolution was an "oozer."
Unfortunately, no one who responded to your ignorance ever accepted your stupid, idiotic, and altogether WRONG definition of evolution, so you've been dry humping a strawman ever since.
It's sad, really. The dry humping bit, I mean. Your being a fucking idiot is just funny.
Extracted from: andy at March 31, 2005 12:08 AMOh - kay.
I copied my comment from Woozebang to here just in case Paul, you know, might just possibly for some reason decide to delete it, not that I ever thought he -
ZAP!
Uh, good job there, Paul.
Paul's full quoted sentence included at his request. "If you quote the full sentence, it makes his whole point mute."
No, Paul, if you delete all the comments, that makes your readers mute. Well, it would, except that most of them have blogs of their own.
Countdown to Paul closing trackbacks...
Extracted from: Pixy Misa at March 31, 2005 12:22 AMAnyway, what's this "believe in" stuff? What exactly does Paul think science is?
Extracted from: Pixy Misa at March 31, 2005 12:46 AMTotal meltdown. Awesome. People gave you shit for sticking to it, but the payout is so nice. For a pea-brain I don't know how you do it.
Extracted from: john at March 31, 2005 01:06 AMI don't use "evolution" in the strict definition here, I mean evolution as in the theory that lighting stuck inorganic material and started life that a bazillion years later evolved into every life form on the planet. Paul, March 23
It is possible to believe one and not the other. [evolution and abiogenesis] As such they are treated separately... to everyone in the world but you. Paul, March 30
I'd add something pithy here, but I can't think of anything that would do justice to these quotes.
Extracted from: Conservative Mutant at March 31, 2005 02:24 AMCommissar,
Have you lost your mind? Please note, from Webster’s online;
Main Entry: abio•gen•e•sis
Pronunciation: "A-"bI-O-'je-n&-s&s
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from 2a- + bio- + Latin genesis
: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter
- abi•og•e•nist /"A-(")bI-'ä-j&-nist/ noun
One entry found for spontaneous generation.
Main Entry: spontaneous generation
Function: noun
: ABIOGENESIS
For More Information on "spontaneous+generation" go to Britannica.com
Get the Top 10 Search Results for "spontaneous+generation"
Rusty
Extracted from: Rusty at March 31, 2005 09:22 AMRusty,
Paul's favorite insult "oozer" misrepresents what evolutionary theory explains. Even worse, Paul claims that scientists claim to KNOW EVERYTHING about one of the significant issues (the start of life), that evolutionary theory does not address.
Extracted from: The Commissar at March 31, 2005 12:00 PMSorry I didn't get to this before, but here it is anyway:
"The term "oozer" is a term I coined for people who believe life started from inorganic ooze and evolved into every flavor of life we have today. It's descriptive."
Paul has described a theory which doesn't exist, so I guess we can say he has erected the ultimate strawman. In any case, his definition of oozer describes exactly zero people in the world.
It has been observed [*] that electrical discharges in the primordial atmosphere produces the necessarily building blocks (amino acids) for life from simpler compounds, such as methane (an organic gas by the way). Further, given our knowledge of the chemistry of the primordial atmosphere, this mechanism could create large quantities of these complex organic molecules. However, the electrical discharge hypothesis didn't explain the origins of life, it just provided a mechanism for the origin of complex organic molecules.
Since then, it has been learned that the lightning strike theory was unnecessary, because amino acids have been discovered in interstellar gases. Hence, we would have expected them to be present in the "organic soup" on the surface of the Earth after its formation. There is some debate whether there would be enough exotically formed amino acids for the formation of life, but primitive life can produce its own amino acids.
[*] Harold Urey and Stanley Miller in 1953.
I guess abiogenesis doesn't include the Creation hypothesis, because it specifies "spontaneous". So even if God gave it a little helpful twitch, it wouldn't count as abiogenesis.
Creation of life in a Petri dish would go some way to establishing the possibility of abiogenesis, but even then it would be impossible to prove God DIDN'T give His helpful twitch there, too.
Evolution stipulates that all current forms of life are descendents of the earliest ones. (It could be more than one, sufficiently similar to interbreed/swap genetic material and establish the common DNA system all known life forms today use.) Creationism specifies all current forms of life (as well, presumably, as all extinct forms) were created as-is, and have never changed enough to spin off or become a new species (unable to interbreed with the original form). ID specifies that such changes may have occurred, but were under the control of a Designing Deity, or SLT, just as the original biogenesis was.
Which of these proposes or even permits an evidentiary test by which it could be disproven? That one is, or those ones are, science. The rest are not.
Extracted from: Brian H at March 31, 2005 11:05 PMBrian,
Good point. There are slightly varying definitions of the word.
Here's definition #2 from Google: "a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter" -- It seems to me, using that definition, that one could hypothesize that God made living organisms from nonliving matter.
talkorigins.org offered the "Creation by God is one theory of abiogenesis." I think that's a direct quote. And it seemed like a reasonable statement.
Words aside, evolutionary theory addresses development and change, not the start.
I think we're "in violent agreement." :)
Extracted from: The Commissar at March 31, 2005 11:31 PM"Life originated by method X?" (Lightning in the ooze or anything else.) Please cite one.
Q from Star Trek, The Next Generation. Remember when he pointed to primordial ooze and said that life hadn't started because of cosmic radiation or inverting the subspace flux or whatever?
What do I win?
