Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Troll Hunter · 06-15-2002, 08:52 AM

[From the shadows where the lurkers dwell, STEVE appears! He is carrying a large shovel; a label on its shaft identifies it as the "POOP'R-SCOOP'R."]

By golly, the trollus quotitatus has done its business on our lawn again! And I see it hasn't changed its tactics. Find a single quote, cite it without a bit o' context, and decry it as the downfall of the entire theory--truly a classic quotitatus move.

SCRAPE! SCRAPE!

Eeewww ... ripe ... !

S2Focus · 06-15-2002, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
"He has admitted to using his own definitions here, and his one scientific reference is this out-of-context quote from Coyne.

When challenged to bring the entire quote from Coyne, randman has never done so. For good reason, obviously."

Both are false accusations, and I am not surprised. Evolutionists appear to need to rely on false accusations and lies, which doesn't apeak highly of them having real data to back up their claims.

Tell me something btw. Just how is Coyne's quote out of context?

To put things in better perspective, perhaps it would be worthwhile for you to reproduce the paragraphs preceding and following that quote of Coyne. Since you obviously have the original source in your possession, that should be easy to do.

randman · 06-15-2002, 08:57 AM

The context is the section os the Encyclopedia under the S Book, for "Spontaneous generation."

It is quite clear, as is the fact that many of you resort to ridicule and lies to avoid a rational discussion of what you beleive and the evidence.

Why?

Because your arguments are weak, and you fear admitting to them completely. You have to overstate, deny plain facts, etc,...or many of you kind of freak out.

Why?

Ever consider there might be some psychological reasons for your behaviour, that maybe you have a need to belong to a group and reinforce its indoctrination.

Mageth · 06-15-2002, 09:05 AM

Give us the rest of the context, if you have it. Or did you just copy the quote verbatim from some source?

It wouldn't be the first time for Coyne:

"The Discovery Institute's Getting the Facts Straight: A Viewer's Guide to PBS's Evolution (Seattle WA: Discovery Institute, 2001) is another exercise in quote-mining, intended to discredit the recent critically acclaimed PBS series on evolution in particular. Jerry Coyne, one of the scientists whose views were misrepresented by the Discovery Institute in Getting the Facts Straight, commented, "The Discovery Institute is up to its old tricks. Given the complete absence of evidence for their own theory of 'intelligent design' � a theory that has produced not a single scientific paper in a peer-reviewed journal � they instead seek 'confirmation' of their views in controversies about evolutionary biology. Their strategy (transparent to all thinking people) is to sow doubt about the fact of evolution simply because scientists do not know every detail about how evolution occurred.""

(from an<a href="http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3878_analysis_of_the_discovery_inst_4_5_2002.asp" target="_blank">NCSE web article</a>)

Writer@Large · 06-15-2002, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
The context is the section os the Encyclopedia under the S Book, for "Spontaneous generation."

From the most recent Wold Book Encyclopedea, Online Edition:

Quote:

Spontaneous generation refers to the theory that certain forms of life, such as flies, worms, and mice, can develop directly from nonliving things, such as mud and decaying flesh. This theory dates back to prehistoric times and was widely accepted for thousands of years. It was challenged by scientific experiments, such as those performed by the Italian biologist Francesco Redi in 1668. Redi demonstrated that maggots (the young of flies) did not appear in meat from which adult flies were excluded. Previously, many people had believed that flies developed from decaying meat.

The theory of spontaneous generation was not abandoned completely until the mid-1800's. By then, improvements in microscopes and other scientific instruments had enabled scientists to see the eggs and sperm of higher animals, the ovules (eggs) and pollen of plants, and bacteria and other microorganisms. For example, in the mid-1800's, the French scientist Louis Pasteur observed reproduction and growth in microorganisms. He demonstrated that the microorganisms would grow in sterilized broth only if the broth was first exposed to air that contained their spores (reproductive cells). Pasteur's discoveries led to the development of the cell theory of the origin of living matter. The cell theory states that all life originates from preexisting living material.

During the 1900's, laboratory experiments showed that many of the molecules found in living organisms can be synthesized (produced artificially). But no experiment has generated an organism capable of reproducing itself.

See also Life (The theory of spontaneous generation); Biogenesis.

From the entry "Life," referenced above:

Quote:

The theory of spontaneous generation

originated in ancient times and remained a common belief for thousands of years. The theory claimed that lower forms of life could arise from nonliving matter. For example, people believed that flies developed from decaying meat and that mice formed from piles of old rags.

During the mid-1600's, an Italian scientist named Francesco Redi conducted experiments showing that meat protected from flies would not produce maggots. However, Redi's experiments did not end the dispute over spontaneous generation. A belief persisted that microscopic forms of life could arise spontaneously, and the argument raged for about 200 years.

The French chemist Louis Pasteur finally settled the controversy during the mid-1800's. He demonstrated that even the minutest bacteria do not arise spontaneously but always grow from other bacteria. After Pasteur's experiments, most biologists accepted the idea that all life comes from existing life. See Spontaneous generation.

Hmmm ...

--W@L

Writer@Large · 06-15-2002, 09:08 AM

Oh, and lest I forget, "Biogenesis":

Quote:

Biogenesis is a term in biology that is derived from two Greek words meaning life and birth. According to the theory of biogenesis, living things descend only from living things. They cannot develop spontaneously from nonliving materials. Until comparatively recent times, scientists believed that certain forms of life arose spontaneously from nonliving substances. By actual experimentation, the great French scientist Louis Pasteur disproved this false theory of spontaneous generation, also known as abiogenesis. Today, however, scientists are examining the theory that the first forms of life gradually came into being from lifeless matter millions of years ago.

The term biogenesis is also used in reference to the biogenetic (or recapitulation) theory. This theory states that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." This statement means that during its ontogeny--that is, during its development from egg to adult--each organism recapitulates (repeats) various stages in its species' phylogeny (evolutionary history). Thus, at one stage the fetus of a mammal has gill clefts and pouches that resemble the gill slits of fish. These features are lost as the fetus matures, thereby recapitulating the evolution of mammals from aquatic ancestors.

See also Life

(The origin of life); Reproduction

; Spontaneous generation

Seems like the WorldBook has gotten their science a little straighter since 1994 ... if it was ever in there at all.

--W@L

hezekiah jones · 06-15-2002, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Ever consider there might be some psychological reasons for your behaviour, that maybe you have a need to belong to a group and reinforce its indoctrination.

This coming from a fundamentalist Christian!

S2Focus · 06-15-2002, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
The context is the section os the Encyclopedia under the S Book, for "Spontaneous generation."

It is quite clear, as is the fact that many of you resort to ridicule and lies to avoid a rational discussion of what you beleive and the evidence.

Why?

Because your arguments are weak, and you fear admitting to them completely. You have to overstate, deny plain facts, etc,...or many of you kind of freak out.

Why?

Ever consider there might be some psychological reasons for your behaviour, that maybe you have a need to belong to a group and reinforce its indoctrination.

Translation from randman-speak to English: "I do not have the intellectual skills necessary to look up material in a reference often used by high-school students. So instead, I will tax my own vocabulary to its limits to spew insults at those who have requested that I verify the context of that Coyne quote."

lpetrich · 06-15-2002, 09:31 AM

I wonder where Randman had found that quote -- in creationist literature?

Also, as to spotaneously/abiogenetically-generated bacteria, I think that they could be recognized by fundamental differences in biochemistry.

Such a bacterium would not give away its separate origin; it would likely look and act much like some more familiar bacterium. However, its biochemistry would be recognizably different; it will likely use some heredity molecule other than DNA.

One common form of research into bacteria nowadays is direct study of its genes; this is done by breaking them up and then searching for desired genes using Polymerase Chain Reaction primers. Confusing or no reaction with primers for highly-conserved genes like ribosomal-RNA genes would set off an alarm bell, or at least ought to

If such an organism turned out to have no recognizable DNA and an unusual selection of amino acids -- if it uses amino acids at all -- that would clearly indicate separate origin.

Writer@Large · 06-15-2002, 09:40 AM

Hey, how much do I love you guys ...

I'm here in the CMU Park Library reference section, with the 2000 print edition of the World Book. The entry "Spontaneous Generation" was written by Jerry Coyne; they don't quote him. Here is the entire paragraph from which randman lifted his quote, a paragraph that follows after two paragraphs explaining why classic spontaneous generation (flies from corpses, etc.) has been scientifically discredited, and has been since the mid-1800s:

Quote:

Today, most scientists believe that spontaneous generation took place at least once--when certaon chemicals came together to form the first simple living organism more than 3 billion years ago. This process is not thought to be occurring in nature today because conditions on the Earth no longer favor such chemical combinations. In addition, any simple organisms that did form in this way would almost certainly fail to compete successfully against more complex existing organisms. However, laboratory experiments since the mid-1900s have shown that many molecules found in living organisms can be synthesized [produced artificially]. Most biologists believe that it will eventually be possible to produce simple forms of life in the laboratory.

Clearly, he's describing abiogenesis here, not classical "spontaneous generation," which he clearly declares "largely abandoned in the mid-1800s" a paragraph before.

--W@L

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-15-2002, 08:52 AM	#11
Troll Hunter Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: The vast, bone-riddled pains of the E/C boards. Posts: 21	[From the shadows where the lurkers dwell, STEVE appears! He is carrying a large shovel; a label on its shaft identifies it as the "POOP'R-SCOOP'R."] By golly, the trollus quotitatus has done its business on our lawn again! And I see it hasn't changed its tactics. Find a single quote, cite it without a bit o' context, and decry it as the downfall of the entire theory--truly a classic quotitatus move. SCRAPE! SCRAPE! Eeewww ... ripe ... !

06-15-2002, 08:57 AM	#13
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	The context is the section os the Encyclopedia under the S Book, for "Spontaneous generation." It is quite clear, as is the fact that many of you resort to ridicule and lies to avoid a rational discussion of what you beleive and the evidence. Why? Because your arguments are weak, and you fear admitting to them completely. You have to overstate, deny plain facts, etc,...or many of you kind of freak out. Why? Ever consider there might be some psychological reasons for your behaviour, that maybe you have a need to belong to a group and reinforce its indoctrination.

06-15-2002, 09:05 AM	#14
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Give us the rest of the context, if you have it. Or did you just copy the quote verbatim from some source? It wouldn't be the first time for Coyne: "The Discovery Institute's Getting the Facts Straight: A Viewer's Guide to PBS's Evolution (Seattle WA: Discovery Institute, 2001) is another exercise in quote-mining, intended to discredit the recent critically acclaimed PBS series on evolution in particular. Jerry Coyne, one of the scientists whose views were misrepresented by the Discovery Institute in Getting the Facts Straight, commented, "The Discovery Institute is up to its old tricks. Given the complete absence of evidence for their own theory of 'intelligent design' � a theory that has produced not a single scientific paper in a peer-reviewed journal � they instead seek 'confirmation' of their views in controversies about evolutionary biology. Their strategy (transparent to all thinking people) is to sow doubt about the fact of evolution simply because scientists do not know every detail about how evolution occurred."" (from an<a href="http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3878_analysis_of_the_discovery_inst_4_5_2002.asp" target="_blank">NCSE web article</a>)

06-15-2002, 09:31 AM	#19
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	I wonder where Randman had found that quote -- in creationist literature? Also, as to spotaneously/abiogenetically-generated bacteria, I think that they could be recognized by fundamental differences in biochemistry. Such a bacterium would not give away its separate origin; it would likely look and act much like some more familiar bacterium. However, its biochemistry would be recognizably different; it will likely use some heredity molecule other than DNA. One common form of research into bacteria nowadays is direct study of its genes; this is done by breaking them up and then searching for desired genes using Polymerase Chain Reaction primers. Confusing or no reaction with primers for highly-conserved genes like ribosomal-RNA genes would set off an alarm bell, or at least ought to If such an organism turned out to have no recognizable DNA and an unusual selection of amino acids -- if it uses amino acids at all -- that would clearly indicate separate origin.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.