Abiogenesis and Evolution

[Justatruthseeker]

In the simplest biological sense, yes, we are animals. But not in the way you are trying to say we are.
Human life do not come as 'breeds'. All humans on Earth alive now are the same species, Homo Sapiens. We are not divided in to 'breeds' because we do not create something new when one population mates with another. A human will still give birth to a human.

All dogs belong to one species too. All cats. All bear. A dog still gives birth to a dog - yet you recognize the difference between Husky and Mastiff - just like anyone with reason would recognize the difference between Asian and African. Your claims fall short. Every creature on this planet gives birth within it's own species. White-tail deer give birth to White-tail deer when mated with White-tail deer.

Hereford cows give birth to Hereford cows when mated with Hereford cows. All of the natural world falsifies your claims. You have no data in which to defend your claims - all the data goes completely against what you now claim.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I am sorry, but do rules apply to things that do not exist? Not really. My point was that the properties life configured like ours would have would most certainly be consistent even prior to their existence, but would be impossible to measure and would apply to nothing before examples of such life came into existence. We can, to an extent, predict what certain chemical configurations would do, even if they do not exist or have not been made/found yet, but the accuracy is less than desireable, though still better than chance.

Except those same protons and electrons which make up a rock are the same protons and electrons that make up you. So why is one thing made up of those exact same particles alive and the other not?????

The accuracy is less than desirable, though still better than chance? We totally agree - the belief that random processes (chance) had anything to do with life and the precision we see around us is indeed preposterous and does not fit science. I'm glad you are at least giving up your beliefs that random chance had anything to do with anything! That is the first step.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The rules of chemistry and physics apply to matter before life was present and
unless one slips sideways into another dimension through the Twilight Zone
they apply afterwards as well.

So, what properties of dead matter lead to life?

Yes, they do not like to admit that the same protons and electrons which make up rock make up life. Because they can't explain why the same protons and electrons would be alive in one configuration and not alive in another. Knowing it's not just a simple matter of arranging them in specific orders or creating life in the lab would be a simple process of arrangement.

No, they don't really want to discuss it, but prefer journeys as you said into the twilight zone where Fairie Dust rules.

 

[SkyWriting]

Knowing it's not just a simple matter of arranging them in specific orders or creating life in the lab would be a simple process of arrangement.

It should be simple to create simple life forms.
We have enough material to study.

Martians, not so much.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

All dogs belong to one species too. All cats. All bear. A dog still gives birth to a dog - yet you recognize the difference between Husky and Mastiff - just like anyone with reason would recognize the difference between Asian and African. Your claims fall short. Every creature on this planet gives birth within it's own species. White-tail deer give birth to White-tail deer when mated with White-tail deer.

Hereford cows give birth to Hereford cows when mated with Hereford cows. All of the natural world falsifies your claims. You have no data in which to defend your claims - all the data goes completely against what you now claim.

BREED (via dictionary.com)
(noun)
1. A group of organisms having common ancestors and certain distinguishable characteristics, especially a group within a species developed by artificial selection and maintained by controlled propagation.
2. A kind; a sort: a new breed of politician; a new breed of computer.
3. Offensive A person of mixed racial descent; a half-breed.

From wikipedia.com (the very first line):
A breed is a specific group of domestic animals having homogeneous appearance (phenotype), homogeneous behavior, and/or other characteristics that distinguish it from other organisms of the same species and that were arrived at through selective breeding.

Notice how both of these definitions refer to animals brought about via animal husbandry, I.E. cattle, sheep, dogs, etc.
The different ethnic groups of this world were not brought about via artificial selection or are maintained by controlled propagation. The different ethnic groups of the world came in to being via natural causes of population growth coupled with migration and isolation.

And you also have not responded to my claim in the other thread: why do you only choose to label Africans and Asians as 'breeds'? Why not Europeans? Or Arabs? Or Latina, or Hispanic? Your desire to constantly choose those two continental populations does strike me as evidence of you being racist.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

BREED (via dictionary.com)
(noun)
1. A group of organisms having common ancestors and certain distinguishable characteristics, especially a group within a species developed by artificial selection and maintained by controlled propagation.
2. A kind; a sort: a new breed of politician; a new breed of computer.
3. Offensive A person of mixed racial descent; a half-breed.

From wikipedia.com (the very first line):
A breed is a specific group of domestic animals having homogeneous appearance (phenotype), homogeneous behavior, and/or other characteristics that distinguish it from other organisms of the same species and that were arrived at through selective breeding.

Notice how both of these definitions refer to animals brought about via animal husbandry, I.E. cattle, sheep, dogs, etc.
The different ethnic groups of this world were not brought about via artificial selection or are maintained by controlled propagation. The different ethnic groups of the world came in to being via natural causes of population growth coupled with migration and isolation.

And you also have not responded to my claim in the other thread: why do you only choose to label Africans and Asians as 'breeds'? Why not Europeans? Or Arabs? Or Latina, or Hispanic? Your desire to constantly choose those two continental populations does strike me as evidence of you being racist.

What's the matter - afraid to use a biological definition since we are discussing biology - not politics? Or are we discussing politics and not biology???

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Breed

"1. A race or variety of men or other animals (or of plants), perpetuating its special or distinctive characteristics by inheritance.

2. Class; sort; kind; of men, things, or qualities.

3. A number produced at once; a brood.

breed is usually applied to domestic animals; species or variety to wild animals and to plants; and race to men. "



So the only one participating in racism are those claiming that applying racial terms to a human animal is somehow raciest.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Race

"(1) A group or population of humans categorized on the basis of various sets of heritable characteristics (such as color of skin, eyes, and hair).

(2) A descent from a common heritage, ancestor, breed or stock.

(3) A tribe or family of people sharing a common breed or lineage.

(4) A population of interbreeding species that develops distinct characteristics differing from other populations of the same species, especially as caused by geographical isolation.

(5) (botany)
(a) A variety of distinct character that may be propagated by seed.
(b) A rhizome, especially of ginger.

(6) (zoology) A breed or strain of domesticated animal."

I could really care less that you want to call domesticated animals "breeds", wild animals and plants "species or varieties", and humans "races."

Because in the end we all really understand it is the exact same thing - those distinguishing characteristics passed down by inheritance. All your excuses and name games won't change the fact that you are simply refusing to apply to the human species what you apply to all other animals. Even if you claim we are animals. For political reasons you chose race - but then to use race as an example of those distinguishing characteristics passed down by inheritance becomes raciest? I'm not sure I understand your reasoning or implications???

I am not the one claiming one race - or breed - or species or variety or whatever is superior to another. Not just skin deep racism - but to the bone racism.

So fine, let's play the political raciest game in a discussion of biology if you want. If that's where you want to go to avoid the science then let's do it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What's the matter - afraid to use a biological definition since we are discussing biology - not politics? Or are we discussing politics and not biology??? <snipped>

Then answer my question: WHY, out of all of the groups that exist in this world, do you continually choose to use Africans and Asians when you apply the term 'breeds' to humans? Your point would be as valid as if you used Europeans, Latinas or Hispanics? But you only ever use Africans and Asians. Why?
And I will continue to call your use of breeds to refer to the populations of Africa and Asia because, historically, those populations have been referred to as 'breeds'.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Then answer my question: WHY, out of all of the groups that exist in this world, do you continually choose to use Africans and Asians when you apply the term 'breeds' to humans? Your point would be as valid as if you used Europeans, Latinas or Hispanics? But you only ever use Africans and Asians. Why?
And I will continue to call your use of breeds to refer to the populations of Africa and Asia because, historically, those populations have been referred to as 'breeds'.

Fine, let's use Hispanics and Caucasians then? Would that make you feel better? Or European and South American?

Whatever excuses floats your boat and helps you sleep at night.

I use African and Asians because the Afro-Asians produced have been categorized by science - unlike the others left un-catoragorized for political reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Asian

If I used another you'd then start making excuses they hadn't been categorized, or just claim I was being raciest because I used Europeans and Hispanics.

Why are you not claiming I am being raciest by using only the Husky and Mastiff instead of the Poodle and German Shepard??? Are we or are we not animals?????

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Fine, let's use Hispanics and Caucasians then? Would that make you feel better? Or European and South American?

Whatever excuses floats your boat and helps you sleep at night.

I use African and Asians because the Afro-Asians produced have been categorized by science - unlike the others left un-catoragorized for political reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Asian

If I used another you'd then start making excuses they hadn't been categorized, or just claim I was being raciest because I used Europeans and Hispanics.

Why are you not claiming I am being raciest by using only the Husky and Mastiff instead of the Poodle and German Shepard??? Are we or are we not animals?????

But Afro-Asian is not a biological term. It is a sociological term. It is not a term that you would find in a scientific paper. For example, my heritage can be described as Anglo-Armenian, but you would not find that phrase in a scientific paper.
And I'm not calling you racist for not using whatever breed of dog over your obsession with Husky's and Mastiff's, because they're dogs.
And I've answered this before, but yes, we are animals in the most basic biological sense. But we have many things that put us on a level above animals. We have higher reasoning, for one thing. We can discuss morality, philosophy, music among other things.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Or I guess that would make me a "breedist" when talking about domesticated animals; a "Specieist or varitiest" when talking about wild animals or plants; because talking about human races suddenly makes me a racist.

So I guess we only apply those distinguishing characteristic's passed down by inheritance to animals and not humans - even if we are animals. Even if we have already applied those distinguishing characteristics to the human species. But for political reasons chose to elevate mankind above the animals and now it is politically incorrect to talk about those distinguishing characteristic's.

But let's get back to the main point. People who are ignorant and think a color of a man's skin sets them apart and makes them special can be excused due to ignorance. But what about those that propose it's not skin deep - but that superiority is a part of the very genome itself through evolution????

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Or I guess that would make me a "breedist" when talking about domesticated animals; a "Specieist or varitiest" when talking about wild animals or plants; because talking about human races suddenly makes me a racist.

So I guess we only apply those distinguishing characteristic's passed down by inheritance to animals and not humans - even if we are animals. Even if we have already applied those distinguishing characteristics to the human species. But for political reasons chose to elevate mankind above the animals and now it is politically incorrect to talk about those distinguishing characteristic's.

But let's get back to the main point. People who are ignorant and think a color of a man's skin sets them apart and makes them special can be excused due to ignorance. But what about those that propose it's not skin deep - but that superiority is a part of the very genome itself through evolution????

You're taking to this to an illogical extreme.
And this also kind of proves my point about humans being animals in the most basic biological sense, but at the same time being more than animals. The fact that I go offended over your classification of humans as breeds, which is something animals are completely incapable of experiencing. A Husky will not experience offence if you called it a Mastiff or a Poodle because it is not aware that is a Husky. It knows it is a dog, but that is where the extent of it's self awareness ends.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But Afro-Asian is not a biological term. It is a sociological term. It is not a term that you would find in a scientific paper. For example, my heritage can be described as Anglo-Armenian, but you would not find that phrase in a scientific paper.
And I'm not calling you racist for not using whatever breed of dog over your obsession with Husky's and Mastiff's, because they're dogs.
And I've answered this before, but yes, we are animals in the most basic biological sense. But we have many things that put us on a level above animals. We have higher reasoning, for one thing. We can discuss morality, philosophy, music among other things.

It sure is a biological term - and a medical one - and a genetic one.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0404.1970.tb05604.x/abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...nticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=

http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/844697

You mean you or someone through ignorance might reason a person is superior to another biologically due to those inherited characteristics???? You mean you might find some excuse to ignore the biology and claim we are animals but more than animals because we reason? What does reason have to do with inherited characteristics that sets us apart from animals biologically???? Are smarter people biologically superior to those of lesser intelligence???? Or are they just smarter?

Are those of a lower intelligence then "less human" than someone of a higher intelligence since you choose to bring intelligence into the discussion as a indicator of that superiority over mere animals??? Are you suggesting we posses something the animals do not, and were therefore set as caretakers over them????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You're taking to this to an illogical extreme.
And this also kind of proves my point about humans being animals in the most basic biological sense, but at the same time being more than animals. The fact that I go offended over your classification of humans as breeds, which is something animals are completely incapable of experiencing. A Husky will not experience offence if you called it a Mastiff or a Poodle because it is not aware that is a Husky. It knows it is a dog, but that is where the extent of it's self awareness ends.

No, I am taking it to the logical conclusion - it is you that teaches genetic racism and superiority that chose to bring racism into the equation - not me. If you don't like racism then quit practicing it. You did not ever hear me once claim that one race or anything was superior to another due to those differences - you assumed that all on your own in your strawman to avoid the science, because evilution teaches biological superiority. You are projecting onto me what you yourself profess to follow.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It sure is a biological term - and a medical one - and a genetic one.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0404.1970.tb05604.x/abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...nticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=

http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/844697

You mean you or someone through ignorance might reason a person is superior to another biologically due to those inherited characteristics???? You mean you might find some excuse to ignore the biology and claim we are animals but more than animals because we reason? What does reason have to do with inherited characteristics that sets us apart from animals biologically???? Are smarter people biologically superior to those of lesser intelligence???? Or are they just smarter?

Are those of a lower intelligence then "less human" than someone of a higher intelligence since you choose to bring intelligence into the discussion as a indicator of that superiority over mere animals??? Are you suggesting we posses something the animals do not, and were therefore set as caretakers over them????

Just so you're aware, the first link isn't working (I'm just getting a blank page) and the second link isn't letting me see the abstract. The third link does nothing to support your case. Just because the article uses the term 'Afro-Asian' does not mean that it is a scientific term. It is just used to refer to an ethnic diaspora in the world.
And you only need one question mark, you know?

And you are doing it again: you are putting words that I have not said in my mouth. I have no insinuated ANYTHING of what you have said regarding race. My great-grandfather had to leave his country of birth because of the racist policies of the Young Turks government had towards the population of Armenia. And you're starting to sound like you're trying to bait me in to admitting I'm some form of social-Darwinist with your questioning. And it makes you come across as petty and insipid.

And a dog is not on the same level as a human. Can a dog compose a treatise on the morality on war, or have a discussion on the merits of one form of political movement over another? Humans have travelled to the moon and back. I think that says it all. We are not in the world to be caretakers of the world. We are simply part of the world we live in, and it also says something about humanity when we choose to label ourselves as caretakers of the world.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, I am taking it to the logical conclusion - it is you that teaches genetic racism and superiority that chose to bring racism into the equation - not me. If you don't like racism then quit practicing it. You did not ever hear me once claim that one race or anything was superior to another due to those differences - you assumed that all on your own in your strawman to avoid the science, because evilution teaches biological superiority. You are projecting onto me what you yourself profess to follow.

It is really difficult for me to keep my patience with you.
HOW. Am I the one who is teaching genetic racism? It was YOU who choose to label Africans and Asians as 'breeds' when they have already had a history being referred to as breeds by the colonial powers.
And the fact that you have also chosen to refer to evolution as 'evilution' shows me how infantile and pathetic you are. Evolution does not teach that one group of biological organism is superior. That's a pathetic and horribly transparent attempt by the idiotic to try and make evolution in to something evil, which it is not.

 

[ecco]

ecco↑

The question remains, if Determinism is real, what causes the Determinizing?
It's like, if Creationism is real, what is the Creator?​

Determinism can be both atheistic and theistic.

Interesting but meaningless.

The determining can be through physical necessity, but I see no reason to think so.

I wasn't asking what you didn't think.

This brings us to the cosmological argument,

It brings us to the cosmological argument because you want to ignore the question:

if Determinism is real, what causes the Determinizing?
​

How about addressing one of your claims instead of ignoring it and trying to slip into something else.

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑

Yes, but nothing predetermines how hard I hit the cue ball.​

Physical and biological determinism does.

In your opinion.

Another thing, what form of identity theory do you subscribe to?

"Identity theory"?

Don't tell me you're a mind-body dualist endowed with free-will!

Since I have no idea what you mean by "mind-body dualist", I certainly would not tell you that.

What do you even mean by "I". What if there is no "I", and that all there are are clusters of information processed in brains, which carry no actual person through time.

Yet, here I am, an actual person, carrying my thoughts through time.

On the other hand...

• What if LastThursdayism is reality?
• What if the movie The Matrix is reality?

You do see the problem with "What if"s, don't you?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Except those same protons and electrons which make up a rock are the same protons and electrons that make up you. So why is one thing made up of those exact same particles alive and the other not?????

The accuracy is less than desirable, though still better than chance? We totally agree - the belief that random processes (chance) had anything to do with life and the precision we see around us is indeed preposterous and does not fit science. I'm glad you are at least giving up your beliefs that random chance had anything to do with anything! That is the first step.

-_- the protons and electrons in rocks, through consumption and other means, could one day become part of a living thing, just as much as a dead body's bones will crumble with the organic portions consumed, leaving behind only inorganic minerals. There isn't a reason other than chance that those protons, neutrons, and electrons became me instead of a rock, if you start at the big bang. From that point on, events occurred that made certain atoms more likely to become me, and others more likely to become the rock I stub my toe on.

The process isn't completely random, as only materials that can function in living cells will be properly utilized in them and become a major component in living bodies. As hydrogen was converted into other elements in stars, by the properties of those elements, some were better for life while others weren't, thus the carbon and other major contributors to life mass became more likely to become me than the silicon that makes up some of that rock. The life contributing elements that end up on earthlike planets are more likely to becoming living bodies, and so on and so on, one bit of mass becomes a rock, and another becomes me.

 

[Near]

I wasn't asking what you didn't think.

Then the discussion is meaningless. You have made many assertions about what you think.

In your opinion.

You might as well have said, "nuh uh". You said that in response to my claim that biological and physical determinism is what guides your choices. When it comes down to it, you're not on the side of science. I'm actually supporting a materialist view here. Ironic. What reason do you have to think nothing predetermines your choices?

if Determinism is real, what causes the Determinizing?

Fruitless question; I don't care to answer it. I'm not a determinist. If anything, you're supporting some of the views I actually support. For example, the view that you carry, that people are not mere bundles of thoughts carrying no person-hood through time.
I also provided three options. But since we've ruled out random chance...

1) physical necessity
2) a causal agent which transcends the universe

Either view is consistent with the idea of determinism.

"Identity theory"?
(...)
Since I have no idea what you mean by "mind-body dualist", I certainly would not tell you that.

Do your own research. I suggest you take an intro to philosophy class.

Yet, here I am, an actual person, carrying my thoughts through time.

My point was that your choices are determined. If you're a materialist, you have every reason to agree with me. You lack libertarian free-will.
Mind-brain identity means that you are a brain, the mind is the same as the brain. It's all physical.
Unless you dare to say, the mind is different from the brain?
If so, do you believe the mind is immaterial?
This deals with whether your choices are predetermined or not*

 

[ecco]

ecco:

I wasn't asking what you didn't think.​

Then the discussion is meaningless. You have made many assertions about what you think.

Yes, I have. And when I asked what you think, you don't respond with what you think. You make a comment and then stated that the comment is not what you think. Let's review...

I had asked what causes the "determining".

In post # 456 you replied (my red emphasis):

"The determining can be through physical necessity, but I see no reason to think so."
​

In other words, your response was what you didn't think. So I responded:

"I wasn't asking what you didn't think."


​

ecco said: ↑

if Determinism is real, what causes the Determinizing?​

Fruitless question; I don't care to answer it. I'm not a determinist.

You are not a determinist? Then why did you post...

• 379 Science typically presupposes determinism.
• 381 I'm not limiting myself to theism, but also materialistic (non-theistic) determinism
• The scientific method assumes determinism
• 437 Determinism can be both atheistic and theistic.
• 438 Physical and biological determinism does.

Strange. You were a determinist until I asked "if Determinism is real, what causes the Determinizing?". Then you state: Fruitless question; I don't care to answer it. I'm not a determinist. Hmmm. Sounds like a last minute copout. Can't answer the question, deny the subject ever came up.

But since we've ruled out random chance...

We haven't, except possibly in your own mind where you cannot decide whether or not you support determinism.