Rumraket wrote:
Therefore, let's work on B for the time being. It actually makes perfect sense.

No problem.
Examine the evidence for B.
If A is irrelevant to the argument, why bring it up?

Rumraket wrote:

rainbow wrote:In principle you're correct.
It is however a very weak argument to claim that an alternative has less going for it.
Of the form:
There is no evidence for A, therefore B.

Yes, it would be wrong to do this. But noone is.

What IS actually happening is this:

There is no evidence for [A].
There is evidence for [B], but parts are missing.
There is no evidence for [Not B].

Therefore, let's work on B for the time being. It actually makes perfect sense.

Good summary! Add to this that [A] doesn't explain anything that [B] doesn't explain, and that [A] introduces at least one more unexplained object, and Occam's razor helps us a bit on the way.

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
Therefore, let's work on B for the time being. It actually makes perfect sense.

No problem.
Examine the evidence for B.
If A is irrelevant to the argument, why bring it up?

I didn't bring it up myself so you'd have to ask the one who did. I must say however that your persistency in arguing threads on the subject of the origin of life propably has some effect on what people think about your personal position on the question.
And even in the few cases where you have stated something on the subject, it always had some vagueness about it.


For example, I myself have almost no doubt that life came about by natural means. And by natural means I mean without artificial, intelligent intervention. No spirits, no gods, no nonphysical minds.
I'm open to the possibility, but to me it seems the LEAST propable of all available explanations. I'm also open to the possibility that life was planted here by aliens, but in that case i'd want to know where these aliens came from in the first place obviously. I see alien intervention as more propable than nonphysical/spiritual/divine intervention, but still so impropable as to be initially dismissed in favor of work on physical and chemical reactions.

I'm not afraid to state this. My doubts are on the question of HOW this happened, not IF. I had this position before I started reading about the direct subject of abiogenesis. Reading on this subject has strengthened this position for me. I actually thought we knew less that we did. I went from thinking "I guess its possible, at least in light of evolution and fossil evidence " to thinking "Okay, so we actually have a number of working hypotheses on the subject with a number of testable steps, some of which have been plausibly demonstrated".
I can also provide you my reasonings for these positions.

So I guess you could do yourself a favor by just coming out and stating what your position is. Perhaps in another thread. What do you actually believe?

Rumraket wrote:What do you actually believe?

In a Critique, one's own beliefs are irrelevant. It is the argument put forward by Cali that is the subject of this thread.
My beliefs we can discuss elsewhere.

Rumraket wrote:

rainbow wrote:In principle you're correct.
It is however a very weak argument to claim that an alternative has less going for it.
Of the form:
There is no evidence for A, therefore B.

Yes, it would be wrong to do this. But noone is.

What IS actually happening is this:

There is no evidence for [A].
There is evidence for [B], but parts are missing.
There is no evidence for [Not B].

Therefore, let's work on B for the time being. It actually makes perfect sense.

Which is precisely what I said in my post that Rainbow replied to. I'm not sure if Rainbow confused my argument for the weaker version by accident or not, but a re-reading will show that I definitely did pose the argument in the stronger form.

rainbow wrote:
No problem.
Examine the evidence for B.
If A is irrelevant to the argument, why bring it up?

I bring it up because, unless A (whatever A may be) is a valid alternative argument, disregarding evidence for B in order to promote a "not B" argument is simply denialism.

Again:

There is evidence that demonstrates that abiogenesis is possible but the evidence is not yet conclusive.
There is no evidence that demonstrates that abiogenesis is not possible. Of course, this lack of evidence is not yet conclusive.
Absent any other hypothesis for the origin of life, pursuing the first line of thought would seem to be the one most likely to lead to some form of resolution to the origin of life question.

Just A Theory wrote:

Again:

There is evidence that demonstrates that abiogenesis is possible but the evidence is not yet conclusive.
There is no evidence that demonstrates that abiogenesis is not possible. Of course, this lack of evidence is not yet conclusive.

I've no problem with either of these statements. However a statement about the possibility of an event, doesn't actually show that it did occur in that way.
We have in fact a number of possible paths whereby abiogenesis on Earth could've occcurred.
...so we have evidence that life may have arisen as a result of a 'Protein First' mechanism. Yet it seems as if most researchers into Abiogenesis reject this hypothesis.

There is no evidence that demonstrates that abiogenesis on the moon is not possible. It is however generally accepted that there is no life as we know it on the moon. One might say (dare I say it?) that it would be considered 'Possible', but 'Improbable'. Not so?

rainbow wrote:

Just A Theory wrote:

Again:

There is evidence that demonstrates that abiogenesis is possible but the evidence is not yet conclusive.
There is no evidence that demonstrates that abiogenesis is not possible. Of course, this lack of evidence is not yet conclusive.

I've no problem with either of these statements. However a statement about the possibility of an event, doesn't actually show that it did occur in that way.
We have in fact a number of possible paths whereby abiogenesis on Earth could've occcurred.
...so we have evidence that life may have arisen as a result of a 'Protein First' mechanism. Yet it seems as if most researchers into Abiogenesis reject this hypothesis.

There is no evidence that demonstrates that abiogenesis on the moon is not possible. It is however generally accepted that there is no life as we know it on the moon. One might say (dare I say it?) that it would be considered 'Possible', but 'Improbable'. Not so?

And it is possible, but improbable, to roll six successive sixes on a D6. What exactly is your point?

Newmark wrote:
And it is possible, but improbable, to roll six successive sixes on a D6. What exactly is your point?

Exactly that having evidence that something is possible doesn't mean that it's probable. I thought you understood this. Were my examples not clear enough?

rainbow wrote:

Newmark wrote:
And it is possible, but improbable, to roll six successive sixes on a D6. What exactly is your point?

Exactly that having evidence that something is possible doesn't mean that it's probable. I thought you understood this. Were my examples not clear enough?

Yes, and the sky is blue. What I was wondering was what impact your point and examples had on the discussion. Please be specific.

Newmark wrote:
What I was wondering was what impact your point and examples had on the discussion. Please be specific.

If you want specific answers, you'll have to ask specific questions.
OK?

Why the dodging Rainbow?

rainbow wrote:

Newmark wrote:
What I was wondering was what impact your point and examples had on the discussion. Please be specific.

If you want specific answers, you'll have to ask specific questions.
OK?

Ok. How does "having evidence that something is possible doesn't mean that it's probable" impact on

Just A Theory wrote:There is evidence that demonstrates that abiogenesis is possible but the evidence is not yet conclusive.
There is no evidence that demonstrates that abiogenesis is not possible. Of course, this lack of evidence is not yet conclusive.
Absent any other hypothesis for the origin of life, pursuing the first line of thought would seem to be the one most likely to lead to some form of resolution to the origin of life question.

in this specific case? Please note the third line here, which was somehow omitted when you quoted Just A Theory.

Newmark wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Newmark wrote:
What I was wondering was what impact your point and examples had on the discussion. Please be specific.

If you want specific answers, you'll have to ask specific questions.
OK?

Ok. How does "having evidence that something is possible doesn't mean that it's probable" impact on

Just A Theory wrote:There is evidence that demonstrates that abiogenesis is possible but the evidence is not yet conclusive.
There is no evidence that demonstrates that abiogenesis is not possible. Of course, this lack of evidence is not yet conclusive.
Absent any other hypothesis for the origin of life, pursuing the first line of thought would seem to be the one most likely to lead to some form of resolution to the origin of life question.

in this specific case?

It answers the points Just a Theory made.
Please stop asking vague questions.
If you can't be specific, I'll choose to ignore you.

Please note the third line here, which was somehow omitted when you quoted Just A Theory.

Noted. Do you have a point you wish to make?

rainbow wrote:

Newmark wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Newmark wrote:
What I was wondering was what impact your point and examples had on the discussion. Please be specific.

If you want specific answers, you'll have to ask specific questions.
OK?

Ok. How does "having evidence that something is possible doesn't mean that it's probable" impact on

Just A Theory wrote:There is evidence that demonstrates that abiogenesis is possible but the evidence is not yet conclusive.
There is no evidence that demonstrates that abiogenesis is not possible. Of course, this lack of evidence is not yet conclusive.
Absent any other hypothesis for the origin of life, pursuing the first line of thought would seem to be the one most likely to lead to some form of resolution to the origin of life question.

in this specific case?

It answers the points Just a Theory made.
Please stop asking vague questions.
If you can't be specific, I'll choose to ignore you.

Please note the third line here, which was somehow omitted when you quoted Just A Theory.

Noted. Do you have a point you wish to make?

Alright. We've got:

1) There is evidence that demonstrates that abiogenesis is possible but the evidence is not yet conclusive.
2) There is no evidence that demonstrates that abiogenesis is not possible. Of course, this lack of evidence is not yet conclusive.
3) Having evidence that something is possible doesn't mean that it's probable.
4) Absent any other hypothesis for the origin of life, pursuing the first line of thought (point 1) would seem to be the one most likely to lead to some form of resolution to the origin of life question.

Why is point 3 relevant to the conclusion in point 4?

Newmark wrote:
Alright. We've got:

1) There is evidence that demonstrates that abiogenesis is possible but the evidence is not yet conclusive.
2) There is no evidence that demonstrates that abiogenesis is not possible. Of course, this lack of evidence is not yet conclusive.
3) Having evidence that something is possible doesn't mean that it's probable.
4) Absent any other hypothesis for the origin of life, pursuing the first line of thought (point 1) would seem to be the one most likely to lead to some form of resolution to the origin of life question.

Why is point 3 relevant to the conclusion in point 4?

...since I've no idea what you're talking about in point 4, I'm afraid I can't answer. As I assume English isn't your first language, could you perhaps rephrase that in clear terms?

It's fairly clear English. He's saying that, until there is a robust competing hypothesis, it seems reasonable to pursue the hypothesis that has actually provided some evidence, as that is more likely to provide some answers.

hackenslash wrote:It's fairly clear English. He's saying that, until there is a robust competing hypothesis, it seems reasonable to pursue the hypothesis that has actually provided some evidence, as that is more likely to provide some answers.

It then goes back to the weak argument, strong argument scenario - which has already been discussed.
Please learn to scroll back.

rainbow wrote:

Newmark wrote:
Alright. We've got:

1) There is evidence that demonstrates that abiogenesis is possible but the evidence is not yet conclusive.
2) There is no evidence that demonstrates that abiogenesis is not possible. Of course, this lack of evidence is not yet conclusive.
3) Having evidence that something is possible doesn't mean that it's probable.
4) Absent any other hypothesis for the origin of life, pursuing the first line of thought (point 1) would seem to be the one most likely to lead to some form of resolution to the origin of life question.

Why is point 3 relevant to the conclusion in point 4?

...since I've no idea what you're talking about in point 4, I'm afraid I can't answer. As I assume English isn't your first language, could you perhaps rephrase that in clear terms?

Point 4 is directly copied from Just a Theory's post (except for the parenthesis), to which you answered with point 3. Now, isn't it time for you to go home, since you obviously don't understand the posts you reply to?

Newmark wrote: Now, isn't it time for you to go home, since you obviously don't understand the posts you reply to?

I certainly don't understand what point you're trying to make, since it's all been covered.

rainbow wrote:

Newmark wrote: Now, isn't it time for you to go home, since you obviously don't understand the posts you reply to?

I certainly don't understand what point you're trying to make, since it's all been covered.

My point was that "having evidence that something is possible doesn't mean that it's probable" had no bearing to Just a Theory's conclusion. But since you didn't understand the conclusion you argued against, it is perfectly reasonable that your argument made no sense.