Posted: Apr 13, 2010 8:16 am
by byofrcs
rainbow wrote:
byofrcs wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Rumraket wrote:If you claim those papers do not constitute evidence, you may aswell say that there is "no evidence for macroevolution" since, noone has ever seen a fish turn in to a mammal. Its false on the same level.

There is a great deal of fossil evidence to support Evolution.
There is EXACTLY ZERO fossil evidence to support Abiogenesis.
Therefore you are wrong.


No, the same evidence that supports evolution supports abiogenesis too. If we did not find evidence for evolution then I think worrying about evidence for abiogenesis would be the least of our problems.

Wrong, you're making a common mistake of confusing the two.
Abiogenesis and Evolution are not the same, and would not be a result of the same mechamisms.

Please present some fossil evidence of Abiogenesis.


...if you can tell me if viroids are "alive" or not. We assume to know what is alive and we assume to know what is not alive. It's deciding the bit in the middle that needs some cleaning up first.

I didn't say evolution was the same as abiogenesis. I said that the evidence of one supports the other. We *should* find the same mechanisms that we find with evolution all the way down to the first chemical reactions. At some arbitrary point we will stop calling it "Biology" and at some point we start to call this "Organic Chemistry". That gap is where abiogenesis resides. We are unlikely to find a god-of-gaps hiding in that transition area thus we should expect,

Organic Chemistry -> Biology

and not,

Organic Chemistry -> Theology -> Biology

or,

Organic Chemistry -> Aliens -> Biology