Abiogenesis & Cell Theory overlap?

[untermensche]

What is added by saying an idea evolved vs an idea changed?

I think you are just pretending to be ignorant just for argumentation purposes or maybe it is just embarrassment.

If you truly see no difference in saying "supersonic jet fighters are a change from the Wright flier" and, "The current design of the supersonic jet fighters evolved through several stages from the first design of the Wright flier at Kitty Hawk." then there is no hope for you.

ETA:
but, even if you truly see no difference, it doesn't matter because no one is going to stop using the English language correctly just because you don't like it.

You had to add the phrase "through several stages" because just saying "evolved" added nothing beyond "changed".

And this is not me asking people to use language "correctly".

It is me asking if the way people use language is rational. Are they adding anything by using certain words vs others?

And the use of the word "evolve" is in fashion, but generally it is used superfluously and adds nothing beyond just saying "change".

 

[bilby]

I think you are just pretending to be ignorant just for argumentation purposes or maybe it is just embarrassment.

If you truly see no difference in saying "supersonic jet fighters are a change from the Wright flier" and, "The current design of the supersonic jet fighters evolved through several stages from the first design of the Wright flier at Kitty Hawk." then there is no hope for you.

ETA:
but, even if you truly see no difference, it doesn't matter because no one is going to stop using the English language correctly just because you don't like it.

You had to add the phrase "through several stages" because just saying "evolved" added nothing beyond "changed".

And this is not me asking people to use language "correctly".

It is me asking if the way people use language is rational. Are they adding anything by using certain words vs others?

And the use of the word "evolve" is in fashion, but generally it is used superfluously and adds nothing beyond just saying "change".

You are still missing the point.

You asserted that evolution was the DEFINING feature of life; that viruses are alive BECAUSE they evolve.

IF you use the casual definition of evolution, then you are wrong, because non-living things also evolve.

IF instead, you use the biological definition, which applies by definition ONLY to living things, then you are saying that viruses evolve because they are alive, and that viruses are alive because they evolve. So you are indulging in a circular argument.

Neither case does you any credit. But I am happy to accept your clarification that you are using the biological definition, and are therefore not only wrong, but illogical AND wrong, if that makes you happy.

 

[Kharakov]

Ohh, so you're talking about living things like languages, thoughts, or forms, right?

None of those evolve either.

Growth is not evolution. Change in human design is not evolution.

Evolution is how life changes in response to changing environmental circumstances. And it is not directional.

I sure hope people take me seriously when I quote you to justify my belief that evolution only applies to the biological sciences.

 Universal Darwinism.
 Evolutionary linguistics.
 Sociocultural evolution.

 

[untermensche]

None of those evolve either.

Growth is not evolution. Change in human design is not evolution.

Evolution is how life changes in response to changing environmental circumstances. And it is not directional.

I sure hope people take me seriously when I quote you to justify my belief that evolution only applies to the biological sciences.

 Universal Darwinism.
 Evolutionary linguistics.
 Sociocultural evolution.

You can apply the word "evolution" to anything you want.

But all it means is change. Languages change, societies change. They don't evolve.

Evolution is non-directional and all living things evolve under universal principles.

Languages change randomly. There are no underlying principles that explain how all languages change over time.

 

[untermensche]

IF you use the casual definition of evolution, then you are wrong, because non-living things also evolve.

Used casually the word only means some kind of change.

It has no specificity. It explains no underlying principles or common traits.

If the word is used to explain something specific then it can only be used to explain how biological entities change.

The only things that fit the specific meaning of evolution are living things.

Therefore it is not irrational to say if something evolves, using the word in a manner that has meaning, it is not like anything else except living things.

 

[skepticalbip]

IF you use the casual definition of evolution, then you are wrong, because non-living things also evolve.

Used casually the word only means some kind of change.

It has no specificity. It explains no underlying principles or common traits.

If the word is used to explain something specific then it can only be used to explain how biological entities change.

The only things that fit the specific meaning of evolution are living things.

Therefore it is not irrational to say if something evolves, using the word in a manner that has meaning, it is not like anything else except living things.

The word was derived from the Latin, evolutionem, and introduced into the English language a couple centuries before Darwin WTF were the Romans using the word for when they had the word, novo, for change? They didn't know anything about species development. And WTF were those English folks using it for during those couple centuries before Darwin decided to use it? But then Darwin preferred the phrase "descent with modification" only using the word, "evolution" in his The Origin of Species once and only in the closing section of the book.

I think your problem is that you are just ranting because you are embarrassed to admit that you didn't have a clue what the word actually meant. And it appears that you still don't understand the nuance of the word.

But still, the fact that viruses evolve doesn't mean they are alive.

 

[untermensche]

Used casually the word only means some kind of change.

It has no specificity. It explains no underlying principles or common traits.

If the word is used to explain something specific then it can only be used to explain how biological entities change.

The only things that fit the specific meaning of evolution are living things.

Therefore it is not irrational to say if something evolves, using the word in a manner that has meaning, it is not like anything else except living things.

The word was derived from the Latin, evolutionem, and introduced into the English language a couple centuries before Darwin WTF were the Romans using the word for when they had the word, novo, for change? They didn't know anything about species development. And WTF were those English folks using it for during those couple centuries before Darwin decided to use it? But then Darwin preferred the phrase "descent with modification" only using the word, "evolution" in his The Origin of Species once and only in the closing section of the book.

I think your problem is that you are just ranting because you are embarrassed to admit that you didn't have a clue what the word actually meant. And it appears that you still don't understand the nuance of the word.

But still, the fact that viruses evolve doesn't mean they are alive.

This is unresponsive to any point I made.

I made the point that when somebody uses the word "evolve", except in the specific case of biological evolution, the word has no meaning beyond "change". The word carries no specific meaning nor does it describe any particular way in which things change. It is meaningless beyond just saying "change".

You had earlier tried to address this, but of course that went nowhere so now you bore me with some gibberish about the history of the word "evolve".

You obviously view the world on a very unsophisticated level and haven't even risen to the level of discussing things beyond dictionary definitions and encyclopedia articles.

Have a nice life.

 

[fromderinside]

Viruses are handicapped living organisms.

Other organisms are handicapped in different ways. There are bacteria which would not survive without making hosts sick. Most parasites would not survive if not for their hosts. We would not survive without certain archæa living in our gut.

Dependency is no reason to consider something abiotic.

Yes, a virus is a parasite.

That doesn't make it non-living as others contend.

These people believe it does make viruses non-living.

Logical puzzles and scientific controversies: The nature of species, viruses and living organisms http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0723202009001507

Ten reasons to exclude viruses from the tree of life http://www.lssc.edu/faculty/christo...Tree of Life Nature Reviews Microbiology.pdf

 

[skepticalbip]

The word was derived from the Latin, evolutionem, and introduced into the English language a couple centuries before Darwin WTF were the Romans using the word for when they had the word, novo, for change? They didn't know anything about species development. And WTF were those English folks using it for during those couple centuries before Darwin decided to use it? But then Darwin preferred the phrase "descent with modification" only using the word, "evolution" in his The Origin of Species once and only in the closing section of the book.

I think your problem is that you are just ranting because you are embarrassed to admit that you didn't have a clue what the word actually meant. And it appears that you still don't understand the nuance of the word.

But still, the fact that viruses evolve doesn't mean they are alive.

This is unresponsive to any point I made.

I made the point that when somebody uses the word "evolve", except in the specific case of biological evolution, the word has no meaning beyond "change". The word carries no specific meaning nor does it describe any particular way in which things change. It is meaningless beyond just saying "change".

You had earlier tried to address this, but of course that went nowhere so now you bore me with some gibberish about the history of the word "evolve".

You obviously view the world on a very unsophisticated level and haven't even risen to the level of discussing things beyond dictionary definitions and encyclopedia articles.

Have a nice life.

It was specific to your absurd assertions. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you don't understanding the meaning of evolve. It doesn't mean just "change". But then I have noticed that you find it impossible to admit any error. Some people are just that way, even showing anger and denial when anyone points out any of their errors. There are other people who accept corrections thankfully seeing them as a learning experience.

And a virus does not meet the definition for life most accepted by the life sciences.

 

[untermensche]

Yes, a virus is a parasite.

That doesn't make it non-living as others contend.

These people believe it does make viruses non-living.

Logical puzzles and scientific controversies: The nature of species, viruses and living organisms http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0723202009001507

Ten reasons to exclude viruses from the tree of life http://www.lssc.edu/faculty/christo...Tree of Life Nature Reviews Microbiology.pdf

I can't comment on only abstracts, but the opinion piece in MY opinion is incredibly weak.

For example, one of the first arguments is that viruses don't evolve. If this were true then it would refute my argument, but it turns out that not evolving somehow equates to needing cells to evolve to this author.

They are of course not equivalent statements. If something needs cells to evolve then it of course evolves. It just evolves differently than organisms made up of cells.

Another argument is that viruses don't fit neatly on a tree of life. This is so weak it really needs no refutation. If it doesn't fit into some tree then it is the kind of life that doesn't fit into a tree of life.

Ultimately this is all these arguments amount to. Viral life is different from life made up of cells.

And all this author does is take every difference and conclude that since it is different from cellular life it isn't really life.

This is no argument. Being a different kind of life does not mean viruses are not living.

They invade. They take over cellular machinery and use it to their ends. They evolve and respond to changing environments.

They are alive.

 

[untermensche]

It was specific to your absurd assertions. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you don't understanding the meaning of evolve. It doesn't mean just "change". But then I have noticed that you find it impossible to admit any error. Some people are just that way, even showing anger and denial when anyone points out any of their errors. There are other people who accept corrections thankfully seeing them as a learning experience.

And a virus does not meet the definition for life most accepted by the life sciences.

The assertion is a fact. Whether you can see it or not.

Saying "evolve", except in the case of biological evolution, carries no meaning beyond saying "change".

If something is said to "evolve" then we have no idea how it changed. Or why.

The only use of the word that has meaning (beyond change) is in the case of biological evolution.

 

[Elixir]

... vaguely useful classification scheme that applies in some circumstances'

That's pretty much what words are, right?
Their communicative utility often depends on who you're talking to more than on the external facts or ideas being (hopefully) communicated. That three point set looks more like a word game than a useful question to me.

 

[skepticalbip]

It was specific to your absurd assertions. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you don't understanding the meaning of evolve. It doesn't mean just "change". But then I have noticed that you find it impossible to admit any error. Some people are just that way, even showing anger and denial when anyone points out any of their errors. There are other people who accept corrections thankfully seeing them as a learning experience.

And a virus does not meet the definition for life most accepted by the life sciences.

The assertion is a fact. Whether you can see it or not.

Saying "evolve", except in the case of biological evolution, carries no meaning beyond saying "change".

If something is said to "evolve" then we have no idea how it changed. Or why.

The only use of the word that has meaning (beyond change) is in the case of biological evolution.

That may be the only way you know to use the word, evolve, but you are assuming that everyone is as ignorant of the definition and use as you are. That is a very bad assumption.

 

[untermensche]

The assertion is a fact. Whether you can see it or not.

Saying "evolve", except in the case of biological evolution, carries no meaning beyond saying "change".

If something is said to "evolve" then we have no idea how it changed. Or why.

The only use of the word that has meaning (beyond change) is in the case of biological evolution.

That may be the only way you know to use the word, evolve, but you are assuming that everyone is as ignorant of the definition and use as you are. That is a very bad assumption.

You already failed at trying to use the word in a manner than means more than change.

I don't know why you keep pretending you didn't.

 

[skepticalbip]

That may be the only way you know to use the word, evolve, but you are assuming that everyone is as ignorant of the definition and use as you are. That is a very bad assumption.

You already failed at trying to use the word in a manner than means more than change.

I don't know why you keep pretending you didn't.

That is out of left field. That post was just acknowledging and accepting that you project your misunderstanding and misuse of the word on others who do use the word properly.

 

[Kharakov]

You already failed at trying to use the word in a manner than means more than change.

I don't know why you keep pretending you didn't.

That is out of left field. That post was just acknowledging and accepting that you project your misunderstanding and misuse of the use of the word on others who do use the word properly.

Umm, out of left field refers to balls being thrown from the left field. You can't use the term the way you used it, as it is a static term that doesn't change over time due to various influences.

 

[skepticalbip]

That is out of left field. That post was just acknowledging and accepting that you project your misunderstanding and misuse of the use of the word on others who do use the word properly.

Umm, out of left field refers to balls being thrown from the left field. You can't use the term the way you used it, as it is a static term that doesn't change over time due to various influences.

My error. I learned something today.

 

[untermensche]

You already failed at trying to use the word in a manner than means more than change.

I don't know why you keep pretending you didn't.

That is out of left field. That post was just acknowledging and accepting that you project your misunderstanding and misuse of the word on others who do use the word properly.

You're just a stubborn mule.

But go ahead try again.

____________ evolved.

Put something in the blank, besides something living, such that "evolve" means more than "change".

 

[skepticalbip]

That is out of left field. That post was just acknowledging and accepting that you project your misunderstanding and misuse of the word on others who do use the word properly.

You're just a stubborn mule.

But go ahead try again.

____________ evolved.

Put something in the blank, besides something living, such that "evolve" means more than "change".

I accepted that you didn't understand exactly because it isn't possible to construct a sentence that makes sense to someone using the word that they don't understand - unless it is a sentence defining the word, which was done (using the dictionary definition) and you rejected.

 

[fromderinside]

These people believe it does make viruses non-living.

Logical puzzles and scientific controversies: The nature of species, viruses and living organisms http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0723202009001507

Ten reasons to exclude viruses from the tree of life http://www.lssc.edu/faculty/christo...Tree of Life Nature Reviews Microbiology.pdf

I can't comment on only abstracts, but the opinion piece in MY opinion is incredibly weak.

For example, one of the first arguments is that viruses don't evolve. If this were true then it would refute my argument, but it turns out that not evolving somehow equates to needing cells to evolve to this author.

They are of course not equivalent statements. If something needs cells to evolve then it of course evolves. It just evolves differently than organisms made up of cells.

Another argument is that viruses don't fit neatly on a tree of life. This is so weak it really needs no refutation. If it doesn't fit into some tree then it is the kind of life that doesn't fit into a tree of life.

Ultimately this is all these arguments amount to. Viral life is different from life made up of cells.

And all this author does is take every difference and conclude that since it is different from cellular life it isn't really life.

This is no argument. Being a different kind of life does not mean viruses are not living.

They invade. They take over cellular machinery and use it to their ends. They evolve and respond to changing environments.

They are alive.

The second reference is an entire article presenting 10 reasons why viruses are not living organisms.

If you look it will chop your rationales pretty quickly.