[PatrickHenry]

The objection I raise is that "quantizing the continuum" is a property of the evidence and not a "fallacy".

Quickie response: I think the fallacy is in the mis-perception of the evidence. That is, failing to deal with it as part of a continuum (in those cases where it is part of a continuum).

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply! Your answer is very much like Doctor Stochastic's at post 688 to which I fully agree:

It [quantization of a continuum] is a property of evidence. The fallacy is to apply it wrongly.

In the case at hand, abiogenesis - non-life to life, we quantized (defined using Shannon) the beginning and the end. Abiogenesis theory concerns the continuum, how it got from the one to the other (the grey scales in between). To say that it is a fallacy to quantize either end is to say there is no way to formulate such a theory much less investigate it.

IOW, this particular quantization of a continuum was not a fallacy but a requirement. Such quantizations are also necessary for evolution theory, high energy particle physics, etc. In other applications, financial modeling, artificial intelligence, etc. - such quantizations may skew the results. So the fallacy is not in quantizing but in applying it wrongfully.