[Ichneumon]

A review of the posts before and after make it very clear that the fallacy was raised due to an unwillingness of correspondents to accept there could be a definition of life v non-life/death.

Again, I strongly disagree with that assessment. And yes, I've reviewed the posts.

At post 643, I summarized the effect of the fallacy – i.e. that it kills any investigation of abiogenesis (non-life to life) by declining to quantize either term.

And I've stated my objections to such a conclusion. Life and abiogenesis can still be analyzed and discussed, and if anything is *enhanced* by a recognition that life is not a "black or white" property, there exist "shades of gray" between "not living at all" and "life as we know it".

Again, the participants weren't "unwilling to accept" that there can be a definition of life, they were just objecting to the oversimplified "black-or-white" kind of definition which was being proposed.

Whether you agree or disagree with that particular objection, it does no good to misdescribe the actual discussion.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for your reply!

Again, the participants weren't "unwilling to accept" that there can be a definition of life, they were just objecting to the oversimplified "black-or-white" kind of definition which was being proposed.

Whether you agree or disagree with that particular objection, it does no good to misdescribe the actual discussion.

I leave it to the Lurkers to decide whether or not I have "misdescribed" the actual discussion.

If there can be an agreement among the correspondents as to the starting point (non-life) and the ending point (life) - then the Freeper investigation can be resumed - until then, abiogenesis is a moving target, and the Freeper research project remains dead-in-the-water.

Likewise, until a definition of life v non-life/death is ascertained - I assert that all theories of abiogenesis will not be taken seriously.