How many fallacies are in this quote?

account no longer exists writes:

Looks to be merely a statement of alleged facts followed by a question. Where is the logical argument?

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To Prof M]

Abel might be saying that he cannot believe (or that it is highly unlikely) that complicated and tightly-regulated life forms arose from inanimate nature, therefore evolution is incorrect and intelligent design is correct.

The statement is rather unclear the way it is currently written.

There could be an argument from incredulity in there (it is hard to believe life evolved naturally, therefore it didn't), or an appeal to possibility (it is improbable that life evolved naturally, therefore it didn't - this is also begging the question by assuming that it is an improbable process), but right now I can't make much sense of the post.

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To Rationalissimus of the Elenchus]

I believe we are in agreement, at least about the not nmsling much sense part. Too many implied premises, if even that.

Monique Z writes:

"Typically, organization requires an organizer—a deliberate act. This is different from apparent organization—the kind we find in natural selection."

Doesn't this statement beg the question? The arguer is calling this assumption into question. Intelligent design is an alternative theory to natural selection for the mechanism behind the appearance of organization. 

"Second, he is begging the question by using the term 'prescription.' This is not been established."

What he probably means by "prescription" is the information that dictates the behaviour of cells. So I don't think he's begging the question here.

"Of course, theologically speaking, according to the same line of reasoning, how did the intelligent designer's level of organization, prescription, processing, control and regulation get started? special pleading" 

Is this not avoiding the issue? The subject at hand is the question of organized cellular life, not the origin of the intelligent designer. 

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Monique Z]

1) Recall what the OP wrote: "If biologists know anything at all about life, they know that every activity within even the simplest known living cell is exquisitely organized." Then asks how organization arose naturally. Clearly, this person knows about the theory of natural selection which explains the apparent organization. So why ask the question? Because it is clear he is referring to the kind of organization where an organizer is required. It is an attempt for the reader to conflate the two meanings of "organization."

2) Possibly, but it is clear to me that, as an ID proponent, he is referring to an intelligent prescriber doing the prescribing, not the kind of "prescribing" referred to in biological sciences. If he were, he would already have an answer to his question.

3) No, because I am not attempting to address his issue—we are addressing fallacious reasoning here.

Monique Z writes:

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

"Clearly, this person knows about the theory of natural selection which explains the apparent organization. So why ask the question? Because it is clear he is referring to the kind of organization where an organizer is required."

They are offering an alternative mechanism to natural selection. In other words, the arguer is contending natural selection is an inadequate explanation for organized cellular behavior. So to say that natural selection is the answer begs the question as to whether the alternative theory is a more adequate explanation. 

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Monique Z]

They are offering an alternative mechanism to natural selection.

No, they are not. There is no proposition offering an alternative explanation—you are reading too much into this. This is simply a question posed to cast doubt on the prevailing, overwhelming, scientific consensus.

So to say that natural selection is the answer begs the question 

But nobody is saying natural section is the answer. Perhaps you meant that there is an understanding that "apparent organization" (or self-organization) exists? Organization in nature doesn't require natural section (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization).

 

Monique Z writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

"No, they are not. There is no proposition offering an alternative explanation—you are reading too much into this."

The context of this statement is clearly incomplete. So can we assume any fallacy has been committed at this point?

"This is simply a question posed to cast doubt on the prevailing, overwhelming, scientific consensus."

I think it's fair to assume this is where the argument is going given that the OP states the arguer is an ID proponent. ID is an alternative theory to the prevailing, overwhelming, scientific consensus. 

You in a way admit this much when you stated in your previous comment:

"[...]it is clear to me that, as an ID proponent, he is referring to an intelligent prescriber doing the prescribing, not the kind of 'prescribing' referred to in biological sciences."

Agreed, there is an explanation that is purely naturalistic. That's what ID proponents reject! 

"Saying  natural section is the answer. Perhaps you meant that there is an understanding that "apparent organization" (or self-organization) exists? Organization in nature doesn't require natural section"

You stated earlier:
"Clearly, this person knows about the theory of natural selection which explains the apparent organization. So why ask the question? Because it is clear he is referring to the kind of organization where an organizer is required."

I'm confused at what you're trying to say at this point. 

Nevertheless, it's more appropriate to say that he is offering a different explanation for the apparent organization, not conflating the different meanings.

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Monique Z]

I think this is all that is worth addressing at this point:

Nevertheless, it's more appropriate to say that he is offering a different explanation for the apparent organization, not conflating the different meanings.

No. Again, this question offers no different explanation.

If biologists know anything at all about life, they know that every activity within even the simplest known living cell is exquisitely organized.

What he is doing is making a statement associating the concept of organization with something biologists know. What they know is self-organization, or organization through natural selection ("know" being provisional, of course). Now, when he asks how that "organization" got started, clearly he is not referring to the self-organization, or organization through natural selection that biologists know, otherwise, he would have answered his own question (it got started through the process of natural selection or other processes known by biologists)—he switched it up to organization with intent. If he were referring the concept of organization with intent in the first use of the word, he would be lying or at best, grossly misinformed, but then you would be correct in that there is no equivocation .

I will concede that if he is ultimately asking how did natural selection get started (or other self-organization processes) then this would not be a good example of equivocation. And perhaps I am reading too much into his work and assuming he doesn't accept natural selection when he might... he could be the type who accepts all the science (i.e., evolution by natural selection), but believes that a god started it all.

I made my best case for this, you can disagree—that is the beauty of informal fallacies. I have no more to say on this as I feel I am just repeating myself.