Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution & Abiogenesis were originally one subject.
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 46 of 140 (568279)
07-05-2010 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Peg
07-04-2010 9:37 PM


Re: intuitive linking
but then in the same breath they say that abiogensis is the only explanation for how life began...even Richard Dawkins says 'it MUST have happened that way'
So this is the point im making....creationists hear that argument and object to that idea but they go one step further and reject all of evolution because they cannot separate the two. If they could separate the two then there should be no more debate.
Unfortunately i dont beleive that evolutionists really do separate the view that abiogensis was the cataclyst to evolution. I think the comments made in this thread (along with my link to Darwins letters to his associates) shows that to be the case.
I think part of the confusion here is that the people replying to you saying 'it MUST have happened this way' are including divine creation under the definition of abiogenesis, while you're clearly excluding it. That's what they mean when the say abiogenesis is a certainty.
Imagine if I said the bible has nothing to do with God, they are two different subjects, unlinked. I doubt you'd believe me.
The question to ask yourself is 'Can there be a God is the Bible's wrong?' Obviously, there can be, and it's silly to suggest otherwise. Even though everyone who believes the Bible believes in God, the existence of God isn't reliant solely on the Bible, and rubbishing the Bible isn't enough to do away with him. Similarly, there can be evolution without a naturalistic abiogenesis, and doing away with life emerging from a pool of primordial gunk by normal chemical processes is not enough to do with the theory of evolution. It is not reliant on a natural abiogenesis.
As for Darwin and his 'breathing life', he later claimed to regret the choice of phrase, writing:
quote:
I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion & used Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant appeared by some wholly unknown process.It is mere rubbish thinking, at present, of origin of life; one might as well think of origin of matter.
So, Darwin clearly did not consider abiogenesis and the origin of life a part of evolutionary theory. He considered the whole matter 'rubbish thinking', these being mysteries the science of his time was even less capable of penetrating than they are now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Peg, posted 07-04-2010 9:37 PM Peg has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 47 of 140 (568281)
07-05-2010 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Peg
07-04-2010 9:56 PM


Re: Breathed
darwin was a confused man
he didnt really know what he believed in regard to a creator...he was unsure and held to different views at different times.
You only need to look at the letters he wrote to different associates to see that.
Yeah, we do really live in different worlds, don't we.
In my world, a man should behave like a scientist, and when he has no evidence to enable him to choose between two hypotheses, he should consider them both and vacillate between them. And this is called "being honest".
In your world, a man should behave like a preacher, and when he has no evidence for his pet hypothesis, he should explain that he is absolutely right and that everyone who doesn't believe him is certainly damned. And this is called "not being confused".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Peg, posted 07-04-2010 9:56 PM Peg has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 48 of 140 (568282)
07-05-2010 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Peg
07-04-2010 9:51 PM


what do you think a creationist will think if they pick up richard dawkins 'the selfish gene' and get to page 15?
they will be reading about how life began...abiogenesis...that amazing process that nobody saw and nobody can replicate but yet 'must have happened'
If you can sit there and say that they are ignorant for linking abiogenesis with evolution after picking up Dawkins book, then you are not being very honest.
Saying that abiogenesis must have happened and saying that evolution and abiogenesis are "one subject" are not the same thing.
For example, I say that abiogenesis must have happened, but I do not say that evolution and abiogenesis are "one subject".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Peg, posted 07-04-2010 9:51 PM Peg has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 49 of 140 (568283)
07-05-2010 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Peg
07-04-2010 9:37 PM


Re: intuitive linking
creationists hear that argument and object to that idea but they go one step further and reject all of evolution because they cannot separate the two. If they could separate the two then there should be no more debate.
You keep saying this. It's obviously wrong.
Assuming that by "abiogenesis" you mean the idea that the first life was produced by natural causes rather than by God doing magic --- do you really suppose that the single concession that the first proto-organism was produced by God-magic two billion years ago and that everything else evolved from it would satisfy your average creationist?
After all, since the origin of life and evolution are two separate subjects, as every evolutionist will willingly admit, every creationist could embrace evolution and still believe in a magical origin for the first organism.
But where is the creationist who actually does so?
Their rejection of evolution is not because of some imaginary logical inference from evolution to abiogenesis, but because evolution itself contradicts their religious dogma.
---
Let me ask you this. Will you be the first? You say that people reject evolution because it is tied to abiogenesis.
We, on the other hand, explain that it isn't and never has been.
Go on then. Accept evolution but reject abiogenesis. If abiogenesis is your real problem with evolution, then toss abiogenesis and believe in evolution. If you're telling the truth, then abiogenesis is your only real problem. Fine. Disbelieve it. Welcome to evolution.
Say out, loud and proud:
My name is Peg, and I believe that the first organism originated as an act of fiat creation by God, but that the history of life thereafter is well-explained by the theory of evolution.
No?
No. Because what you're saying about why creationists reject evolution is not even remotely true, even of yourself.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Peg, posted 07-04-2010 9:37 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Peg, posted 07-05-2010 6:51 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 50 of 140 (568285)
07-05-2010 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Dr Adequate
07-05-2010 6:27 AM


Re: intuitive linking
DrAdequate writes:
Assuming that by "abiogenesis" you mean the idea that the first life was produced by natural causes rather than by God doing magic --- do you really suppose that the single concession that the first proto-organism was produced by God-magic two billion years ago and that everything else evolved from it would satisfy your average creationist?
i've already stated earlier that i dont believe in the abiogenesis spoken about by people like dawkins.
Living things may contain chemicals but chemicals do not produce life.
Dr Adequate writes:
Let me ask you this. Will you be the first? You say that people reject evolution because it is tied to abiogenesis.
ok im going to stop right here because obviously you've missed the whole object of this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-05-2010 6:27 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-05-2010 7:22 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 52 by Woodsy, posted 07-05-2010 7:33 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 53 by jar, posted 07-05-2010 9:40 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 65 by marc9000, posted 07-14-2010 9:52 PM Peg has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 51 of 140 (568291)
07-05-2010 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Peg
07-05-2010 6:51 AM


Re: intuitive linking
ok im going to stop right here because obviously you've missed the whole object of this thread.
You wrote, and I quote:
Peg writes:
creationists hear that argument and object to that idea but they go one step further and reject all of evolution because they cannot separate the two. If they could separate the two then there should be no more debate.
My bold. Your call.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Peg, posted 07-05-2010 6:51 AM Peg has not replied

Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 52 of 140 (568293)
07-05-2010 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Peg
07-05-2010 6:51 AM


Re: intuitive linking
Living things may contain chemicals but chemicals do not produce life.
How do you know this? Do you have anything better than superstition to go by?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Peg, posted 07-05-2010 6:51 AM Peg has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 53 of 140 (568336)
07-05-2010 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Peg
07-05-2010 6:51 AM


Re: intuitive linking
Peg writes:
i've already stated earlier that i dont believe in the abiogenesis spoken about by people like dawkins.
Living things may contain chemicals but chemicals do not produce life.
Then it is up to you to explain the model that did produce life.
Understand, just claiming "goddidit" won't fly. You need to explain the processes that god used and set up a series of replicable experiments that can be used to test your theory.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Peg, posted 07-05-2010 6:51 AM Peg has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 54 of 140 (568388)
07-05-2010 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Peg
07-04-2010 9:56 PM


Re: Breathed
he didnt really know what he believed in regard to a creator...he was unsure and held to different views at different times.
Wow - a nuanced view. Quite different from
quote:
If you look at his other comments in 'Origen of the Species' you see him clearly and very specifcally saying that he did NOT view life as being specially created.
Actually - he may have genuinely been unsure. Sometimes thinking it was specially created, perhaps sometimes adding in references to avoid offending, perhaps at other times rejecting the notion entirely.
darwin was a confused man
Perhaps.
Or maybe the man who tops a large number scientist's lists as being the greatest amongst them - cross disciplines, is a more complex person (with more nuanced views) than you have previously given him credit for?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Peg, posted 07-04-2010 9:56 PM Peg has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 55 of 140 (568390)
07-05-2010 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Peg
07-04-2010 9:56 PM


Re: Breathed
darwin was a confused man
No he was a product of his times where the belief in creation was still mainstream, even among scientists.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Peg, posted 07-04-2010 9:56 PM Peg has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 56 of 140 (568393)
07-05-2010 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Peg
07-04-2010 9:51 PM


Chapter 1
Hi, Peg.
Peg writes:
what do you think a creationist will think if they pick up richard dawkins 'the selfish gene' and get to page 15?
they will be reading about how life began...abiogenesis...that amazing process that nobody saw and nobody can replicate but yet 'must have happened'
If you can sit there and say that they are ignorant for linking abiogenesis with evolution after picking up Dawkins book, then you are not being very honest.
The first chapter of a well-written non-fiction book will often be about background information that leads up to the topic you want to discuss.
As a parallel exercise, go find any book you want about the Atonement, and read chapter one. In fact, read chapter one of every book you can find about the Atonement, and report to me the topics discussed.
I am fairly certain that virtually every first chapter will be about either the Fall or the Creation of Man.
But, why is this so? These books are not about the Fall or the Creation: they are about the Atonement.
Why can’t they just start by saying that man is sinful?
Why must they go into the reasons why man is sinful? These reasons are not the topic of their book, so surely they’re only confusing their readers by talking about the Garden of Eden when what they really want to talk about is the Atonement.
Do you ever hear of any evolutionist or non-Christian who cannot tell that the Fall and the Atonement are two different (even if related) subjects?
Why then do you think you have a leg to stand on when you say it’s our fault that creationists can’t tell that abiogenesis and evolution are two different (even if related) subjects?

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Peg, posted 07-04-2010 9:51 PM Peg has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 57 of 140 (568532)
07-06-2010 12:19 PM


Of course, in the eyes of creationists the field of evolution doesn't stop with abiogenesis. It goes all the way back to the BB, and before. Afterall, you need the chemicals necessary for abiogenesis before you can have abiogenesis so you need star formation and supernovae. Before supernovae you need hydrogen. Before hydrogen you need the superhot quark plasma that existed in the early universe. Then you need the origin of that.
If creationists were honest then they would admit that every single field of science must also explain the origin of the universe. Germ theory? Well, you need to explain the origin of the first germ, the origin of the matter that made up the first germ, and then the origin of that matter, hence the BB. Chemistry? Need to explain where all of those heavy elements came from, where the supernovae came from, where the hydrogen came from, where the energy for the first matter came from, and the BB. Geology? Where the first soils came from, where the first silicates came from, on and on and on for every single field of science.
So why is Peg singling out evolution when every single theory (most of which Peg probably accepts) has the same flaw?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 58 of 140 (568552)
07-06-2010 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Peg
07-04-2010 9:51 PM


what do you think a creationist will think if they pick up richard dawkins 'the selfish gene' and get to page 15?
Depends on the creationist. You seem to be suggesting that they will get to page 15 and immediately forget page 12 was ever written. But that's a cynical view to have of creationists. I'd prefer to think they'd never read page 12 and they'd just look at page 15 and conclude your views (and their preconceptions) were right after all.
But those that read page 12 (aka the start of chapter 2), where Dawkins says what he will be doing in the rest of the chapter:
quote:
I will try to explain the great theory in a more general way than is customary, beginning with the time before evolution itself began.
{emphasis added} will hopefully understand him quite clearly.
He clearly states that he will begin with what happened before evolution had even started, clearly separating them. It is Dawkins' hypothesis that the principles of Darwin's theory of evolution can be taken to form a general theory of replicators competing for the resources required to replicate.
So yes, Dawkins believes that the explanation for the origin of life and its evolution will share some core principles (eg., cumulative selection) but he is very much of the opinion that the origin of life is a separate thing to its evolution.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Peg, posted 07-04-2010 9:51 PM Peg has not replied

dall22
Junior Member (Idle past 5014 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 07-07-2010


Message 59 of 140 (568600)
07-07-2010 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Peg
07-03-2010 10:05 PM


Re: evolution & abio
jar writes:
Of course abiogenesis is still significant. It happened. There is no doubt that abiogenesis happened. That is settled and a fact.
reply:
Your evidence is an assumption, you cannot produce any scientific support. It equally follows that God created, otherwise we wouldn't be here, and I have evidence for that, knowing God's love and healings.
Peg wrote.
If you look at his other comments in 'Origen of the Species' you see him clearly and very specifcally saying that he did NOT view life as being specially created. He didnt touch on the subject to abiogenesis at all but he certainly did believe in chemical compounds coming to life in a soup so perhaps he had that in mind.
You both need to read up on the Venter research on creating DNA. See http://evolution.htmlplanet.com/venter.html for an outline of the complexity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 10:05 PM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Huntard, posted 07-07-2010 5:06 AM dall22 has not replied
 Message 62 by bluescat48, posted 07-07-2010 7:17 AM dall22 has not replied
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 07-07-2010 7:22 AM dall22 has not replied
 Message 64 by jar, posted 07-07-2010 8:56 AM dall22 has not replied
 Message 67 by Buzsaw, posted 07-14-2010 11:02 PM dall22 has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 60 of 140 (568602)
07-07-2010 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by dall22
07-07-2010 4:56 AM


Re: evolution & abio
dall22 writes:
Your evidence is an assumption, you cannot produce any scientific support. It equally follows that God created, otherwise we wouldn't be here, and I have evidence for that, knowing God's love and healings.
Yeah. You know what we would call such an event? Abiogenesis. Also, you've got your evidences mixed. There is scientific evidence for a naturalistic abiogenesis. There isn't any for a divine abiogenesis.
And a free tip, if you use the "peek" button on the bottom right of this post, you can see how I did those nice quoteboxes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by dall22, posted 07-07-2010 4:56 AM dall22 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024