Evolution is not Abiogenesis

It is only confusing because it results in a conclusion you don't like. If, as you claim, evolution and abiogenesis are one in the same then all I need to do to evidence abiogenesis is to show that evolution occurs. That is what those papers demonstrated, the evolution of new traits through random mutation which, according to your logic, is abiogenesis. Therefore, the observation of novel traits coming about through random mutation IS abiogenesis, according to you.Of course, you could just admit that evolution and abiogenesis are separate mechanisms. I also doubt that the OP is coming back.

That makes Abiogenesis similar to Geology as well where simple chemicals result in complex arrangements of sediments over long periods of time through undirected naturalistic processes. It is the same as crystal formation where complex arrangements of molecules develop slowly over time through undirected and naturalistic processes.Do you agree or not agree that Abiogenesis and Evolution are separate processes?

Then you accept evolution because it can be directly observed and practically applied. We can even directly apply common ancestry between humans and apes. By comparing genomes through the lens of common ancestry we can look for possible candidates for disease genes and human specific adaptations. A little algorith called SIFTER is based on evolutionary mechanisms and it accurately predicts protein function from amino acid sequence in 96% of cases. That is an EXTREMELY useful tool.The only reason that scientific theories can be used against religion is that the religion is based on denying the evidence that supports these theories. It is NOT the fault of science that you have your religious beliefs contradict reality. That is your fault. You are the only one to blame. There is a way to fix this situation. Follow the evidence. Don't ignore it. There are millions of christians who fully accept evolution, and I am sure if abiogenesis were supported by mountains of evidence they would accept that as well.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Once you hit life, which is biology, abiogenesis stops.Also, abiogenesis and evolution are no different than any other theory in science where it concerns the "intellectual fulfillment for atheism". Meteorology? We have found natural causes for lightning and rain instead of supernatural causes. Germ theory? That too is caused by natural mechanism, not a supernatural cause. You are pointing your finger at the whole of science because every scientific theory has replaced an older supernatural explanation. I am talking about the way that biologists define biological evolution, not how ignorant creationists define it. It is creationists that force evolution to contradict religion. It is not biologists who have decided that humans and other mammals sharing a common ancestor contradicts religion. That would be creationists. That would be you. It is you who has decided that your religious beliefs should contradict reality. Scientists are following the evidence. There is no conspiracy theory to trap creationists. They do that all on their own.Creationism is denial of reality, plain and simple. There is no way around it. When someone claims that there is no evidence that humans and other animals share a common ancestor they are denying the evidence. Scientists really don't spend time commenting on books that other scientists write. You will not find that many scientists who have made comments on Collin's "The Language of God" either.

If Dobzhansky had known how creationists would twist his words I am sure he would have phrased it more carefully.What Dobzhansky is saying is that the idea that things change over time through physical mechanisms should not be limited to evolution. I think we can all agree with this. He is also very careful to separate abiogenesis and biological evolution. He states that life comes about through "evolution of inorganic matter" while man is the product of the "evolution of life". These are different types of evolution as Dobzhansky notes. When we speak of the evolution of life we are talking about specific mechanisms that do not apply to the evolution of inorganic matter. They are different things, each independent of the other.Also, we could be completely wrong on how evolution of inorganic life occurred and still be right on how life evolved. That has been the point from the very beginning, and nothing Dobzhansky says casts doubt on this.

My opinion is the same as the Dobzhansky quote. Biological evolution involves specific mechanisms that are not present in inorganic or cosmic evolution. We can be completely wrong about abiogenesis or cosmic evolution and this does not affect our understanding of biological evolution because they operate through different mechanisms, and hence different theories.