Evolution is not Abiogenesis

No. You were right the first time. Hopefully we won't allow this thread to turn into arguing and equivocating over the term evolution, accompanied by "hear no evil" denials by the usual suspects.The theory of evolution is about the origin of species. That is, descent with variation of things that are alive. We can of course argue about the definition of what is alive, but I expect that most of us put pre-biotic chemical replicators on the non-living side of the line.Surely abiogenesis hypothesizes that some of the same principles (e.g. selection, reproduction with variation) that are part of the theory of evolution may well have been involved in the origin of life from non-living molecules. But sharing those same principles does not mean that the the ToE applies to the origin of life on earth. And our inability to provide a theory of abiogenesis does not put the thoery of evolution on shaky footing.Abiogenesis likely did involve changes over long periods of time, and the dictionary does allow us to call such changes evolution. But the origin and development of the earth, the sun, solar/stellar system, and the entire universe have include processes taking billions of years. We should be able to label such changes as evolution without confusing those processes with the Theory of Evolution.And yet some people, and the most prominent example I can give, is the tax evading fraud and convicted liar Kent Hovind, insist that believers in evolution, i.e. biologists and other life scientists are on the hook for proving the big bang and abiogenesis because they are all "evolution".Yeah, Hovind, but they aren't all the 'Theory of Evolution.' Why that should be so #$%@# hard to grasp in a written forum ought rightly to be something to ridicule rather than to debate. But C'est la guerre.

Chuck77, I look forward to seeing your attempts to promote a Creation theory, although I probably will insist that your efforts won't really lead to a theory. I do find your honesty about your thought processes quite refreshing.Totally unexpected. Bravo.

In order to answer no to your question, I would only need to identify a single chemical process that was not also a biological process. I chose for my example of a chemical process that is not also a biological process the formation of xenon dioxide by way of hydrolysis of xenon tetrafluoride.

Evolution includes process that result in changes in DNA molecules. How is that not chemistry?

So what is this "concept of evolution" that is common to both biological evolution which discusses descent with variation, such that the offspring are different from their progenitors, and the life-histories of stars which subject matter is about processes going on in a single stellar object?Is the common concept simply things changing over time? Because it is difficult to see anything else common and having any significant meaning. And is that common concept the least bit controversial?If the point is try and establish that dwise1 misspoke, what is the point of that? It's pretty clear by now what meaning was intended. If you were having this same discussion face-to-face, wouldn't you have dropped the subject as soon as the other person said, "no, that's not what I meant".If you cannot think of a relevant concept that 1) ties together all of the types of evolution given by Huxley, and that 2) you yourself actually reject for all of the relevant fields, then you have no argument. Do you, for example reject the idea that stars change as they consume their hydrogen through fusion, or that languages change over time?