Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 116 (8752 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-28-2017 8:12 PM
122 online now:
14174dm, frako, kjsimons, LamarkNewAge, Meddle, Tangle, Tanypteryx (7 members, 115 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeliverUsFromEvolution
Post Volume:
Total: 809,171 Year: 13,777/21,208 Month: 3,259/3,605 Week: 45/556 Day: 45/54 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
10Next
Author Topic:   Evolution & Abiogenesis were originally one subject.
Peg
Member (Idle past 2343 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 1 of 140 (567917)
07-03-2010 8:46 AM


In the 'I need an answer' thread I made the point to the OP that the reason why creationists are opposed to the theory of evolution is because they cannot separate 'abiogenesis from evolution' because when the ToE was introduced, abiogenesis was very much a part of the theory. Some have commented that I am wrong on that point and abiogenesis was NEVER a part of the theory of evolution. I would say that it was most certainly taken for granted as being the cataclyst to evolution and there is evidence in the writings of Darwin and others which proves this to be the case.

In Origin of the Species Darwin rejected the idea of 'special creation' outright. In chpt 14 on Page 487 he wrote:
"As species are produced and exterminated by slowly acting and still existing causes, and not by miraculous acts of creation and by catastrophes;

He reasoned that if animals were in fact the result of special creation, then there is no reason why there should be more varieties within a single species, as if a species should not change if it were specially created. Chpt 2 page 55 under subject 'Species of large genera variable' he wrote:
On the other hand, if we look at each species as a special act of creation, there is no apparent reason why more varieties should occur in a group having many species, than in one having few.

He also held the view that all the life that existed descended from 'one primordial form' as opposed to many created forms for he wrote in his conclusion on Page 484
" Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."

While its true he didnt specifically mention abiogenesis in 'origin of the species' he did consider it to be a very real possibility for the origin of life as is seen by various letters he sent to other evolutionists.

Pubmed Central writes:

Darwin read critically Bastian’s 1872 book The Beginnings of Life. Although he was not convinced in full, he did accept the possibility of a natural origin of life from non-living matter, and wrote to Wallace [Letter 8488] (Strick 2000),
«My Dear Wallace,—I have at last finished the gigantic job of reading Dr. Bastian’s book and have been deeply interested by it. ...The result is that I am bewildered and astonished by his statements, but am not convinced, though, on the whole, it seems to me probable that Archebiosis is true».

In 1876 Haeckel mailed Darwin a copy of his recently published The History of Creation. Darwin wrote back thanking him but also viewed with caution Haeckel’s endorsement of spontaneous generation (Darwin 1887, Vol 3:180),
«My dear Häckel,—I thank you for the present of your book, and I am heartily glad to see its great success. You will do a wonderful amount of good in spreading the doctrine of Evolution, supporting it as you do by so many original observations. [...] I will at the same time send a paper which has interested me; it need not be returned. It contains a singular statement bearing on so-called Spontaneous Generation. I much wish that this latter question could be settled, but I see no prospect of it. If it could be proved true this would be most important to us [...].

The above article from Pubmed Central shows that there were numerous other evolutionists who were discussing 'spontaneous generation' as a part of evolution. German geologist Heinrich George Bronn who translated The Origin of Species in 1860 even added a chapter about how spontaneous generation fitted in with Darwin’s theory.

So it is quite true that those early evolutionists were in fact making such claims and this is why creationists were so opposed to their ideas.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 07-03-2010 7:02 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2010 7:49 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 8 by ICANT, posted 07-03-2010 9:33 PM Peg has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12504
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 2 of 140 (567989)
07-03-2010 6:49 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Evolution & Abiogenesis were originally one subject. thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7407
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 3 of 140 (567991)
07-03-2010 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peg
07-03-2010 8:46 AM


In Origin of the Species Darwin rejected the idea of 'special creation' outright. In chpt 14 on Page 487 he wrote:
"As species are produced and exterminated by slowly acting and still existing causes, and not by miraculous acts of creation and by catastrophes;

He was talking about the origin of the varied species - not of life itself.

He was rejecting the notion that all species were created in their present form, not that there was no special creation.

He also held the view that all the life that existed descended from 'one primordial form' as opposed to many created forms for he wrote in his conclusion on Page 484
" Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."

"Into which life was first breathed."? Sounds like he was expressing that there was one original life, specially created (allusion to Genesis creation story) from which all species originate.

The above article from Pubmed Central shows that there were numerous other evolutionists who were discussing 'spontaneous generation' as a part of evolution. German geologist Heinrich George Bronn who translated The Origin of Species in 1860 even added a chapter about how spontaneous generation fitted in with Darwin’s theory.

So it is quite true that those early evolutionists were in fact making such claims and this is why creationists were so opposed to their ideas.

So Darwin didn't call it 'descent with modification' he called it 'spontaneous generation'. As if it were different. Of course, it is true that if an account for the origin of life could be settled - it would complete the naturalistic account for the existence of life which I'm sure Darwin would be happy to find (as the quote suggests).

Nobody suggests they are unrelated in so far as natural history is concerned. It's just that disproving one, does not disprove the other.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 8:46 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28841
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 4 of 140 (567992)
07-03-2010 7:05 PM


So what?
Even if " Evolution & Abiogenesis were originally one subject", so what?

One of the major differences between science and dogma is that science changes as new information and data is gathered. Even if there was a time when the two terms were used interchangeably (and so far you have not show that) there is no reason that as understanding grew that the two terms should not take on distinct meanings.

In the 'I need an answer' thread I made the point to the OP that the reason why creationists are opposed to the theory of evolution is because they cannot separate 'abiogenesis from evolution' because when the ToE was introduced, abiogenesis was very much a part of the theory.

Or is it because Creationists have never been able to find any evidence to support "Special Creation?"


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15929
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 5 of 140 (567997)
07-03-2010 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peg
07-03-2010 8:46 AM


In Origin of the Species Darwin rejected the idea of 'special creation' outright.

Rejecting special creation outright is not the same as saying that evolution and abiogenesis are "one subject".

For example, I reject special creation outright but I do not say that evolution and abiogenesis are "one subject".

He also held the view that all the life that existed descended from 'one primordial form' as opposed to many created forms ...

Holding the view that all the life that exists descends from 'one primordial form' is not the same as saying that evolution and abiogenesis are "one subject".

For example, I hold the view that all the life that exists descends from 'one primordial form' but I do not say that evolution and abiogenesis are "one subject".

While its true he didnt specifically mention abiogenesis in 'origin of the species' he did consider it to be a very real possibility for the origin of life ...

Considering abiogenesis to be a very real possibility for the origin of life is not the same as saying that evolution and abiogenesis are "one subject".

For example, I consider abiogenesis to be a very real possibility for the origin of life but I do not say that evolution and abiogenesis are "one subject".

Darwin read critically Bastian’s 1872 book The Beginnings of Life. Although he was not convinced in full, he did accept the possibility of a natural origin of life from non-living matter ...

Accepting the possibility of a natural origin of life from non-living matter is not the same as saying that evolution and abiogensis are "one subject".

For example, I accept the possibility of a natural origin of life from non-living matter but I do not say that evolution and abiogenesis are "one subject".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 8:46 AM Peg has not yet responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 2343 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 6 of 140 (568005)
07-03-2010 9:14 PM


Just to be clear here, i am not debating evolution OR abiogensis.

I am merely showing that the early evolutionists did in fact view abiogenesis as a part of evolution hence why creationists can't separate the two.

the Miller–Urey experiment was designed to show how abiogenesis was supposed to have occured (although they didnt produce life) and even Richard Dawkins 'The selfish gene' has several pages describing abiogenesis as the means of how life originated on earth....so it seems that while the claim is made that evolution and abiogenesis are completely separate and not dependent on each other, evolutionists are still holding onto abiogenesis one way or another.


Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 07-03-2010 9:25 PM Peg has responded
 Message 9 by nwr, posted 07-03-2010 9:35 PM Peg has responded
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-04-2010 2:36 PM Peg has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28841
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 7 of 140 (568008)
07-03-2010 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Peg
07-03-2010 9:14 PM


"Peg" writes:

Just to be clear here, i am not debating evolution OR abiogensis.

I am merely showing that the early evolutionists did in fact view abiogenesis as a part of evolution hence why creationists can't separate the two.

Why are creationist incapable of learning how terms are used when everyone else can?

"peg" writes:

the Miller–Urey experiment was designed to show how abiogenesis was supposed to have occured (although they didnt produce life) and even Richard Dawkins 'The selfish gene' has several pages describing abiogenesis as the means of how life originated on earth....so it seems that while the claim is made that evolution and abiogenesis are completely separate and not dependent on each other, evolutionists are still holding onto abiogenesis one way or another

Of course abiogenesis is still significant. It happened. There is no doubt that abiogenesis happened. That is settled and a fact. There is overwhelming evidence that at one time there was no life on earth and now there is life on the earth. Abiogenesis happened.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 9:14 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by ICANT, posted 07-03-2010 9:39 PM jar has responded
 Message 12 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 10:00 PM jar has responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 5577
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 8 of 140 (568009)
07-03-2010 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peg
07-03-2010 8:46 AM


Re: Breathed
Hi Peg,

Peg writes:

" Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."

I wonder who Darwin thought breathed that life into that primordial form?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 8:46 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 10:05 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5524
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 9 of 140 (568010)
07-03-2010 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Peg
07-03-2010 9:14 PM


Peg writes:
I am merely showing that the early evolutionists did in fact view abiogenesis as a part of evolution hence why creationists can't separate the two.

If anything, the examples you give lend support to the view that early evolutionists distinguished between evolution and abiogenesis from the start. Or at least that is how I read them.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 9:14 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 10:08 PM nwr has responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 5577
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 10 of 140 (568011)
07-03-2010 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
07-03-2010 9:25 PM


Re: Why
Hi jar,

jar writes:

Why are creationist incapable of learning how terms are used when everyone else can?

Because every time the terms are disproved they are then changed.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 07-03-2010 9:25 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 07-03-2010 9:43 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28841
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 11 of 140 (568012)
07-03-2010 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by ICANT
07-03-2010 9:39 PM


Re: Why
"ICANT" writes:

Hi jar,

jar writes:

Why are creationist incapable of learning how terms are used when everyone else can?

Because every time the terms are disproved they are then changed.

God Bless,

I covered that in Message 4 where I pointed out that:

"jar" writes:

One of the major differences between science and dogma is that science changes as new information and data is gathered.

Edited by jar, : fix the attribution


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ICANT, posted 07-03-2010 9:39 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 07-03-2010 10:03 PM jar has responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 2343 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 12 of 140 (568013)
07-03-2010 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
07-03-2010 9:25 PM


jar writes:

Why are creationist incapable of learning how terms are used when everyone else can?

because we like to go back to the beginning...and when you look back at the beginning of the ToE with all those early scientists talking about spontaneous generation, and archebiosis and now abiogeneis it is about life arising by pure chance without intervention

jar writes:

Of course abiogenesis is still significant. It happened. There is no doubt that abiogenesis happened. That is settled and a fact.

You've just answered your own question. This comment is exactly why creationists are still opposed to 'evolution'
If it was simply the theory of how animals change over time then i dont think that anyone would argue with that....but the fact is that its not only about how animals change over time...its about how evolutionists believe life got here in the first place as you have just demonstrated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 07-03-2010 9:25 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 07-03-2010 10:14 PM Peg has responded
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-04-2010 2:50 PM Peg has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18478
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 13 of 140 (568014)
07-03-2010 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
07-03-2010 9:43 PM


Re: Why
Hi jar, welcome back.

... Because every time the terms are disproved they are then changed. ...

I covered that in Message 4 where I pointed out that:

To say nothing of what is disproved and by whom.

Any chance of picking up on the Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up. thread? please?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 07-03-2010 9:43 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by jar, posted 07-03-2010 10:31 PM RAZD has responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 2343 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 14 of 140 (568015)
07-03-2010 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by ICANT
07-03-2010 9:33 PM


Re: Breathed
ICANT writes:

I wonder who Darwin thought breathed that life into that primordial form?

hi ICANT,

I dont think we can honestly know what he was thinking here in terms of creation....it may just have been an expression to describe the first matter comming to life.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ICANT, posted 07-03-2010 9:33 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Modulous, posted 07-04-2010 9:08 AM Peg has responded
 Message 59 by dall22, posted 07-07-2010 4:56 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 2343 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 15 of 140 (568016)
07-03-2010 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by nwr
07-03-2010 9:35 PM


nwr writes:

If anything, the examples you give lend support to the view that early evolutionists distinguished between evolution and abiogenesis from the start. Or at least that is how I read them.

but he point is that they were not simply studying how animals change over time...they were also looking at how the first living things got started on the planet and so in that sense they very much discussed both topics under the same subject.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by nwr, posted 07-03-2010 9:35 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by nwr, posted 07-03-2010 11:00 PM Peg has responded
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-04-2010 2:44 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 35 by glowby, posted 07-04-2010 4:01 PM Peg has responded

  
1
23456
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017